FSD2967 Finnish Attitudes to Rescue Services, Safety and Emergencies 2007

Aineisto on käytettävissä (B) tutkimukseen, opetukseen ja opiskeluun.

Lataa aineisto täältä

Muunkieliset kuvailuversiot

Aineistoon liittyvät tiedostot

  • Aineistoon ei liity muita kuvailevia tiedostoja


  • Ministry of the Interior. Department for Rescue Services


accidents, accidents at work, accidents in the home, disasters, domestic safety, emergency and protective services, fire, fire safety measures, hazards, rescue services

Sisällön kuvaus

The respondents were asked to assess the likelihood of them experiencing or being affected by different accidents, disasters and conflicts (e.g. traffic accident, fire, accident at home, environmental disaster, nuclear war) in the following 12 months. Opinions where charted on the performance of rescue services, public services that could be cut down on, and the efficiency of rescue services in different accidents and crisis situations (e.g. traffic accident, flood, nuclear accident, industrial fire). Relating to emergency preparedness, the respondents were asked how useful they considered different preventive measures and devices (e.g. fire detector, public shelter, evacuation plans), and which measures they had taken to prepare for emergencies (e.g. had iodine tablets/first aid kit/evacuation plan at home, had completed a first aid course, had fire extinguishing equipment at home).

Factual knowledge was tested with questions about the emergency phone number, steps to take during an emergency population warning and a fire, information to provide when calling the emergency number, and measures to take when clothing catches fire. The respondents were asked where they had received information on matters related to rescue services, and on which matters they wished to have more information. Questions about accidents at home charted knowledge of the number of home and leisure-time accidents annually as well as information received on home accident prevention and opinions on the institution primarily responsible for teaching children accident prevention. The respondents were asked whether a fire safety inspector had visited their house/apartment in the previous 12 months and if so, whether they considered the inspection useful or not. Knowledge of the emergency number awareness campaign was charted as well as satisfaction with chimney sweep services (respondents who had used the services).

Background variables included, among others, the respondent's gender, age, economic activity and occupational status, municipality type, education, household composition, region of residence, and political party choice in parliamentary elections as well as whether the respondent was the person with the highest income in the household, gross income of the household, number of children in the household and their ages.

Aineiston kuvailu koneluettavassa DDI 2.0 -formaatissa

Creative Commons License
Aineiston kuvailu on lisensoitu Creative Commons Nimeä 4.0 Kansainvälinen -lisenssin mukaisesti.