Housing in Lakes and Bay of Plenty

Home , Bay of Plenty, Fordlands, Greerton, Pukehangi, Selwyn Heights, Tauranga Central

December 2014

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4

1.1 Purpose ...... 4

2 DATA SOURCES ...... 4

2.1 Census ...... 4 2.2 Issues of Health and Wellbeing 2012 Population Survey ...... 4

3 DEPRIVATION ...... 4

3.1 The New Zealand Deprivation Index ...... 4 3.2 Spatial distribution of deprivation across the region ...... 5

4 CROWDING...... 8

4.1 Crowding Indices ...... 8 4.2 Exposure to Crowding ...... 8 4.2.1 Crowding trends over time ...... 9 4.2.2 Crowding and Ethnicity ...... 10 4.2.3 Crowding and age ...... 11 4.2.4 Crowding and housing conditions ...... 12 4.2.5 Geographical distribution of crowding...... 12

5 HOUSING CONDITIONS ...... 17

5.1 BRANZ Housing condition survey ...... 17 5.2 General Social survey...... 18 5.3 Issues of Health and Wellbeing 2012 Population Survey ...... 19 5.4 Warm up New Zealand EECA Insulation Retrofit Scheme ...... 20

6 HOUSING TENURE ...... 22

6.1 Affordability of rental housing ...... 23 6.2 Housing New Zealand Corporation and Social Housing ...... 24

7 HOME ENERGY USE ...... 27

7.1 Issues of health and Wellbeing 2012 Population Survey ...... 27 7.2 Census ...... 29

8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 31

APPENDICES ...... 32

Appendix: distribution of deprivation NZDep2006 ...... 32 Appendix: Severe Housing Deprivation ...... 34 A definition of severe housing deprivation ...... 34 People living in severe housing deprivation as of the 2006 Census ...... 35 2

REFERENCES ...... 37

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to update and be a companion document to the Housing and Health Report. The Housing and Health Report already describes in detail the housing related detriments of health. It does not cover the distribution of those determinants with the Bay of Plenty and Lakes region. This reports aims to describe the distribution of housing factors that influence health and identify gaps in the information base.

2 DATA SOURCES

2.1 Census The main source of information currently available is data from the census. Information from the 2001, 2006, and 2013 census is presented. There is a larger time interval between the 2006 and 2013 census due to the interruptions caused by the Christchurch earthquake.

Some of the information on housing is taken directly from responses to census questions in the dwelling and individual forms while other information is derived from census data. The Deprivation Index is derived from the response to certain questions as is the crowding data.

2.2 Issues of Health and Wellbeing 2012 Population Survey The 2012 population survey was undertaken as a telephone survey. The sample was randomly selected from the white pages. The survey had a response rate of 54%. 1045 telephone interviews were completed with an approximately even number of interviews from Rotorua, Taupo, Western Bay of Plenty and Eastern Bay of Plenty. The results of the survey were adjusted for the probability of selection using a weighting regime in order to accurately reflect the characteristics of the population.

The sample size of the survey restricts the level of detail that can be investigated. The uncertainties around the proportions obtain increase as the sample size decreases. For this reason it is often not possible to obtain statistically significant differences between age groups, region and ethnicity. However where there have been large differences it has been possible to detect statistically significant differences.

The proportions calculate for the survey is weighted. For the purpose of this report where additional confidence intervals have been calculated for a weighted proportion the unweighted denominator has been used. These confidence intervals should be view with caution.

3 DEPRIVATION

3.1 The New Zealand Deprivation Index The New Zealand Deprivation index (NZDep) is a measure of socioeconomic position, based on data obtained from the New Zealand Census. The NZDep is score assigned to each small area within New Zealand. Each small area is assigned a decile according to its deprivation score. For this reason the higher deciles, in particular 9 and 10 have a much greater level of internal variation. In the NZDep2006, small area with deprivation scores of between approximately 1,100 and 1,500 are assigned a decile of 10 while deciles 1-9 have depravation scores between approximately 800 and 1,100. Caution must be used when making temporal comparisons for small areas because the deprivation score is a relative measure. The validity of temporal comparisons increases as the size of the area increases.

NZDep measures what people are lacking. It does not measure wealth. It is a small area measure. A deprivation score is given to a small area but does not necessarily apply to an individual living in that small area, however it usually will give a useful approximation of an individual’s circumstances.

NZDep includes housing related variables in the calculation of the deprivation score. Table 1 lists the variables used for calculating the NZDep2006 and NZDep2013 scores.

Table 1: Variables of deprivation included in the NZ (source: Atkinson, Salmond, & Crampton, 2014)

Variable descript ion Weight 2006 2013 People aged <65 with no access to the internet at Not included 0.372 home People aged 18-64 receiving a means tested 0.371 0.364 benefit People living in equivalised* households with 0.356 0.356 income below an income threshold People aged 18-64 unemployed 0.332 0.338 People aged 18-64 without any qualifications 0.326 0.332 People not living in own home 0.334 0.322 People aged <65 living in a single parent family 0.333 0.317 People living in equivalised* households below a 0.318 0.303 bedroom occupancy threshold People with no access to a car 0.311 0.286 People with no access to any phone at home 0.314 Not included Percent of the variance explained 55.4% 60.7% *Equivalisation: methods used to control for household composition.

Only two variables included in NZDep2006 and NZDep2013 are directly related to housing. However the majority of the remaining variables are regarding income and employment. These factors are likely to reflect the population’s ability to maintain housing at a standard that is not detrimental to health and wellbeing. For these reasons the distribution of deprivation across the region is likely to be of interest.

3.2 Spatial distribution of deprivation across the region Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the spatial distribution of deprivation in Lakes District Health Board (DHB) and Bay of Plenty DHB. Table 2 gives the deprivation score by local authority district. Deprivation has largely remained constant at district level with a few slight shifts. The level of deprivation in Opotiki has appears to have decreased between 2006 and 2013. It has moved from average deprivation decile of 10 to a decile of nine. Kawerau and Rotorua districts may have had meaningful increases in the deprivation score between 2006 and 2013. The patterns of deprivation distribution have remained constant between 2006 and 2013.

Overall deprivation levels in Lakes DHB and Bay of Plenty DHB have remained constant indicating that people’s economic means in has not improved. This is likely to flow onto housing in that people’s ability to maintain or improve housing has not improved. The implication for the housing stock is that the condition of the stock is will not have improved in any significant way.

Table 2: Average deprivation score of each district within the Lakes and BAY OF PLENTY DHBs

District Average NZDep2006 Decile Average NZDep2013 Decile 5

(Average* NZDep2006 Score) (Average* NZDep2013 Score) Kawerau 10 (1151) 10 (1185) Opotiki 10 (1148) 9 (1118) Whakatane 8 (1065) 8 (1060) Rotorua 8 (1033) 8 (1047) Tauranga City 6 (990) 6 (988) Taupo 7 (1005) 7 (1013) Western Bay of Plenty 6 (982) 6 (993) * Census mesh block scores were weighted according to population

Figure 1: Distribution of deprivation (NZDep2013) in BAY OF PLENTY DHB (adapted from: Singh, 2014)

Figure 2: Distribution of deprivation (NZDep2013) in Lakes DHB (adapted from: Singh, 2014)

4 CROWDING

Crowded housing conditions in New Zealand are associated with increases risk of communicable disease. The increased risk of disease has a measurable impact on hospitalisations. For nine serious communicable diseases it is estimated that 10% of hospitalisations caused by these diseases are attributable to household crowding.

4.1 Crowding Indices There are several different measures of crowding in use. They all take into consideration the number of rooms and the number of occupants. The Equivalised Crowding Index (ECI) was developed by the Ministry of Health in the 1990s and is used by the Ministry of Education as one of the factors used to calculate schools decile ratings. The ECI is calculated using the follow formula: ECI = [(1/2 number of children aged under 10 years) + (number of couples) + (all other people aged 10 years and over)] / number of bedrooms. A household is considered crowded if the ECI is greater than 1.

In 2012 Statistics New Zealand recommended the use of the Canadian National Occupancy Standard (CNOS) (Goodyear, Fabian, & Hay, 2011). CNOS is used in the deprivation index for measuring crowding. The CNOS measure of crowding allows children under the age of 5, children of the same sex under 18, and couples, to share a bedroom. A household is considered crowded if a household has a one or more bedroom deficit and severely crowded if it has a deficit of two or more bedrooms. Comparisons carried out by Statistics New Zealand has shown that the ECI and CNOS give a similar spatial distribution of crowding. For the purpose of this report the CNOS measure of crowding will be used.

4.2 Exposure to Crowding Lakes DHB has the 5 th highest and Bay of Plenty DHB 8 th highest level of crowding ranked against all district health boards. Figure 3 displays the exposure to crowding for each district health board. Compared to the overall exposure to crowding for New Zealand the Lakes population has a slightly greater exposure to crowding and the Bay of Plenty population has lower exposure to crowding.

Figure 3: Exposure to crowding by DHB (source: 2006 census)

4.2.1 Crowding trends over time Figure 4 displays the crowding trends over time for Lakes DHB, BAY OF PLENTY DHB and New Zealand. The percentage of the population exposed to crowding significantly decreased between 1991 and 2013. The trends over time are similar to the trends for New Zealand.

Figure 4: Crowding trends over time for Lakes and Bay of Plenty District Health Boards

A different picture emerges when the absolute number of people living in crowding conditions is investigated (Figure *). The number of people living in crowded conditions in New Zealand increased between 1991 and 2013. In Bay of Plenty DHB the number of people remained constant while it decreased in Lakes DHB.

Figure 5: Number of people living in Lakes DHB and BOP DHB living in crowded households

4.2.2 Crowding and Ethnicity

Table 3: Crowding by ethnic group in Lakes DHB and BAY OF PLENTY DHB as of the 2013 census DHB Ethnic Group European Maori Pacific peoples Asian 2006 2013 2006 2013 2006 2013 2006 2013 Bay of Plenty 4.5 4.9 25.6 22.6 28.2 26.2 19.5 21.2 Lakes 5.7 6.5 24.6 22.9 32.2 25.1 13.4 20.5

Maori and minority ethnic groups are more likely to be exposed to crowding in the districts that make up the Lakes and Bay of Plenty DHBs. Pacific peoples followed by Maori populations are consistently more likely to be exposed to crowding. Within the Bay of Plenty 64% identify as European, 26% identify as Maori, 3% identify as Pacific, and 3% identify as Asian. The key group for reducing the total exposure to overcrowding is Maori. A greater proportion of the Pacific population is exposed to household crowding; however Pacific people make up a much smaller proportion of the population. Figure 5 displays crowding exposure for each ethnicity group at a district level. Maori living in five out of the seven districts that are part of the Bay of Plenty DHB and Lakes DHB are more likely to be exposed to crowding than Maori living in New Zealand.

Figure 6: Exposure to crowding by ethnicity at a district level (source: 2006 census)

Maori are more likely to be exposed to crowding. In addition to being more likely to be exposed to crowding Maori that experience crowding are more likely to experience severe crowding (2+ bedroom deficit) than Europeans. Table 3 shows the proportion of the crowded population that are severely crowded for Maori and Europeans down to a district level. Table 3 also shows Maori exposed to crowding in the Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane, and Taupo are more likely to experience severe crowding than Maori living in New Zealand.

Table 4: Comparing Maori and European crowding

District Proportion of crowding that is severe crowding Maori European Taupo 38.6% 24.7% Western Bay of Plenty 41.7% 23.1% Tauranga city 36.5% 20.0% Rotorua 35.9% 22.7% Whakatane 42.6% 29.1% Kawerau 31.5% 16.7% Opotiki 36.4% 22.9% New Zealand 36.2% 20.2%

4.2.3 Crowding and age In both Lakes and Bay of Plenty DHBs young people are more likely to be living in crowded households. Young children (0-4 years) and young adults (20-24) are the two age groups that are most likely to be living in crowded households (Ministry of Health, 2014). The data in table * indicates that crowding is a serious issue for children and families. Older 45+ are less likely to be exposed to crowding. Older family members can be a significant causing of crowding as they require their own room. 11

Table 5: Percentage of the population exposed to crowding by age group on the 2013 census (source: Ministry of Health, 2014)

Age in years DHB 0-4 5-9 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 - 50 - 55 - 60+ Total 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 BAY OF 14.7 11.7 8.8 11.2 15.6 13.1 9.8 10.2 9.6 7.4 4.1 2.8 1.6 8.8% PLENTY Lakes 16.7 13.9 9.8 11.8 16.7 14.9 13.4 9.4 9.2 5.6 5.2 3.1 1.7 10.3%

4.2.4 Crowding and housing conditions Crowded houses are households with fewer economic means. Crowded household are more likely to live in rental accommodation than non-crowded households (Ministry of Health, 2014). In some ways this can make it easy to address structural crowding if a household has the means to relocate to a larger house. However living in rented accommodation reduces the ability of the household to make modifications to the house that will improve conditions in a crowded household.

The heating behaviours of crowded households are different to those of non-crowded households. Crowded household are more likely not to heat their homes (Ministry of Health, 2014). Not heating will compound structural crowding as the occupants will be more likely to be using less of the available space in their homes. To keep warm they may be sharing beds to sleep and spending the majority of their time in communal spaces in an attempt to keep warm.

4.2.5 Geographical distribution of crowding The follow figures (Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) give the percentage of the population exposed to crowding down to a census area unit level. Due to the rounding techniques used by Statistic New Zealand only a 1+ bedroom deficit is considered. Some census area units have been omitted because of their small populations. Figure 12 shows that the proportion of people exposed to crowding in a neighbourhood is strongly related to the deprivation score of the neighbourhood.

Crowding is limited in both Lakes DHB and Bay of Plenty DHB to specific geographic areas in each district.

Figure 7: Exposure to crowding in Kawerau and Opotiki districts (source: 2006 census)

Figure 8: Exposure to crowding in Taupo District (source: 2006 census)

Figure 9: Exposure to crowding in Western Bay of Plenty District (source: 2006 census)

Figure 10: Exposure to crowding in Whakatane District (source: 2006 census)

Figure 11 : Exposure to crowding in Rotorua District (source: 2006 census)

Figu re 12 : Exposure to crowding in Tauranga City (source: 2006 census)

Figure 13: Deprivation score compared to percentage exposed to a 1+ bedroom deficit. The red line indicates the beginning of deprivation decile 10.

5 HOUSING CONDITIONS

Housing condition relates to the physical condition of the dwelling. Poor dwelling condition can be harmful to health. Currently there is little specific information on the condition of housing in the Lakes and Bay of Plenty region. Most of the current information relates to the condition of the general New Zealand housing stock and comes from a variety of sources.

5.1 BRANZ Housing condition survey Every five years BRANZ undertakes an in-depth survey of housing conditions. For the survey BRANZ inspects approximately 500 dwellings internally and externally throughout New Zealand and reports many aspects of housing condition (Bucket et al, 2011). Figure 13 compares the BRANZ assessments of overall condition to the quotable value assessment of the same year. The Quotable Value assessment does not take into account internal features while the BRANZ assessment does. A dwelling that has been assessed as being in poor condition has deficits that require immediate attention while a dwelling of moderate condition has deficits that require attention in the next two to three years (Bucket et al, 2011).

Figure 14: 1999, 2005 & 2010 Housing Condition Survey relative assessments (source: Bucket et al, 2011)

The 2010 BRANZ Housing Condition Survey for the first time assessed the condition of rental housing. They carried out a comparison of rental housing to owner occupied housing. 44% of rental housing surveyed was found to be in poor condition and 34% in moderate condition (Bucket, Jones, & Marston, 2011). Tenure type has the potential to be used as a proxy for housing condition. They found that rental housing was much more likely to be of poor condition. In addition the BRANZ survey compared the occupant’s perceived condition of the house to the assessed condition of the house. They found a significant disconnect between the perceived and assessed condition for both renters and owner occupiers. Bucket, Jones, & Marston (2011) suggested that renters were more willing to accept poor conditions as the norm.

Figure 15: Housing condition survey weighted overall average condition – BRANZ assessment and occupant perception (source: Bucket, Jones, & Marston, 2011)

5.2 General Social survey The 2010 General social survey asked some questions about housing conditions. Respondents were asked to report on a range of housing deficits. The survey results indicated that one third of New Zealanders lived in a house that had at least one major housing problem (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). The proportion of people who report a housing deficit increases as the level of socioeconomic deprivation increases (Table 5). Tables 4 & 5 outline the key findings related to housing.

Table 6: Proportion of New Zealand population reporting each major housing problem (Source: Statistics New Zealand, 2013)

Table 7: Proportion of people reporting the three main housing problems, by material living standard (Source: Statistics New Zealand, 2013)

The survey found disparities in self-reported housing problems between ethnic groups. Maori and Pacific people are more likely to live in a house with a self-reported major problem than Europeans (Figure 15). In particular Maori in New Zealand are almost twice as likely as Europeans to be living in a house that is self-reported to be damp (Statistics New Zealand, 2013).

Figure 16: Self-reported housing problem by ethnic group (Source: Statistics New Zealand, 2013)

5.3 Issues of Health and Wellbeing 2012 Population Survey In the 2012 population survey there were a limited number of questions that related to housing. In particular the survey asked participants if they had experienced noticeable dampness or mould. 22.3% (95%CI: 19.0, 25.6) had experienced mould or dampness in the past year (Toi Te Ora, 2012). The survey found a statistically significant difference (two tailed z-test p-value = 0.01) between Maori (28.5%) and Non-Maori (20.6%) in the experience of dampness and mould. There are age group differences with those between 25 and 64 years old more likely to experience dampness or mould. The age group findings are consistent to the findings of the New Zealand General Social Survey (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). Figure 16 displays the differences between Maori and non-Maori and between age groups. Due to the sample size the data from the survey cannot be analysed to ascertain if there are differences between districts.

Figure 17: Proportion of people who answered yes to “have you experienced noticeable dampness or mould inside the house where you live this year?” for different categories with 95% confidence intervals.

5.4 Warm up New Zealand EECA Insulation Retrofit Scheme Warm up New Zealand was an insulation retrofit scheme that ran from 2009 until the funding ran out in mid-2013. Retrofit grants were available 33% of the cost for everyone and 66% of the cost for people on low incomes (community card holder). Landlords were able to utilise the scheme as well with the size of the grant depending on the income of the primary tenant.

Table 8: Number of insulation retrofits carried out under the Warm up New Zealand scheme

TLA Number of Total % of Number of retrofits for Number of retrofits for Proportion Retrofits by tenure type Proportion of occupied insulation occupied Low Income 2 General Income of grants households dwellings retrofits dwellings households households given to low that make (2006 retrofitted income rent census) under the households payments warm up proportion (2006 census) NZ Owner Owner Owner of retrofits scheme 1 Occupier Rental 3 Total Occupier Rental 3 Total Occupier Rental 3 in rentals Kawerau 2394 539 23 % 359 95 454 76 9 85 84% 436 104 19% 27% District Opotiki 3189 451 14 % 202 148 350 84 17 101 78% 286 165 37% 26% District Rotorua 23220 3711 16 % 1380 568 1948 1607 156 1763 52% 2987 724 20% 28% District Tauranga 39954 6242 16 % 2356 895 3251 2597 394 2991 52% 4953 1289 21% 28% City

Western Bay 15441 1737 11 % 647 171 818 798 121 919 47% 1445 292 17% 19% of Plenty Whakatane 11706 1952 17 % 1003 291 1294 499 159 658 66% 1502 450 23% 24% District Taupo 11976 2120 18 % 730 190 920 1071 129 1200 43% 1801 319 15% 28% District 1. The denominator used is the number of occupied dwellings according to the 2006 census. It should only be taken as a rough estimate of the proportion of dwellings that have been retrofitted. 2. The primary occupier of the dwelling holds a community services card. 3. Housing NZ properties are not part of this scheme. Housing NZ has its own retrofit program for its properties constructed before 2001 which is due to be completed early next year.

6 HOUSING TENURE

Housing tenure has been linked to health outcomes. Across New Zealand home ownership rates have been decreasing (Statistics New Zealand, n.d). The 2006 census asked every New Zealand household to give the tenure of their home. Figure * displays the proportion of the population living in rented accommodation in each district. Taupo has the highest proportion of households living in dwellings not owned by a usual resident. In all districts the number house households has increased between 2001 and 2013.

Figure 18: Households living in rented houses (source: 2013 Census)

Table * displays the census area unit where more than 40% of households rent. The majority of these census area units have high levels of deprivation. In urban areas there is a clear relationship between NZDep2013 and the proportion of households that pay rent. However the relationship is less clear in rural areas.

Census area unit District NZDep2013 Percentage of households renting Victoria Rotorua 10 55.9 Fordlands Rotorua 10 54.5 Kuirau Rotorua 10 53.6 Rangitaiki Taupo 7 52.6 Tauranga Hospital Tauranga 10 49.0 Mt Maunganui North Tauranga 6 48.3 Pukehangi North Rotorua 10 46.9 Taupo Central Taupo 9 46.9 Kuratau Taupo 7 44.7 Yatton Park Tauranga 10 44.3 Glenholme West Rotorua 10 44.1 Fenton Rotorua 9 43.7 Selwyn Heights Rotorua 10 43.0 Tauranga Central Tauranga 7 41.6 Tauranga South Tauranga 8 41.2 Wairakei-Aratiatia Taupo 9 40.6 Trident Whakatane 10 40.3

6.1 Affordability of rental housing The affordability of rental housing can examined by calculating the ratio of the median weekly rent paid to median weekly income; this data is readily available from the New Zealand census. However, some caution needs interpreting the results. Under such a ratio what constitutes unaffordable housing? Housing New Zealand says that affordability becomes a concern when expenditure on housing in households in the lower 40% of income distribution exceeds 25-30% of their income (New Zealand Treasury, 2006). Higher income households may not be put under stress if they are paying a significantly higher proportion of their income towards housing costs because their higher income base means they will have sufficient money remaining for other essential and non-essential items. The ratio of median rent to median income will be able to track changes over time and may be useful in comparing the relative affordability of different areas. (?)

Figure * displays the income to rent ratios of districts with Toi Te Ora. Between 2006 and 2013 rental affordability declined in all districts. In some districts the decline between 2006 and 2013 resulted in in gains made between 2001 and 2006 being reversed.

Census area units that could be considered unaffordable for their resisdents (median rent to median income ratio greater than 0.3) have higher deprevation ratings and are predominantly found in Tauranga district (Table *). The tendancy for high deprivation areas may seem counterintuitive because weekely rents are relatively inexpensive. However these rents represent a significantly high proportion of the occupant’s income.

Table 9: Census area units with a median rent to median income ratio greater than 0.30

Census Area Un it District Dep2013 Ratio of median rent to median income Greerton Tauranga 9 0.415 Yatton Park Tauranga 10 0.384 Te Maunga Tauranga 8 0.367 Tauranga Hospital Tauranga 10 0.357 Western Bay of Katikati Community Plenty 8 0.357 Gate Pa Tauranga 9 0.337 Poike Tauranga 8 0.325 Tauranga South Tauranga 8 0.319 Judea Tauranga 8 0.319 Victoria Rotorua 10 0.316 Arataki Tauranga 8 0.313 Doncaster Tauranga 7 0.308 Matata Whakatane 9 0.303 Tauranga Central Tauranga 7 0.301

6.2 Housing New Zealand Corporation and Social Housing Housing New Zealand is the largest provider of social housing in New Zealand and New Zealand’s largest landlord. It is likely Housing New Zealand will have an important role regardless of the type of interventions Toi Te Ora makes. Table 6 details the numbers of HNZC properties within the region as of the 2007/2008 year. Since 2001 more than 46,000 homes built before 2000 have been insulated under the Energy Efficiency Retrofit program. HNZC aims to retrofit all homes that are practicable; this process is now nearing completion (P. Davis, personal communication, August 19, 2013).

Table 10: Housing New Zealand Corporation housing stock in the Bay of Plenty region (Source: Toi Te Ora, 2008; P. Davis, personal communication, August 19, 2013)

2008 2013 Percentage Owned Leased Total Owned Leased Total Change Tauranga 864 48 912 925 86 1011 11% Rotorua 689 5 694 666 2 668 -4% Whakatane 410 12 422 471 9 480 14% Mt Maunganui / 215 25 240 225 20 245 2% Papamoa Taupo 133 6 139 135 6 141 1% Bay of Plenty 129 4 133 22 0 22 -83% rural areas Te Puke 95 4 99 99 0 99 0% Opotiki 94 0 94 152 0 152 62% Kawerau 55 0 55 44 0 44 -20% Turangi 44 0 44 43 0 43 -2% Murupara 19 0 19 35 0 35 84% Katikati 9 2 11 8 0 8 -27% Total 2,756 106 2,862 2,825 123 2,948 3% Acquisitions for 2007/08 Acquisitions for 2012/13 year within Bay of Plenty = year within Bay of Plenty = 88 26

HNZC is not the only provider of social housing in the Lakes and Bay of Plenty regions. Local authorities provide a limited amount of housing, mainly for older people. Table 7 displays the percentage of households with either HNZC or a local authority as a landlord at the 2006 census. The overall proportion of people utilising social housing is relativity low. The people using social housing have high health needs. Improving the quality of social housing is likely to have disproportionate impact on health outcomes. Certain suburbs within the region have a high proportion (>10%) of households living in some form of social housing, these suburbs are identified in Table 8.

Table 11: Percentage of households that rent living in social housing on the 2006 and 2013 census nights

District Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of households with households with a households in HNZC as a landlord local authority as social housing landlord 2006 2013 2006 2013 2006 2013 Taupo 4.4 3.6 1.5 1.7 5.9 5.3 Western Bay of Plenty 3.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 5.4 4.5 Tauranga City 8.0 7.9 2.1 1.9 10.1 9.9 Rotorua 8.7 7.6 1.8 2.4 10.5 10.1 Whakatane 14.3 13.3 2.6 2.4 16.9 15.8 Kawerau 9.0 5.2 2.0 1.9 11.1 7.1 Opotiki 14.3 12.5 1.6 0.7 15.9 13.2

Table 12: Census area units with a high proportion of households living in social housing on 2006 census night

Suburb (census area Percentage of unit) households in social housing Opotiki District Te Kaha 10.5% Rotorua District Fordlands 19.0% Glenhome West 16.1% Pukehangi North 10.2% Tauranga City Yatton Park 16.1% Tauranga Hospital 10.2% Whakatane District Trident 13.0%

7 HOME ENERGY USE

Heating the home requires energy. Homes that are difficult to heat (poorly insulated) are generally cold, damp and can have mould. Cold, damp and mould are linked to adverse health outcomes. To reduce energy expenditure people tend to cut back on home heating as they feel it is the only variable energy cost that they can control (Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, 2010). Inappropriate home heating can cost more, decrease air quality, and increase dampness. Unflued gas heaters used inside the home produce NO 2 and water vapour as a by-product of the combustion of LPG. If there is not adequate ventilation in the room being heated carbon monoxide can also be produced. Exposure to NO 2 can exasperate respiratory conditions and has been linked to the development of asthma in children. Unflued gas heaters are sometimes perceived by their users to be cheaper than other forms of heater. This is not the case, unflued gas heaters are one of the most expensive forms of heating (Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, 2010).

Solid fuel burners have a useful lifespan of 10 to 15 years. Old solid fuel burners often do not meet current emission standards and can pollute the local environment. Old and poorly maintained burners are often inefficient and can reduce air quality within the house. A further issue with solid fuel burners is the use of appropriate fuel. Using wet, green, or treated wood increases emissions and reduces the heating efficiency of the burner, leading to increased costs and increased air pollution inside and outside of the house. Both Rotorua and Taupo have highly polluted air-sheds and both have regulations requiring the removal or replacement of non-compliant solid fuel burners when a property is sold.

7.1 Issues of health and Wellbeing 2012 Population Survey The population survey asked the respondents “what is the main form of heating that you use in the living area?” Table 13 outlines the results of this question.

Table 13: Main form of heating used in the living area

% Lower Upper 95% CI 95% CI Fireplace (wood / coal) 44.1 40.1 48.1 Heat pump 24.5 21.0 27.9 Gas – bottle or mains 17.0 14.0 20.0 Electric / fan heater 6.4 4.4 8.4 Electric radiators 3.7 2.2 5.3 Central heating 1.3 0.4 2.3 Thermal heating / hot water bore 0.6 0 1.2 No heating 1.5 0.5 2.5 Don’t know 0 0 0 Refused 0 0 0

Of those that used gas as the main form of heating in the living area approximately 77% used unflued gas heaters. With further analysis for some types of heat differences can be seen between regions, age-groups, and Maori/non-Maori. The 65+ age group is more likely to use gas and less likely to use a fireplace than the other three age groups. The youngest 27

age group (15-24) was the most likely to use a fireplace and the least likely to use a heat pump than the other three age groups. District, ethnic and age group differences are displayed in figures 19, 20 & 21.

Figure 19: Main form of heating used in the living area comparison between M āori and non-Māori with 95% confidence intervals

Figure 20: Main form of heating used in the living area comparison between districts with 95% confidence intervals

Figure 21: Main form of heating used in the living area comparison between age groups with 95% confidence intervals

7.2 Census The 2006 census asked each household to identify each fuel they used in their house for heating. The same question has been asked in the 2013 census, enabling us to track changes over time. The question in the census differs from the Issues of Health and Wellbeing 2012 Population Survey in that it asks for all energy types used for heating and not just the main type used in the household living area. The totals for each district in Figure 21 add to more than 100% because households were able to select more than one type of heating. In the census question the use of heat pumps would come under the electricity option. The census question also separates out bottled gas and mains gas. Bottled gas is almost certainly used in unflued gas heaters so it gives a very good picture to what extent unflued heaters are used within the region. Unflued plug-in gas heaters run off mains gas along with efficient and healthy flued gas fireplaces. The mains gas fuel type use will depend on the availability of mains gas connections in the area.

Compared to the overall results for New Zealand, in the Bay of Plenty and Lakes region fewer households use electricity for heating. The use of wood is more common and the use of coal is less common than the overall proportions for New Zealand. Most concerning is the use of bottled gas in the region. All districts in the region have a higher proportion of households using bottled gas than overall proportion for New Zealand as a whole.

Tauranga City has the highest proportion of households using bottled gas (37.7%) and the second highest proportion using mains gas 12.7%. Rotorua and Taupo both have a high proportion of households using wood as a heating fuel. They also have the highest proportion of households using coal out of the six districts. Both Rotorua and Taupo now have strict regulations concerning solid fuel burners. It will be interesting to see what effect the regulations have had on the use of wood and coal as fuel for heating.

Table 14: Types of fuel used by district

No Fuels Used in Electricity Mains Gas Bottled Gas Wood Coal Solar Power this Dwelling Other Fuel(s) 2001 2006 2013 2001 2006 2013 2001 2006 2013 2001 2006 2013 2001 2006 2013 2001 2006 2013 2001 2006 2013 2001 2006 2013 Taupo 63.0 64.4 71.3 9.9 11.4 11.1 34.8 33.1 17.1 63.6 61.6 58.8 4.4 3.7 2.3 0.8 1.2 2.1 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.5 3.0 2.4 District Western Bay of 55.7 59.2 65.4 3.9 3.7 3.2 36.9 37.1 22.7 56.8 54.6 52.6 3.1 2.6 1.7 1.8 2.9 4.3 2.6 2.1 2.9 0.8 1.8 1.4 Plenty District Tauranga 63.1 66.7 75.6 10.7 13.1 13.2 39.6 39.0 20.8 30.1 26.1 22.7 2.5 2.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.2 3.8 2.7 3.6 0.7 1.4 1.0 City Rotorua 62.2 60.8 68.1 12.8 13.6 12.8 31.0 30.9 15.7 56.3 54.7 49.1 5.3 4.3 2.1 0.8 0.9 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.8 2.5 4.9 4.0 District Whakatane 61.3 62.3 67.5 3.0 3.3 2.6 34.0 35.1 20.3 58.1 55.8 53.1 3.3 3.5 2.2 1.1 2.0 2.9 2.4 1.8 2.2 0.8 1.5 1.2 District Kawerau 54.2 56.4 60.5 10.7 9.5 7.4 32.1 32.3 20.1 67.1 65.6 63.5 4.4 3.6 2.3 0.5 0.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 2.1 1.0 2.2 1.2 District Opotiki 54.6 53.1 57.2 2.8 2.9 2.6 36.0 37.5 25.5 58.0 58.1 57.5 3.4 3.2 2.7 1.1 1.8 2.7 3.9 3.9 4.1 0.7 1.9 1.0 District

8 CONCLUSIONS

This document brings together the data on housing that Toi Te Ora currently has access to. Toi Te Ora has access to a wealth of information regarding crowding, deprivation, heating fuel use, and tenure type. These are all housing related behaviours that influence health. Some neighbourhoods within the region have a high proportion of their population exposed to crowded living conditions. Crowding was seen to be correlated with socioeconomic deprivation. The proportion of households using inappropriate forms of heating such as gas bottle heaters was found to exceed the proportion for New Zealand. In some districts and suburbs there are a high proportion of people compared to the rest on New Zealand living in dwellings they do not own. Rental properties are more likely to be in poor condition than owner occupied properties. It may be possible to use proportion of rental properties to access the overall condition of the housing in a neighbourhood.

There is little information on the physical condition of the housing stock in the region. There are reports that investigate the condition of New Zealand’s overall housing stock. Currently we need to make inferences from the New Zealand wide research and apply it to the Lakes and Bay of Plenty regions.

However there are challenges in obtaining data regarding the condition of the housing stock in the region:

° Reliable data regarding the condition of the housing stock is likely to require inspecting a sample of the housing stock. This is a labour intensive process. ° Self-reported housing condition is likely to be unreliable. The BRANZ housing condition survey uncovered major discrepancies between self-reported condition and assessed condition. They considered that this was due to the occupants concentrating on superficial features while assessors gave much more weight to structural features that had a greater impact on the quality of the housing.

APPENDICES

Appendix: distribution of deprivation NZDep2006

Appendix: Severe Housing Deprivation

A definition of severe housing deprivation Recent work has been carried out to describe and quantify severe housing deprivation (SHD) in New Zealand (Amore, Viggers, Baker, & Howden-Chapman, 2013). For an individual to be considered to be in a state of severe housing two criteria need to be met:

1. “A person is living in severely inadequate housing (that is, housing below a minimum adequacy standard) due to;

2. A lack of access to housing that meets the minimum adequacy standard (rather than living in such circumstances as a matter of choice).” (Amore et al, 2013, p. 3)

For housing to be considered minimally adequate the housing needs to meet a small number of basic requirements. The core dimensions are outlined below in Table 4.

Table 15: The three core dimensions of housing adequacy, broken down into the basic criteria for each dimension (Amore et al, 2013, p. 5)

For an individual to have minimally adequate housing there housing must have at least two of the three dimensions outlined in Table 4. This means that SHD goes beyond more traditional notions like living rough or living in night shelters. Table 5 outlines the living situations that meet the criteria for severe housing deprivation.

Table 16: Classification of severe housing deprivation by broad and specific living situation

People living in severe housing deprivation as of the 2006 Census The following section outlines the number of people living in SHD throughout New Zealand and in the territorial authorities that fall with Lakes DHB and Bay of Plenty DHB boundaries (Table 6). Note that all the numbers presented here are based on figures from the 2006 Census. This data is now seven years old.

Table 17: The number of people and proportion of the population exposed to severe housing deprivation as of the 2006 census (source: Amore et al, 2013)

Living situation (number) Prevalence % of temporary Total of severe population resident in a severely housing exposed to severely housing deprivation severe

n n crowded deprived on on per 10000 housing Territorial Territorial permanent (number) without without

authority area area authority people deprivation

Non-private Non-private private accommodati accommodatio dwelling Taupo 39 145 120 301 93 0.93 district Western Bay of 294 33 195 525 125 1.25 Plenty Tauranga 171 81 423 672 65 0.65 City Rotorua 87 84 444 609 92 0.92 district Whakatane 108 101 402 617 185 1.85 District Kawerau 9 3 60 69 100 1.00 District Opotiki 84 12 93 192 214 2.14 District

New 5031 6910 22005 33946 84.3 0.84 Zealand

The rate of people experiencing severe housing deprivation increases as the NZDep decile increase. With those living in the most deprived (decile 10) neighbourhoods being far more likely to be living with SHD. Maori and Pacific people are more likely to be living in SHD conditions than New Zealand Europeans. The burden faced by Maori and Pacific peoples is disproportionate to the proportion of the total population they represent. There is little difference between men and women, with men being only slightly more likely to experience SHD. Children (<15) and youth (15-24) are 1.2 times and 1.9 times more likely to experience SHD than the usually resident population while the adult age groups (35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+) are less likely to.

The type of severe housing deprivation experienced varies according to demographic factors. Maori and Pacific peoples are more likely to be temporary residents in severely crowded dwellings while Europeans are less likely to be. Women are more likely than men to be temporary residents in severely crowded dwellings. SHD children are likely to be temporary residents in severely crowded dwellings whereas the older age groups are more likely to be without accommodation or in other inadequate accommodation like boarding houses.

REFERENCES

Amore K., Viggers H., Baker, M.G., & Howden-Chapman, P. (2013). Severe housing deprivation: The problem and its measurement . Official Statistics Research Series, 6. Statistics New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. Available from www.statisphere.govt.nz .

Atkinson, P., Salmond, C., & Crampton, P. (2014). NZDep2013 index of deprivation. Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Bucket, N., Jones, M. & Marston, N. (2011). BRANZ 2010 house condition survey - Condition comparison by tenure . BRANZ, Porirua, New Zealand

Buckett, N., Marston, N., Saville-Smith, K., Jowett, J. & Jones, M. (2011). Preliminary BRANZ 2010 House Condition Survey Report . BRANZ, Porirua, New Zealand

Centre for Social Research and Evaluation (2010). Household energy affordability: qualitative research report . Retrieved from http://www.eeca.govt.nz/sites/all/files/hea- qualitative-research-report-oct-2010.pdf

Goodyear, R., Fabian, A. & Hay, J. (2011). Finding the crowding index that works best for New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand Working Paper No 11–04) . Statistics New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand

Ministry of Health. (2014). RFP for Healthy homes services to reduce household crowding for families with children at risk of rheumatic fever: supplementary information and data on rheumatic fever and household crowding . Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand

Salmond, C., Crampton, P. & Atkinson, J. (2007). NZDep2006 index of deprivation user's manual . Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand

Singh, H. (2014, 05 13). Where are NZ's most deprived areas? (+ interactive). Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11254032

Statistics New Zealand (2013). Perceptions of housing quality in 2010/11: Exploratory findings from the New Zealand General Social Survey: Statistics New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand

Statistics New Zealand (2012). Census data guide : Statistics New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand

Statistics New Zealand (n.d). Quickstats about housing – Dwelling ownership . Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about- a-subject/housing/dwelling-ownership.aspx.

Toi Te Ora (2012). Issues of health and wellbeing 2012 population survey . Toi Te Ora - Public Health Service, Tauranga, New Zealand

Toi Te Ora (2008). Housing and Health Report . Toi Te Ora - Public Health Service, Tauranga, New Zealand