A telephone survey of domestic heating methods and fuels for Richmond was carried out by Digipoll in January 2005. This involved surveying 151 households within the 2001 census area unit (CAU) areas of Richmond North and Richmond South.
Survey details are shown in Table 23.1. The number of households for 2004 was estimated based on 2001 census data for occupied dwellings, extrapolated for 2004 based on Statistics New Zealand population projections. [New Zealand Statistics 2004, www.stats.govt.nz] The latter suggest a population increase for the Tasman District of 19% by 2021. [High, medium and low population projections were estimated by Statistics New Zealand. The value used is the medium population projection.] This population increase is assumed to apply to Richmond.
The Digipoll survey was used to collect information on home heating methods and fuels for Richmond. These data were collected for the purpose of evaluating the impact of variations in heating methods on air quality in Richmond, in particular the extent of change required to achieve the national environmental standard for PM10. This section presents the results of the home heating survey for Richmond largely in tabular form, in the expectation that these results will be of value in other assessments (eg, emission inventory studies).
Tables 23.2 and 23.3 show domestic heating methods and fuels used for the main living areas in Richmond houses, and seasonal variations in heating behaviour. The commonest methods of heating the main living area in Richmond were electricity (48%) and wood burners (56%). Many households used more than one method of heating in their main living area.
Unlike in other urban areas, households in Richmond did not heat their homes during the summer months (Table 23.3). Non-winter heating of houses was confined to the months of March to May and September to November. The quantity of fuel used per day during non-winter months was less for wood burners but slightly higher than the average for open fires and multi-fuel burners using coal. Data are not presented for all heating methods because there was a high non-response rate for questions relating to seasonal variations for some heating types.
In addition to collecting data for the purpose of evaluating the impact of variations in heating methods on air quality, information was collected on a number of variables relevant to the Ministry for the Environment's Warm Homes Project. Relevant data for Richmond are presented in this section.
Figure 23.1 shows that the proportion of households using gas systems that are properly flued in Richmond is around 18%. This compares to a national average of 24%.
Table 23.5 compares the amount spent per month on heating using gas, electricity and wood burners. No data were available for other heating types because of the small number of respondents in these categories.
Figure 23.2 shows the average heating costs, home ownership, age of dwelling and number of bedrooms for households in Richmond. Only a small proportion (10%) of the respondents in Richmond were living in rental accommodation. This compares with a national average of around 20%.
One factor influencing the amount spent on different heating methods is the ability of households using solid fuel burners to obtain wood free of charge. Figure 23.3 shows that around 35% of the wood used on wood burners and 50% of the wood used on open fires in Richmond is self-collected. No data were available for multi-fuel burners because of the small number of respondents.

Text description of figure
There are two pie graphs. The first graph shows the distribution of flued and unflued gas heaters. Unflued gas makes up 82% of all gas heating and Flued gas makes up 18%.
The second graph is divided by the age of wood burners. Post-1999 wood burners make up 31%, 1994-99 wood burners make up 24% and the remaining 45% of wood burners are Pre-1994.




Text description of figure
There are four bar graphs.
The first graph sets out the average heating cost per month in winter. Cost per month by heating methods are: electric $67, gas $72, open fire $0, wood burner $66, pellet burner $29, multi-fuel $0 and oil $0.
The second graph sets out heating methods divided by home tenure. For households living in rentals 174 use electric, 174 use gas, 29 use open fire, 174 use wood burners, 0 use pellet burners, 0 use multi-fuel and 0 use oil. For households living in their own house 1943 use electricity, 783 use gas, 116 use open fires, 2291 use wood burners, 29 use pellet burners, 58 use multi-fuel and 29 use oil.
The third graph sets out the age of a dwelling using a particular method of heating.
The fourth graph sets out particular heating methods by the number of bedrooms.

Text description of figure
This bar graph shows the amount of wood either bought or collected free of charge by three different types of heating.
Those using open fires bought 50% of their fuel, those using wood burners bought 65% of their fuel and those using multi-fuel burners bought 100% of their fuel.
The commonest types of electric heating used in the main living area in Richmond houses were oil column heaters and heat pumps (Table 23.6). A number of houses used more than one type of electric heater in their main living area.
Data on home heating methods, by house ownership, are shown in Table 23.7.
Household insulation types and heating methods are shown in Tables 23.8 and 23.9. Most houses (85%) had ceiling insulation and around 63% had wall insulation. Around 33% of houses had at least three types of insulation.
Table 23.10 shows home heating method, by household income. The overall non-response rate was around 23%. This limits the interpretation of these data because there may be an income bias in the non-respondents.
Tables 23.11 and 23.12 show the relationship between heating methods and the age of the dwelling and number of bedrooms, respectively.