Feasibility of Developing and Piloting a Woodstove Exchange Program

Features of previous wood stove exchange programs

Superficially, wood stove exchange programs – or changeouts as they have been most often called – involve incentives to help householders to upgrade their conventional wood stoves to advanced EPA/CSA B415 certified units. But the concept has evolved to include a variety of activities, all intended to engage the public in an effort to reduce wood smoke. Below is a summary of features of past wood stove exchange programs:

Financial incentives

Financial incentives took the form of rebates given to purchasers when their old stoves were turned in for recycling. The cost of incentives, including local advertising, was normally shared by appliance manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Financial incentives are typically in the range of 10 to 15 per cent. (In some US jurisdictions, government agencies or gas utilities have provided financial incentives linked to changeouts.)

Public workshops

Public workshops were held in community buildings, often in the bays of fire departments, on weekday evenings, typically from 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm. Workshop content themes were safety, efficiency and environmental health. Specifically, the agendas covered wood heat options, planning an installation, selecting a chimney, firewood, tips on smokeless wood heating and maintenance. The HPBAC has developed a workshop package, including presenter's manual and visual aids. The use of public workshops is a uniquely Canadian addition to the changeout concept, one that has proven to be surprisingly popular. Public workshops supported under NRCan's Burn it Smart program were accompanied by afternoon workshops for local professionals, such as building inspectors, fire service personnel and insurance industry people. The professional workshops were another way of engaging community members in support of effective wood burning.

Burn trailer displays

Burn trailer displays provide visual verification of the effectiveness of advanced technologies, a focal point for discussions of how the technologies work and an excellent backdrop for a television media event. "By far the biggest success of the Program was the outside burn display which was transported to each workshop in the back of a pick up truck for educational purposes." (Georgian Bay 2001, project report) The use of a burn display adds another layer of complexity to a program, but is acknowledged to be the most influential feature of efforts to engage the public and influence behaviour.

Media campaigns

Media campaigns included media releases announcing the exchange program itself and public workshops scheduled to coincide with the changeout sale period. Media were invited to cover the workshops and burn trailer displays. In small towns the media responded, but in larger centres they were less likely to see the workshop as news worthy. Media events were staged at recyclers to provide visual images of old wood stoves being destroyed for recycling.

Web sites

Web sites have become a standard feature of exchange programs. They provide a low cost and efficient way to distribute workshop schedules, lists of participating dealers and program messages.

Firewood moisture clinics

Firewood moisture clinics were used in NB and NS Healthy Woodstove campaigns as a simple way to engage the public. The clinics were hosted by participating wood stove retail outlets, which offered free firewood moisture testing. These have a modest impact, partly because they deal only with a narrow aspect of residential wood heating and require participants to bring along a representative piece of their firewood. Firewood moisture testing has also been a feature of some public wood heat workshops.

Public information materials

Public information materials play an important role by providing authoritative endorsement of messages delivered by retailers and workshop leaders. In addition to existing publications like the Guide to Residential Wood Heating (NRCan/CMHC), and NRCan's Burn it Smart program brochures, special materials are often produced for changeout programs. These include workshop content summaries, articles, media releases, banners, posters and other materials.

Donated wood stove systems

Donated wood stove systems to worthwhile local charities created other media events. In the Eastern Ontario (1999) program three complete systems were donated, with stoves and chimneys donated by their respective manufacturers and installation labour provided by local retailers. Donated wood stoves and equipment have been used as raffle prizes as another means of promoting public participation.

Note on terminology and context:

While free-standing stoves are only one category of wood burning equipment, exchange or 'changeout' programs generally refer to wood stoves rather than the more generic 'wood burning appliance'. This is because only wood stoves and fireplace inserts were included under the US EPA regulations of 1988 and 1990 and are therefore the only complete categories in which EPA certified appliances are available. The other categories were exempt from controls. Most fireplaces and pellet stoves are exempt through the use of a technical loophole related to fuel-air ratio, although a few manufacturers have chosen to test and certify their products in these categories to meet marketing objectives. Furnaces, boilers and cooking ranges were given a specific policy-based exemption and as a result there are no emission certified appliances in these categories. The concept of a 'wood stove changeout' is, to some extent, an artefact of the US origins of such programs.

Technology profile

The following overview of residential wood burning technology is consistent with Environment Canada's technology categories and descriptions used in their emissions inventory process.

Fireplaces

The term fireplace was traditionally used to describe a wood burning device built into the structure of a living area and in which the fire can be viewed while it burns. Fireplaces can be divided into two broad categories:

· masonry fireplaces are constructed of brick, stone or other masonry materials, are assembled on site and usually connected to a masonry chimney, and

· factory-built (also called prefabricated and informally as zero-clearance) fireplaces in which the structural material is usually metal and installed on site as a package with the specified metal chimney.

Conventional fireplaces, whether masonry or factory-built, do not incorporate emission reduction technologies, and may or may not have glass doors. Generally, conventional fireplaces are not effective for home heating purposes because of high dilution air demands and inadequate heat transfer characteristics. They tend to be used exclusively for aesthetics – fire viewing.

Fireplace inserts are essentially wood stoves that have been adapted by their manufacturers to fit within the firebox of existing masonry fireplaces. A few inserts are certified for installation in factory-built fireplaces. An insert converts a conventional fireplace into an effective heating system. Both conventional and advanced technology fireplace inserts are on the market and their emissions, and even efficiency performance, can be assumed to be the same as conventional and advanced wood stoves. Fireplace inserts can be used effectively as supplementary heating systems, in addition to providing the aesthetics of fire viewing.

Wood Stoves

Wood stoves are free-standing space heating appliances. Used either as the principal source of heat for a home or to supplement conventional heating systems, wood stoves are the most popular form of wood heating equipment because of their relatively low cost and installation flexibility. Of the wood burning appliances in use in categories that can be used for serious space heating, wood stoves constitute at least 60 percent.

Based on variations in construction, combustion technology, and emission characteristics, residential wood stoves have been grouped in the following categories:

1. conventional wood stoves,

2. advanced combustion wood stoves, and

3. masonry heaters.

Conventional stoves do not incorporate the advanced combustion technologies needed to meet emission standards. This category would include older cast iron box stoves, parlour stoves, Franklin fireplaces, and the so-called ‘airtights’ of the 1970s and 1980s.

Advanced combustion wood stoves are defined as those that meet the emission limits prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) B415 Standard and are certified by one of these agencies or other suitably accredited agencies. The EPA and CSA emission testing requirements measure and report on particulate emissions as a surrogate for all other pollutants. The two standards are virtually identical to facilitate bi-lateral trade. Manufacturers use one of two general approaches to achieving lower stack emissions based on whether or not they use a catalytic element.

A Masonry Heater is a traditional space heating system of European origin that has been adapted for North American conditions. It has an enclosed combustion chamber in which a charge of wood is burned rapidly. The hot exhaust gases are routed through heat transfer channels embedded in the massive masonry structure before being expelled to the chimney. The heat stored in the masonry is released slowly to the room for up to 24 hours after combustion of the wood is complete. Relatively complete combustion is achieved through the rapid, turbulent combustion that is characteristic of masonry heaters.

Wood-fired Central Heating Appliances

Wood-fired central heating systems are available in several forms: add-on warm air furnaces for connection to existing oil or electric furnaces; combination furnaces that use electricity or burn oil in addition to wood; and boilers that heat water and use a system of pipes to distribute heat. There are no advanced technology central systems available in Canada, so all furnaces and boilers tend to produce relatively high smoke emissions. The use of wood-fired central systems, with the exception of outdoor boilers, has been declining for almost 20 years.

Other Wood Burning Equipment

Outdoor boilers have been gaining popularity over the past decade, particularly in rural areas across Canada. An outdoor boiler is enclosed in a small shed and uses insulated underground piping to deliver heat to the house. The units are controversial because of their high emissions, and, when located next to neighboring houses, have been the subject of conflict over smoke emissions. The number of outdoor boilers in use is not known because no surveys have yet included them as a category.

Pellet Stoves are fuelled with pellets of sawdust or other waste biomass materials compressed into small cylinders about 8 mm in diameter and from 10 to 30 mm long. The raw feedstock for pellet production does not usually include binders or other additives, except in some cases to assist in the extrusion process. In the pellet stove, the fuel is moved from the integral hopper to the small combustion chamber by a motorized auger. The exhaust is forced into the vent with a fan. Because steady state combustion can be approximated by adjusting the fuel and air mixture, pellet stoves can burn with lower emissions, on average, than wood stoves. A few pellet stove models have been certified by EPA and so could be used as an upgrade under an exchange program.

A Wood Cooking Range is a specialized appliance that uses wood fuel to heat a cook-top surface, a bake oven and sometimes a reservoir for domestic hot water. Cooking ranges are not common in Canada, although a few models are still available for sale in specialty stores. Cooking ranges are exempt under the EPA wood burning regulations and no specific emissions performance for cooking ranges were found in the literature, but particulate emissions are probably similar to conventional wood stoves.

User profile

How many Ontario households have wood burning equipment?

About 30 percent of urban households and just under half (47%) of Ontario households in small towns and rural areas (defined as communities of less than 10,000 population), report having wood burning equipment in their principal residence or vacation home, (See Table 1). Overall, including both urban and rural households, 34 percent or almost 1.5 million households report having a wood burning device at their home or cottage.

Table 1

Incidences Of Wood-Burning Equipment in Principal Residence or Vacation Property, Ontario and Canada

		Percent Of Households Which Have Any Wood-Burning Equipment…
		In Home Or Principal Residence	In Vacation Home	In Either
Ontario	Rural <10m	45	7	47
	Urban 10m+	27	7	30
Total Canada	Rural <10m	47	8	49
	Urban 10m+	28	6	31

Adapted from Canadian Facts, 1999; Exhibit B:1

How many Ontario households actually burn wood?

When asked whether they burned any wood in the past 12 months, only 25 percent of all Ontario households answered yes. From this it can be concluded that around 9 percent or almost 400,000 householders have wood burning equipment that they don't use. These unused appliances are likely to consist mostly of decorative fireplaces and wood stoves that are used only for emergency purposes. Urban/rural data or appliance category data to determine which is the most unused appliance type was not found. However, NRCan's 1997 in-house interview survey of household energy use found that over 28 percent of wood burning fireplaces were never used.

In the context of exchange programs, these unused appliances could be candidates for upgrading, in the sense that some currently unused fireplaces could be upgraded with inserts and the currently unused stoves, most of which are probably conventional, could be upgraded to advanced models. The extent to which these unused appliances 'come into play' is likely to depend on public perceptions of the stability of conventional energy price and supply. That is, if the public senses that oil, gas and electricity prices will rise dramatically, or that supply interruptions could occur, some householders who are not currently burning wood may take advantage of an exchange program.

What types of wood burning appliance do Ontarians have?

Fireplaces

By far the most popular wood burning device in Ontario is the fireplace, with just under one million in place (1997)(See table 2). Fireplaces are about equally popular in rural and urban areas at about one in five households, but because of the concentration of households in urban areas, there are almost four times as many fireplaces in larger cities than in rural areas.

Of the total, only about two percent or 21,000 existing Ontario fireplaces are advanced technology, according to the Canadian Facts 1997 survey. In addition, around 12 percent or 113,000 of these fireplaces has a fireplace insert installed in it. Among inserts, about 12 percent or 14,000 are advanced technology units. Therefore, in the category of fireplaces, including those with inserts, only 3.6 percent or 35,000 are advanced technology. As noted earlier, some caution should be used in applying these figures because of uncertainty regarding the accuracy of responses and relatively small sample sizes.

Natural Resources Canada's 1997 Survey of Household Energy Use (NRCan SHEU'97) revealed a striking statistic about the age of wood burning fireplaces in Canada; that 90 percent of them are more than 7 years old and more than 70 percent are more than 11 years old. For comparison, only 25 percent of gas fireplaces are more than 7 years old. These figures reflect the dramatic swing in buyer preference away from wood fireplaces and towards gas fireplaces during the 1990s.

Wood stoves

There are somewhat more than half as many wood stoves as fireplaces at 550,000, and that total number is almost equally split between urban and rural areas. However, rural and small town households are more than three times more likely to have a wood stove (27%) than households in larger urban centres (8%). About 8 percent or 44,000 of the wood stoves used in Ontario are advanced technology.

Wood furnaces

A total of about 72,000 wood furnaces are installed in Ontario homes, almost 80 percent of which are installed in houses located in small towns and rural areas. Until recently there were no EPA/CSAB415 certified furnaces available for upgrading these conventional units, although at least one low-emission furnace has recently appeared on the market.

Other wood burning equipment

The category 'other wood burning equipment' includes pellet stoves, cook stoves and indoor and outdoor boilers. There are about 21,000 units of these types installed in Ontario. Of the appliances in the 'other' category, only pellet stoves are available with EPA emissions certification.

Table 2

Incidences of various types of wood burning equipment in Ontario by urban-rural category

	Rural <10m		Urban 10m +		Total**
	%	#,000	%	#,000	%	#,000
Households urban rural split	23	1002	77	3328	100	4330
Wood-Burning Fireplaces (Any)	21	206	23	768	59	974
With An Insert	4	38	2	75	7	113
Advanced Technology	1	7	*	7	1	14
Advanced Technology Fireplaces	1	14	*	7	1	21
Wood-Burning Stoves (Any)	27	274	8	281	33	555
Conventional Stoves	26	257	8	256	31	513
Advanced Technology	2	20	1	26	3	46
Wood-Burning Furnaces (Any)	6	59	*	13	4	72
Other Wood-Burning Equipment	1	12	*	9	1	21

* Less than 0.5%.

** Based on a total appliance count of 1,661,000. Note that the columns include subsets.

Shaded rows are advanced technology equipment.

Adapted from Canadian Facts, 1999; Urban Rural Report, Exhibits B 4-a and -b)

What is the frequency of use of wood burning equipment?

Limited current data was found on the issue of usage patterns, and none was found that was specific to Ontario. Here are some insights on a national basis from the NRCan SHEU 1993 data:

· Percentage of those who use wood as their primary heating fuel that use no other fuel: 78%

· Percentage of those who use wood as a supplementary heating fuel that operate their stoves more than 75 percent of the time during the heating season: 26% More than 25 percent of the time: 60%

· Percentage of those who use wood as a supplementary heating fuel that operate their stoves more than four hours per day during the heating season: 60%

· Percentage of those who use wood as a supplementary heating fuel that heat the entire house: 47%

· Frequency of use of fireplaces from NRCan SHEU '97:

Never: 28.5%

Less than once a week: 38.4%

One to three times a week: 19.3%

More than three times a week: 13.8%

How many Ontarians plan to purchase wood burning equipment?

A series of questions were asked in the Canadian Facts 1997 survey conducted for Environment Canada regarding plans to upgrade existing wood burning appliances with newer models or to install a new wood burning system. In Ontario, three percent or 130,000 householders said they planned to purchase a wood burning appliance in the next few years (see Table 3).

Table 3

Percent of households that report having plans to install wood-burning equipment in the next few years, Ontario and Canada

	Plan To Install
	Yes	No	Don’t Know/Not Stated
Ontario	3	88	9
Total Canada	4	85	11

Adapted from Canadian Facts, 1997, General Summary, Exhibit B: 1

Of those with plans to purchase a wood burning appliance, 59 percent or 78,000 would be adding a wood burning appliance to the home, not upgrading an existing wood burning appliance (see Table 4). These householders would not be candidates for assistance under an exchange program, but their purchase decision could be influenced by the publicity surrounding an exchange program.

Of those with plans to purchase, 36 percent or 47,000 households plan to upgrade an existing wood burning appliance with a newer model. This is the group of prime candidates for an exchange program.

Table 4

Of those households with plans to install wood burning equipment in the next few years, the percent which plan to replace an existing wood-burning or non-wood burning unit, or to install a new additional wood-burning unit.

		Replacement of a . . .
	Total	Wood-Burning Unit	Non-Wood-Burning Unit	New, Additional Unit	Not Stated
Ontario	39	36	3	59	3
Total Canada	40	35	5	58	3

Adapted from Canadian Facts, 1997, General Summary, Exhibit B: 2

About half of those who plan to purchase a wood burning appliance in the next few years intend to buy a wood stove (see Table 5). About one-third plan to buy a fireplace or fireplace insert. The publicity surrounding an exchange program could influence customers looking at these appliance categories to select the advanced, clean burning type of fireplace. The 12 percent of respondents who indicated that they would be shopping for a wood furnace will not have advanced technology options available to them. Only those in the 'other' category who are looking at pellet stoves would have the option of selecting an EPA certified model. From these data it is not possible to confidently estimate the "market" for upgrades under an exchange program. However, using these statistics as a guide, it appears the potential market for the upgrading of conventional wood burning appliances, mostly fireplaces, fireplace inserts and wood stoves, could be on the order of 5,000 annually.

Table 5

Of those Ontario households with plans to install wood burning equipment in the next few years, the percent that plan to install each category of wood burning unit

	%	#,000
Wood-Burning Fireplace	26	34
Fireplace Insert	6	8
Wood-Burning Stove	52	68
Wood-Burning Furnace	12	16
Other Wood-Burning Equipment	3	4
Not Stated	5	6

Adapted from Canadian Facts, 1997, General Summary, Exhibit B: 3C

Reasons given for updating wood stoves

Summary of previous changeout program survey results

Profile of Changeout customers based on tracking survey; Georgian Bay 2001

• 73.3% of purchasers of changeout appliances live in rural areas

• In 40.5% of cases the purchase decision was made jointly, 39.7% of the decisions were made by a male and 12.9% of purchase decisions were made by a female

• Buyers tended to be within the ages of 30 and 60 with 36.2% 46 to 60 years of age and 34.5% between the ages of 30 and 45.

• 44% of purchasers used wood as a supplementary fuel source, with only 13.8% using it as a primary source

• Electric heat was the primary source for 20.7% of purchasers, oil for 16.4%, gas 11% and propane 3.4%

• 48.3% planned to replace their heating system with their new EPA-certified system while 29.3% will use it as a supplementary heat source

• 15.5% used 4 - 6 cords of wood per winter, many chose not to report on this item (this reflects the difficulty householders have in accurately reporting wood consumption; often the problem has to do with the way the question is asked)

• 13.8% of purchasers attended a Wood Heat Workshop

• The majority of purchasers learned about the program from the wood stove retail store.

• 40.5% cited rising fuel costs as the primary motivating factor for their purchase, 37.9% cited burning less wood and 34.5% cited a safer system. Many respondents selected more than one item in answering this question.

British Columbia workshop and buyer tracking surveys

Two small surveys conducted in BC in 2002 – one of people attending a public workshop linked to a wood burning appliance exchange program, and one of those householders who took advantage of financial incentives linked to the exchange program – provide some insight into the potential effectiveness of public education on wood burning appliance selection criteria. 71 percent of 124 respondents to a survey they completed during and/or following wood heat workshops said the biggest influence on their purchase of a new stove would be that it was efficient and had EPA certification (see Table 6). Other purchase influences in descending order were savings, health and environmental, product cost and aesthetics.

Apparently, the messages they received at the workshop influenced their selection of efficiency/EPA certification as such a strong influence. This type of thinking could be a temporary result of workshop attendance, especially considering that cost and aesthetics, normally important criteria, were selected least often by these respondents.

Table 6

What factors would influence your purchase of a new stove?

Efficiency/EPA certification 71%

Savings 48%

Health/environmental 48%

Cost of product 30%

Style/aesthetics 15%

From a survey completed during a workshop linked to a changeout program, Okanagan Valley 2002. 124 respondents.

The people who purchased stoves under the program were asked what influenced their purchase, responding to a different set of optional responses than in the workshop survey (see Table 7). These people may or may not have attended a workshop. Safety and efficiency were the biggest influences, followed by environmental suitability, energy (which is difficult to interpret), price, money (also hard to interpret), convenience and aesthetics.

Safety is always an important criteria for wood stove purchasers (not an option offered in the workshop survey), and efficiency, which is linked to fuel savings, is also a commonly voiced as important. Once again, product cost and aesthetics are at the low end of the influence range, a response that could be influenced by the conditions under which both surveys were conducted and may not represent true influences as much as a desire on the part of respondents to be seen in a good light.

Table 7

What factors influenced your purchase of the new stove?

Safety 69%

Efficiency 69%

Environment 61%

Energy 51%

Price 41%

Money 41%

Convenience 35%

Aesthetics 29%

From tracking surveys filled in by people buying stoves under the changeout program, Okanagan Valley 2002

These two BC surveys do suggest that householders who burn wood and/or are in the process of purchasing a wood burning device are susceptible to messages about the link between emissions certification, fuel efficiency (savings) and environmental responsibility. Also, if these issues are linked to safety, which is always a strong motivator, a positive public response could result.

Pollutant profile

Emissions in Ontario

According to the 1995 Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory Guidebook (the most recent data available), wood burning appliances in Ontario were estimated to have emitted a total of almost 26,000 tonnes of particulate matter, more than half of which was emitted by wood stoves (see Table 8). The wood stove category is the largest emitting category because the large number in use combined with relatively high fuel consumption due to their use as serious heating systems. Note that twice as much wood is burned in wood stoves than is burned in fireplaces, despite the fact that there are twice as many fireplaces as wood stoves installed in Ontario.

Table 8

Emissions of various pollutants in Ontario by category of wood burning equipment

All figures in tonnes (1000 kg)

Ontario	Wood burned	Total PM	PM 10	PM 2.5	CO	NOx	SO	VOC
Wood Burning Fireplaces	467,669
Conventional Fireplaces
Without Glass Doors	165,927	3,202	3,070	3,053	12,893	232	33	1,079
With Glass Doors	191,404	2,584	2,488	2,469	18,872	268	38	4,019
Fireplaces With an Insert
Conventional	78,202	1,126	1,064	1,064	9,025	109	16	1,666
Advanced Technology	17,734	90	85	85	1,248	25	4	124
Advanced Technology Fireplaces	14,402	73	69	69	1,014	20	3	101

Wood Burning Stoves	892,926
Conventional Stoves
Not Air Tight	219,647	5,403	5,096	5,096	21,965	308	44	7,797
Air-Tight	594,426	8,560	8,084	8,084	68,597	832	119	12,661
Advanced Technology Stoves	78,853	402	378	378	5,551	110	16	552

Central Furnaces/Boilers	279,918	3,947	3,723	3,723	19,174	392	56	5,962

Other Wood Burning Equipment	30,431	438	414	414	3,512	43	6	648
Total	1,670,944	25,825	24,471	24,435	161,851	2,339	334	34,609

Adapted from the Environment Canada 1995 Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory Guidebook (survey conducted in 1997 by Canadian Facts and statistics corrected to 1995 population figures).

Shaded rows are advanced technology equipment.

Pollution prevention through stove exchanges

In developing the rationale for exchange programs it is helpful to develop an estimate of pollutant avoidance per changed out appliance. While it is acknowledged that such estimates cannot be considered precise, it is important that the number selected can be traced back through calculations to a reasonably authoritative base. Following this approach in Tables 8 and 9 below and their associated notes, it is estimated that replacing a stove of conventional design used for supplementary heating with one that is EPA certified would result in an annual reduction of particulate matter emissions of 46 kg. The replacement of a stove used as a primary heating source would result in a 90 kg annual particulate emission reduction.

Table 8

Estimated particulate emission reduction per changed out stove used for supplementary heating

See notes below for an explanation of assumptions

Supplementary Wood Heating	Average fuel wood use in full cords¹	Wood use in tonnes (dry)²	TPM emission factor kg/t³	TPM emissions
Conventional Stove 55%⁴	2.3	2.92	19.5	57 kg
Advanced Stove 75%⁴	1.7	2.16	5.1	11 kg
Fuel savings	0.6 ($90)⁶	Emission reduction		46 kg⁵

Table 9

Estimated particulate emission reduction per changed out stove used for primary heating

See notes below for an explanation of assumptions

Primary Wood Heating	Average fuel wood use in full cords¹	Wood use in tonnes (dry)²	TPM emission factor kg/t³	TPM emissions
Conventional Stove 55%⁴	4.5	5.7	19.5	111 kg
Advanced Stove 75%⁴	3.3	4.2	5.1	21 kg
Fuel savings	1.2 ($180)⁶	Emission reduction		90 kg⁵

1. The averages of 2.3 cords for supplementary heating and 4.5 cords for primary heating are consistent with calculations using the assumptions and formula provided in A Guide to Residential Wood Heating (NRCan/CMHC) for 50% and 100% heating respectively of a reasonably new, detached home in Central Ontario.

2. Calculations of wood weight per cord are based on assumptions made in the 1995 Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory Guidebook, which assumed the following firewood species mix for Ontario: Maple 40%, Elm 10%, Oak 10%, Birch 10%, Pine/Spruce 30%; proportional average density: 0.539 tonnes per cubic metre.

3. TPM = total particulate matter, includes PM10 and PM2.5. Emission factors from the 1995 Criteria Air Contaminants Emissions Inventory Guidebook. The emission factor for conventional stoves is the average of the factors for non-airtight stoves (24.6 kg/t) and airtight stoves (14.4 kg/t).

4. Efficiency estimates from A Guide to Residential Wood Heating, NRCan/CMHC.

5. The Northern California/Nevada HPA in its Great Stove Changeout (1998) promotion and documentation gave a figure of 77.8 kg/yr based on conventional stove emissions of 42 g/h, EPA stove emissions of 6 g/h, 12 hour daily operation for 180 days.

6. At an average wood fuel price of $150 per full cord, which is at the low end of the price range.

Review of past wood stove exchange initiatives

A number of project reports from past programs were acquired, reviewed and summarized in Table 10 below and in the discussion that follows.

Table 10

Summary of features of past wood stove exchange programs

	Area	Lead Agency/ Budget	Dates	No. of dealers	Incentives	No. of changeouts	Workshops Clinics
BC Great stove changeout '95	All of BC	HPAC (now HPBAC) $29,850	April 1 – May 15, 1995	36	$50 - $200	wood-wood 106 wood-gas 105 wood-pellet 2	0
Healthy Woodstove Campaign, NB '97	All of NB	NB Lung Association	September 3 – October 15, 1997	?	?	wood-wood 112	9 wood moisture clinics at stove stores
Healthy Woodstove Campaign, NS, '97	All of NS	AWETA $49,585	September 3 – 10, 1997	37	?	wood-wood 72	9 wood moisture clinics at stove stores
Healthy Woodstove Campaign, NB '98	All of NB	NB Lung Association	September 9 – November 21, 1997		?	91	11 wood moisture clinics at stove stores
Clean Heat Woodstove Exchange, NE USA '98	New England: CT, ME, MA, NH, NY, RI, VT	NEHPA	July 18, - August 30, 1998	49	About 10% off Free 1/2 ton of pellets for pellet stove sales	wood-wood 703	0
Great Stove Changeout, Cal. USA '98	N. California Nevada	N. Cal/Nevada HPA US$43,787	January 15 – February 28, 1998	137	About 10% off	wood-wood 361 wood-gas 496 wood-pellet 101	0
Great Stove Changeout, Cal. USA '99	N. California Nevada	N. Cal/Nevada HPA	January 16 – February 28, 1999	127	About 10% off Free 1/2 ton of pellets for pellet stove sales Rebates up to $500 offered by air quality districts	1813 of all types, no breakdown	0
Great Eastern Ontario Woodstove Changeout, '99	Eastern Ontario	HPAC	January 8 – March 8, 1999	27	Average $150	wood-wood 113	public 8
Great Woodstove Changeout & Ed. program	Georgian Bay Watershed, Ontario	HPAC $55,700	February 26 – April 30, 2001	24	10 – 15 %	wood-wood 85	public 12 1210 participants total
Annapolis Valley Woodstove Changeout, NS '02	Annapolis Valley, NS	Annapolis Valley Home Builders' Association $44,699	Februrary 1 – March 15, 2002	7	$250	wood-wood 50	public 6
Okanagan Valley Woodstove Changeout, BC 02	Okanagan Valley	Western Hearth Products Association	January 25 – March 11, 2002	20	15% off	wood-wood 111	public 8 professional 3

Exchange program budgets

Income:

· The 1995 BC changeout (45 days) had a $30k budget of which only $5k was from government. The rest was raised from private sector partners including equipment manufacturers, distributors and dealers, gas companies, and hearth trade/training associations. Gas companies sponsored the program because this BC changeout was "fuel neutral", meaning that rebates were provided if conventional stoves and inserts were upgraded with wood- or gas- burning appliances.

· The 1997 NS Healthy Woodstove Campaign (7 days) had a $50k budget of which almost $28k was defined as in-kind contributions. About $18k was from the provincial and federal governments, and $4k was cash raised from industry.

· The 1998 Northern California changeout (45 days) had a budget of about US$44k, but the project report did not indicate the sources of the money.

· The Annapolis Valley Changeout 2002 had a cash budget of almost $45k, plus in-kind income of about $69k. Of the cash income, $30k was from the Federal Government, $10k was from the NS Government and the remainder was from the hearth and insurance industries.

Note that all changeout programs tend to have large in-kind contributions in the form of financial incentives, retailer advertising, retail staff time in workshop organization, burn display staffing and so on. Only a few of the changeout program budgets reflect these contributions and none provided a breakdown of how they were distributed.

Expense:

· Over 80 percent of the 1995 BC changeout budget was spent on advertising and promotion. The remainder was spent on communications and reporting.

· Of the $18k cash budget for the 1997 Healthy Woodstove Campaign in NS, about $10k was spent on advertising and promotion and the rest was spent on coordination and administrative labour and materials.

· 75% of the US$44k budget for the 1998 Northern California changeout was used to hire a public relations firm to do media relations and develop creative materials. The rest was spent on web site development, printing, postage and communications.

· The Georgian Bay Changeout had a strong public information campaign. Of its $55k budget, almost 90 percent was spent on workshops, publications and the burn trailer display.

Stated objectives of past exchange programs

· BC, 1995: "support the new Provincial Legislation" limiting emissions from new stoves.

· NB 1997: "help reduce the emission of pollutants from domestic wood stoves" through changeout and public education on proper burning techniques.

· NS 1997: "raising the awareness" of safe and efficient wood heating and "encourage Nova Scotians to take action" to burn wood more efficiently and take advantage of incentives for change.

· NB 1997: "increase outdoor and indoor air quality", encourage WETT certification for dealers, improve public understanding of wood heat issues

· NC/N HPA 1998: "encourage homeowners, through incentives, to trade-in uncertified dirty burning wood stoves and replace them with new, EPA Certified clean burning appliances."

· NEHPA 1998: same as NC/N HPA above.

· NC/N HPA 1999: See above.

· Eastern Ontario 1999: two components: "a public education program, with public workshops, newspaper ads and media events" and "a changeout program with rebates".

· Georgian Bay 2001: "promote and support actions to improve air quality and energy efficiency of residential wood heating appliances" "reduce air pollutants, increase energy efficiency and improve safety in the home"

· Annapolis Valley 2002: "to test the promotional materials" for Burn it Smart; "educate the wood-burning public about safe and healthy wood burning practices", and "administer a woodstove changeout program with participating local dealers"

· Okanagan Valley 2002: "to improve air quality", "to help those who heat with wood to improve burning practices", "to provide incentives" to upgrade, and "provide educational opportunities" for agencies responsible for and supportive of wood heat safety.

Summary of typical catch phrases used in exchange programs

· Let's clear the air; Wanted: Old wood stoves and gas logs (BC, 1995)

· Save Tons!; The clean heat woodstove exchange will help you save money and help save the environment. (NE USA 1998)

· Keep home fires clean; Clear something up with your neighbours; The Great Stove Changeout is our way to help you make the right choice. (N. Cal./Nevada 1998)

· Stove program spares the air; Bustin' the Belchers; (N. Cal./Nevada 1999)

· Wood shouldn't smoke!; Trade in rebate now; Burn wood right; Clean and efficient wood heat; Stop wood smoke; Trade in your old woodburning stove or fireplace for a new clean-burning EPA model; Upgrade your wood burner with a new clean-burning EPA stove or fireplace. (Eastern Ontario 1999)

· Don't let your wood go up in smoke (Georgian Bay, 2001)

· Burn it Smart; Old stove trade in; Wanted: the Belcher gang; cartoon woodstoves named: The Creosote Kid, Black Bart Belcher, and Smokin' Joe; More heat and less smoke; Learn to burn smart; Use up to 1/3 less wood, Up to 90% less smoke and pollution. (Okanagan Valley 2002)

Recommendations for future exchange programs; Georgian Bay 2001

This was the best list of thoughtful recommendations from all changeout reports:

· Establish a full time contact person to go on the road and visit the various retail locations to ensure full understanding of the project and its implementation. While the meetings and phone calls were helpful, often the person assigned by the store manager to the project was not the one sitting in on the meetings and therefore was continually playing catch-up.

· Provide more time for a longer planning and implementation period. This would allow for more time to get around, set up better systems, promote the program within the industry and ensure all the manufacturers were on board.

· Emphasize the success of the burn displays and inform retailers on how to book the display for regional shows. Also consider providing / creating a set of plans for those considering building their own display.

· While it is recognized that more changeouts would occur if an EPA type regulation was in place, it is not the case at this time. It should nonetheless be noted that The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) ministers have committed to developing a regulation by 2005 as part of Joint Initial Actions to reduce woodstove emissions.

· Clear guidelines are needed about roles and responsibilities of the participants (dealers) in order to ensure consistency and a full understanding of the program.

· With several instructors, it is recommended that the program implement training for the trainers to enable a better understanding of the program and the messages, a familiarity with the materials and practice setting up and running the stove display.

· Incentives were established by the manufacturers on an individual basis so the rebate offered often varied from brand to brand and in some cases, product to product.

Partnerships

Dealers, manufacturers and their trade organization: HPBAC

For a non-specialist agency like CAF to successfully lead wood stove exchange programs, critical partnerships must be established between it and the wood heat retailers in the region. These relationships can make or break the entire program, so considerable effort needs to be invested in cultivating them.

An operational partnership with HPBAC would be a good way to identify, notify and mobilize dealers and assist in establishing links with manufacturers. The cooperation and active participation of wood heat retailers is essential to success because they deal with the end user, make use of local media, and can influence the involvement of manufacturers. But a key to having dealer buy-in is to have a working relationship with their association. Another good reason to establish strong links with HPBAC is that it has by far the most experience in organizing exchange/educational programs and a good track record of success.

Trained sales people, installers and chimney sweeps: WETT

There are several good reasons to cultivate an active partnership with Wood Energy Technology Transfer Inc., the national training agency for wood energy professionals. These include:

· WETT has a credible communications capacity with its network of certificate holders and this can be used as one of the ways to get hearth industry people on board with a program.

· WETT is an entirely private sector training – not trade – organization with no direct government support, and its professional certification system is voluntary. Nevertheless, it serves a quasi-regulatory role in the area of wood burning safety. WETT depends on endorsement from government, the insurance industry and the hearth trade association to grow its membership by driving people to seek WETT certification. It is therefore important that any exchange program includes, as one of its theme messages: "Use the services of WETT certified personnel."

· Its certificate holders represent the core of well-informed and trained retailers, technicians and sweeps in Canada. While the use of WETT certified personnel is no guaranty that an installation will comply with code in every respect, experience has shown that do-it-yourself installations and those done by untrained people almost never meet code. As discussed earlier, safety is an important preoccupation of people who burn wood at home, and linking the exchange messages with messages about wood heat safety and WETT is a natural fit.

· WETT Inc. has recently built a burn trailer and has participated in past changeouts. It is an informed and supportive partner that can add substantially to the overall partnership picture.

Government

No matter how one adjusts the budget, there is no way to deliver a wood stove exchange program using only private sector resources. The main areas where government help is needed is in financing the administration and management functions of the program lead agent. It is important that the government officials with whom CAF would collaborate in establishing a sound rationale for public sector participation understand clearly from the outset that wood stove exchange programs are primarily about raising public awareness and changing behaviour, and not just counting the number of stove exchanges. This theme has emerged repeatedly from expert informants interviewed for this project.

It has also been pointed out that the size of financial incentive that can be offered by manufacturers and retailers is insufficient to encourage a sizeable number of changeouts at times of the year in which householders are usually reluctant to change stoves. One reason for this problem that is not immediately apparent is that only in rare cases can a conventional stove be simply removed and replaced with an advanced stove with no other costs. Often there are hearth and shielding modifications, and in many cases, flue pipe and chimney upgrades are needed. Retailers report that customers are highly disappointed when, on a total upgrade cost of as much as $3,000, the rebate is only $150. In one changeout program, two chimney manufacturers agreed to offer discounts for venting equipment purchases linked to changed out stoves. This represents one option for increasing the financial incentive, particularly in recognition of the extra costs that can be involved. Government and other corporate partners could consider topping up the incentive by approximately matching the rebate dollar amount on stoves offered at the retail level.

Some provincial governments, most notably Nova Scotia and British Columbia, have invested in changeout programs in the past. At the very least their endorsement of exchange programs would be valuable. Their financial sponsorship and direct involvement would be even better.

Municipal governments, mostly through their fire departments, have invested in local events associated exchange programs. In the case of the Okanagan region of BC, municipalities have actively participated in and organized past changeout programs. Since the most effective programs have involve intensive public information activities at the local level, having municipal government involvement could be helpful, if only to endorse fire department participation.

Insurance industry

The insurance industry has collaborated with the hearth industry for many years on efforts to improve wood heat safety. While it is unlikely that insurance trade organizations would actively support or fund a wood stove exchange program, individual companies could see an advantage in linking their messages to this kind of initiative. To reduce fire risk, insurance companies strongly encourage their policy holders to upgrade wood burning systems to meet code requirements. Exchange programs encourage the public to upgrade to cleaner burning appliances, which are acknowledged to be safer because they reduce the risk of chimney fire, a type of fire that has cost the insurance industry millions of dollars over the past 25 years. Exchanges also promote the services of WETT certified retailers, technicians and chimney sweeps, which is the same message the insurance industry has been putting out for years. Therefore, a strong rationale can be made for insurance industry co-sponsoring of exchanges.

Health and environmental groups

Some health and environmental NGOs have an interest in communicating with the wood burning public. For example, provincial lung associations have developed specific materials on the perils of wood smoke inside and outside the house. Similarly the environmental group Eco Superior has an interest in discouraging the burning of garbage in wood stoves. These groups can lend support to the changeout messages, particularly at wood heat workshops. Some caution is advisable in selecting this kind of partner and endorsing their approach through providing time in workshop agendas. Sometimes inexperienced communicators with single issue agencies use inappropriate language, scare tactics and overtly anti-wood burning messages in attempts to influence public behaviour. This type of problem has arisen during wood heat workshops and tends to detract from the essential and effective messages. While environmental and health messages are welcome and important, the exchange program organizer should maintain control and ensure that one partner's activities to not blunt or counteract the main communications objectives.

Joining forces to communicate with the public

Past focus group research has revealed that the public responds positively to a message if it is delivered by several sources, even if a few of the sources are not necessarily viewed as entirely credible. Therefore, when government, industry and non-profit organizations all stand together (figuratively) to deliver the same message, it is likely to be accepted by most members of the public. This is why the most successful public workshops on wood heating tend to be hosted by the local fire department and at which representatives of government environment ministry, the regional Lung Association, local insurance companies and wood heat retailers and chimney sweeps all take a part in the presentation. Therefore, seeking active partners not just for financial contributions, but to share in delivering messages to the public is helpful in meeting the communications and educational objectives of exchange programs.

Feasibility of CAF leadership of exchange programs

Obstacles/issues:

There are a number of issues that tend to complicate the delivery of exchange programs and present obstacles to success. These problems are not necessarily insurmountable, and, provided they are addressed appropriately, would not compromise the success or viability of such programs.

· The absence of a comprehensive national regulation on new wood burning appliance emissions is a serious gap. Having the regulation in place would be helpful by validating pollution avoidance claims made by private sector proponents. Also, mass merchandizers now promote less expensive conventional stoves, sometimes by casting doubt on the effectiveness of advanced technology equipment, and this message acts to counteract the exchange program message. For example, one informant reported that some retailers tell customers that the conventional stoves they sell are for serious heating, unlike the fancier EPA models that may make less smoke, but are not practical for heating houses. Only a national regulation can resolve this kind of problem and deliver a clear message to Canadians.

· Mobilizing small retailers and many manufacturers is harder than other industries where the key participants are fewer and larger. The ease of dealing only with large manufacturers and mass merchandisers would theoretically make exchange program management and delivery easier, but it would undermine those who know most and have worked hardest to achieve program objectives. This issue constitutes perhaps the biggest obstacle to CAF leadership of wood stove exchange programs, since its major programs to date have involved relatively few large corporations, which makes funding and administration simpler. Clearly, however, the very characteristics of wood heating mean that a far larger number of smaller companies and organizations need to be engaged to make an exchange program successful.

· The business cycle windows of opportunity don't match good marketing windows for exchange messages. People are most responsive to wood stove advertising in the Fall, but industry will only provide exchange program incentives outside the busy season in the Fall. Most exchange programs are scheduled in the period January through March, which is a good time for public workshops, but not such a good time to influence exchanges.

· Creating sufficient incentive, mostly financial, to move householders into action during the program period is a serious challenge. Industry alone does not tend to offer large enough incentives, usually between 10 and 15% of the purchase price. Supplementary incentives would help trigger more exchanges. In at least one regional changeout programs, chimney manufacturers agreed to provide incentives for venting system upgrades. This option could be explored further.

· While a continuous exchange program might be advantageous from a delivery perspective, it could compromise dealer margins by forcing not just exchange discounts, but discounts for all buyers.

· Without significant resources and staff, a province-wide exchange would be superficial and lack educational components (e.g. See BC changeout '95). It appears that the more intensive the exchange program effort, the more successful it is in terms of dealer participation, changeouts and attendance at workshops.

· The technical dimension of wood heating means technically qualified partners/staff are required to maintain credibility. This issue also extends to working with retailers.

· The technical content and industry features demand a critical linkage with the industry groups HPBAC and WETT. These partnerships would be advantageous in other ways as well.

· The exchange program imperative of removing changed out stoves from the air shed is deeply resisted both by householders and dealers. Many buyers have foregone the incentive in order to keep their old stove for a shop, cottage or for resale. There is a general view among typically frugal wood burners that destroying old stoves is wasteful and unnecessary. It has been suggested that some compromise of this principle may be necessary to make the overall changeout message more palatable. One suggestion is that customers undertake to use the old stove only for occasional use in a shop or cottage, but that it wouldn't be used for full time heating. It could be argued, however, that this compromise would blur the environmental message and make program claims to pollution reduction suspect.

· A simple, effective stove recycling system is needed to establish credibility of exchange program and provide potential media events. This means establishing relationships with recyclers. Also, the costs of moving these stoves must be financed somewhere in exchange program budgets.

Advantages/opportunities

The Clean Air Foundation is a particularly good agency to take the lead on wood stove exchange programs. Following are some reasons why CAF is well-suited to this program.

· CAF is 'in the business' of exchange programs and understands environmental messaging, purchaser dynamics, business linkages/partnership programs, etc. In other words it is well-placed, has the correct mandate and has an established track record.

· CAF can be a better lead agent than the industry associations because it does not have a commercial taint, which has been at least a minor irritant in previous changeouts. CAF leadership would permit clearer, more credible messaging with media and with the public directly.

· Considering that all its programs have technical content, CAF is more comfortable with some practical/technical content and commercial environment than other possible lead agents, i.e. Lung Associations.

· The CAF may permit a more comfortable fit with government funding programs than other optional lead agents.

· The CAF web site is a good reference point and permanent, full-time presence for the wood stove exchange program information, and current and planned events.

· If CAF successfully piloted an exchange program and determined that its permanent involvement was possible and would make a meaningful contribution to improved air quality resulting from residential wood heating, it could develop a specialized expertise in delivering wood stove exchanges. The result would be lower costs once the various program elements were established and delivery efficiencies were improved.

A case study on cost sharing

A wood stove exchange is a complex project, even if its activities are limited to purchase incentives. This is because a number of agencies and companies must share the costs and labour inputs to make the program work.

Wood stove exchange programs are highly variable in their design and execution so it is impossible to provide a universally applicable plan. However, it is useful to investigate a scenario in detail, one that could serve as a framework for cost projections and planning. The following scenario, presented as an annotated budget, is centred around a single 'cell' within a larger regional program (see Table 11). The cell is based on the location of a public workshop in a town served by two participating wood heat retailers. A typical regional exchange program would have eight to twelve such cells.

Table 11

Cost estimate for one local cell of larger exchange program

Description of activity or expenditure	# of units	Unit price	Cost
Local/regional private, non-profit, or community investments
Dealer¹: financial incentive for changeout (shared with manufacturers)	15	$150	$2250
Dealer²: financial incentive for changeout	7	$150	$1050
Dealer¹: advertising	4	$350	$1400
Dealer²: advertising	2	$350	$700
Dealer¹ & Dealer²: labour for workshop organization and hosting	16	$30	$480
Dealer¹ & Dealer²: door prizes for workshop	1	$300	$300
Fire department hosting expenses in kind	1	$400	$400
Lung Association (or other health agency) rep. workshop attendance, publications, etc	1	$500	$500
Total local/regional private, non-profit, or community investments			$7080
Supplementary corporate and public sector investment required
Burn trailer rental, transportation, staffing, etc, combined $150/h	8	$150	$1200
Changeout lead agent: management, administration, media relations, printing, communications (including web site), reporting, etc.; average labour rate $50/h	40	$50	$2000
Changeout lead agent rep: two visits each to two dealers (16h) and 5 phone calls to each dealer (4h), attendance at workshop (8h) plus expenses	28	$50	$1400
Total supplementary investment required			$4600
Total expenditures for this cell during exchange program			$11,680

This model reflects the general experience of past changeouts in Canada. The projected number of changed out stoves per dealer is linked to the size of the financial incentive and to the level of effort expended by the dealer in promoting the program. If the incentive were doubled to about $300, it is likely that the number of changeouts made during a program would also increase substantially.

Based on this estimate, a regional wood stove exchange program with 10 cities/towns in which workshops are based would have a total budget of $116,800, of which the required supplementary corporate and government funding would be $46,000.

A commentary on feasibility

The question of feasibility is closely tied to the initial objectives and expectations of exchange programs. For example, if the objective is limited to removing and recycling old polluting stoves and replacing them with clean burning stoves, then feasibility is questionable, given the small incentives offered in past changeout programs and the relatively small number of exchanges that resulted. Judged solely on the basis of the number of stoves exchanged, few if any Canadian changeout programs conducted so far could be considered successful in light of the amount of resources expended.

On the other hand, a program with a broader set of objectives – the changing of burning practices to reduce emissions, influencing people not to burn garbage in their wood stoves, communicating the advantages of new technology as a way to encourage future upgrades, and generally raising public awareness of pollution issues related to residential wood burning – could be considered a success even if the total number of exchanges was relatively small. But these outcomes are difficult to measure, both in terms of pollution prevention and in terms of the effective use of financial and human resources.

The air impacts of wood burning can never be totally eliminated because of the nature of the fuel. However, it is clear that emissions can be reduced substantially through a combination of advanced technology and improved user practices. It should be recognized that upgrading all wood burning equipment to advanced technology units will take decades, not least because there is still no advanced equipment available in some appliance categories. Therefore, a short-term pollution prevention strategy could be to help users to improve their wood burning practices.

The extent of pollution prevention possible through improved user practice could theoretically be modelled by measuring emissions from a specific system before and after information was provided to its users, but this would be a complex and challenging research endeavour. A simpler alternative would be to assess, through survey research, the penetration of messages delivered to a specific population. Awareness of a key concept, such as the idea that visible wood smoke is a sign that the user is not burning wood effectively, could be determined. Presumably, if such an idea became common knowledge in a community a reduction in wood smoke could be expected to result over time.

Without strong government commitment to a broad set of objectives, some of which cannot easily be evaluated, the CAF would be unable to successfully deliver wood stove exchange programs. However, the leadership of CAF in the delivery of exchange programs in Ontario is feasible if there is strong public sector support to complement industry advertising, incentives and labour. This support is essential because of the management and administrative burden inherent in dealing with equipment and service industries made up mostly of small businesses, and in delivering a program with multiple dimensions and requiring multiple partners for success.

Appendix A Sources and quality of data used in this study

The field of residential wood burning is not thoroughly studied and analysed in Canada and the statistical studies that are available tend to be flawed in various ways and not consistent with one another. Therefore, while this study makes extensive use of existing statistical data, the reader should use caution in the interpretation and application of this information, particularly for making specific projections and drawing specific conclusions.

Unfortunately, the Statistics Canada Household Facilities and Equipment report, which was until recently the most complete and authoritative source of residential wood combustion statistics, has been discontinued. Now StatsCan only provides limited information which prevents its use as a complete source of data on wood as a primary heating fuel, as a supplementary heating fuel, and for use in fireplaces for enjoyment. As a result, the only source of complete is specialized surveys which can be problematic because they ask different questions and may be developed by different contractors. As a result, most of the available studies should be characterized as 'snap shots', lacking the advantage of trend tracking, and being suspect in terms of accuracy.

Primary sources of statistical data.

· The Canadian Facts Spring 1997 survey was mailed on April 2 to some 26,822 CFO (Canadian Family Opinion) panel households. Some 17,680 questionnaires were returned and processed. The urban/rural analysis of the 1997 data was done in a subsequent report in 1999. This survey was commissioned by the Pollution Data Branch of Environment Canada for the purpose of developing an emission inventory for residential wood burning and was the first serious attempt to do so.

· The Natural Resources Canada 1993 Survey of Household Energy Use (SHEU) was a telephone survey of 15,182 conducted by Statistics Canada as a complement to its monthly Labour Force Survey.

· The NRCan1997 Survey of Household Energy Use was conducted in the homes of 4,563 respondents and was conducted by Statistics Canada.

The data quality problems stem mainly from the design of the surveys themselves. It is apparent that survey designers, knowing little about the subject area, assume that users of wood burning equipment know much more than they do about the subject and will be able to accurately answer questions about their own wood burning activities. A close analysis of survey results suggest that this assumption is not warranted. Errors by respondents appear to occur in two important areas: fuel consumption and appliance identification.

In the case of fuel consumption figures, a significant difference in results is evident among the various studies. The most dramatic discrepancy was found between the results of the 1997 Canadian Facts mail out survey that found that overall average household wood consumption was 3.3 full cords, and the 1997 SHEU in-home survey that determined an average of 2.3 full cords. Environment Canada ultimately used the lower figure in developing its emissions inventory because of evidence that the higher figure had a lower confidence level for a variety of reasons.

In the case of appliance identification, there is reason to suspect that wood appliance users are not always able to define their appliance in specific terms. For example in the Canadian Facts survey, the only one available that subdivides wood burning appliances into conventional and advanced categories, a roughly equal number of advanced wood stove owners identified their appliances as being catalytic as non-catalytic. This reveals a lack of awareness on the part of respondents because a passing familiarity with the Canadian wood stove market makes clear that it is dominated by non-catalytic wood stoves, with catalytic stoves occupying perhaps ten percent of the market at most. This uncertainty about appliance descriptions may extend to what constitutes advanced technology, and the distinction between factory-built fireplaces, fireplace inserts and metal heat forms for masonry fireplaces, all of which are known to confuse homeowners.