This section describes what the 2013 Census tells us about the people who usually live in what we classify as ‘other occupied private dwellings’ – herein referred to as alternative private dwellings. This category comprises dwellings in a motor camp, mobile dwellings not in a motor camp, improvised dwellings or shelters, and roofless or rough sleepers. People who happened to be in these types of dwellings on census night only have been excluded.

Improvised dwellings or shelters are structures that are not necessarily erected for human habitation but are occupied. They lack amenities such as lighting, a bathroom, and cooking facilities. For example, shacks, garages, and private vehicles other than those designed as, or converted into, dwellings.

Not all people who lived in alternative private dwellings were doing so because they were deprived of something that would have given them access to more conventional housing (houses, units, or apartments). Some people, such as ‘grey nomads’ (older people who live and travel in a mobile dwelling), may have chosen dwellings to suit their lifestyle. Nonetheless, people who lived in alternative private dwellings reported relatively low levels of income, qualification, and employment.

Over 17,000 people in alternative private dwellings in 2013

In 2013, there were 17,319 people living in alternative private dwellings. Note an additional 885 people stated their usual residence was in a non-private motor camp complex. There was no clear difference in the characteristics of people who lived in a non-private dwelling in a motor camp complex and people who lived in private dwellings in motor camps, except that people living in the non-private dwellings were almost twice as likely to have lived there for less than one year.

The following treemap provides a way of viewing the number and proportion of people who lived in the different types of private dwellings, including the four types of alternative private dwellings. It shows that the vast majority of people in private dwellings lived in separate (ie not joined to another) houses, or in apartments.

People in occupied private dwellings treemap, 2013 Census

The following image comes from our treemap about people in occupied private dwellings. 
Explore the interactive treemap to compare the relative numbers of people living in the different types of occupied private dwellings.

Given that very few people were classified as roofless or rough sleepers (only 27 nationally), we have combined this category with improvised dwelling or shelter in the analysis that follows.

We have compared selected characteristics for people, families, and households in alternative private dwellings with the total population who lived in what we classify as ‘occupied private dwellings’ – herein referred to as private dwellings.

People in alternative private dwellings tend to be older

People who lived in alternative private dwellings tended to be older. The median age of people who lived in alternative private dwellings (48.2 years) was higher than the median age of total people who lived in all private dwellings (37.6 years). The percentage of people living in alternative private dwellings and under the age of 15 years was almost half that of the total people living in private dwellings – 13.0 percent (or 2,256 people), compared with 20.9 percent (864,285 people).

People in alternative private dwellings less likely to live with partners

People who lived in alternative private dwellings were less likely to be partnered, and more likely to have separated or divorced, than the people in total private dwellings. The percentage of people who lived in alternative private dwellings who were partnered was 53.2 percent (or 7,446 people), compared with 61.7 percent (or 1,849,149 people) of those who lived in total private dwellings.

Of people who lived in alternative private dwellings, 5.4 percent (or 756 people) were not partnered and had separated, and 11.1 percent (or 1,554 people) had divorced. This is compared with 2.5 percent (75,582 people) and 4.9 percent (145,530 people), respectively, for total people living in private dwellings.

High proportions of European and Māori in alternative private dwellings

The proportions of people from different ethnic groups who lived in alternative private dwellings were similar to those in total private dwellings. More than three-quarters (76.5 percent, or 12,558 people) of those who lived in alternative private dwellings were of European ethnicity. In comparison, 73.8 percent (or 2,821,353) of people who lived in total private dwellings were of European ethnicity.

Relatively high percentages of people identifying with European or Māori ethnic groups lived in alternative private dwellings, compared with the percentages in total private dwellings. In particular, the share of Māori who lived in improvised dwellings or shelter and roofless and rough sleepers was 8.3 percentage points higher than that of Māori in total private dwellings – 23.2 percent (or 1,080 people), compared with 14.9 percent (or 568,587 people).

People who identified with the Asian ethnic group made up only 6.5 percent (or 1,074 people) of the people who lived in alternative private dwellings – compared with 12.0 percent (or 457,314 people) of those in total private dwellings. The proportion of Pacific people who lived in alternative private dwellings (5.4 percent, or 882 people) was only slightly less than that in total private dwellings (7.4 percent, or 284,454 people).

People in alternative private dwellings less likely to have formal qualifications

Of the people who lived in alternative private dwellings, a higher proportion (32.8 percent, or 4,278 people) had no formal qualification, compared with total people who lived in private dwellings (20.7 percent, or 590,778 people).

The percentages of people with a level 1, 2, 3, 4 certificate, or overseas secondary school qualification as their highest qualification were similar for both groups – close to 50 percent.

Of the people who lived in alternative private dwellings, 10.9 percent (1,425 people) had a bachelor’s degree and level 7, or higher qualification, compared with 20.3 percent (578,205 people) of total people in private dwellings.

Figure 21

People in alternative private dwellings have lower incomes

Generally, people who lived in alternative private dwellings had lower incomes than the total population in private dwellings. The median income was 75.2 percent ($21,800) of the median income for the wider population ($29,000).

As shown in figure 22, people who lived in alternative private dwellings tended to have a greater concentration around $10,001–15,000. They had a less even spread across different income bands than people who lived in total private dwellings.

Figure 22

Employment and unemployment rates for people in alternative private dwellings similar to wider population

People who lived in alternative private dwellings had similar work and labour force status characteristics to the total people living in private dwellings. For example, 43.8 percent (or 6,369 people) of those who lived in alternative private dwellings were employed full-time. This is compared with 48.9 percent of total people (or 1,487,808 people) living in private dwellings.

Figure 23

Alternative private dwellings: more one-person households and fewer households with children

There were some marked differences in household composition between households in alternative private dwellings and total private dwellings. A lower proportion of households in alternative private dwellings comprised families (for all family types except couples only). Over half (51.6 percent, or 4,878 households) of the households in alternative private dwellings were one-person households, compared with less than one-quarter (23.5 percent, or 355,242 households) of those in total private dwellings.

Figure 24

Over one-quarter of households in alternative private dwellings use bottled gas for heating

Bottled gas was a more common form of heating for households living in alternative private dwellings than for total households in all private dwellings. Bottled gas was used by:

• 28.0 percent (or 2,541 households) of households in alternative private dwellings
• 15.4 percent (or 226,311 households) of those in all private dwellings.

Electricity was the most common heating fuel used by households in alternative private dwellings (at 67.1 percent, or 6,084 households). However, the proportion using it was almost 15 percentage points lower than that for total households in all private dwellings (79.2 percent, or 1,161,150 households).

Solar power was more likely to be used for heating by households in alternative private dwellings than by households in all private dwellings. Solar power was used by:

• 3.1 percent (or 279 households) of those in alternative private dwellings
• 1.6 percent (or 23,214 households) of those in all private dwellings.

Similarly, other fuels (including diesel/petrol, geothermal, wind, and water) were a more common form of heating in alternative private dwellings. These fuels were used by:

• 4.6 percent (or 417 households) of households in alternative private dwellings
• 1.6 percent (or 22,854 households) of households in all private dwellings.

No heating fuels were used in 9.1 percent (828 households) of households living in alternative private dwellings. This is compared with 3.0 percent (43,782 households) of total households in private dwellings.