Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

Efficacy in Modelling Location Within the Mass Appraisal Process

Author/s: Tony Lockwood, Peter Rossini

Date Published: 1/01/2011

Published in: Volume 17 - 2011 Issue 3 (pages 418 - 442)

Abstract

Although Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has long been recognised as a natural partner in the computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) process, it has not always been clear how CAMA management (practitioners) may be able to utilise this partnership to produce regular re-assessments at an acceptable level of accuracy and cost. The objective of this study is to help demonstrate how this may occur by examining the accuracy generated by various simple, transparent and cost effective approaches traditionally used to model location as part of the CAMA process and compare the accuracy of the predicted result to that generated by using an integrated GIS environment to model location. Models were constructed to account for ‘location’ in three ways. They are firstly, in an a priori fashion based on established suburb and post code administrative boundaries. Secondly, by utilising the GIS to generate location factors based on the residuals of location ‘blind’ global hedonic models and creating an interpolated location factor surface that can be applied to global hedonic models to give a predicted value. Finally, by using hedonic Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) that allows the regression coefficients to vary across geographic space in response to local variation. These last two approaches take advantage of the parcel’s spatial coordinates to model location within a GIS environment. All three approaches are used to generate values using available secondary data normally collected as part of the determination of capital market value integrated within the spatial framework of a digital cadastre. The results indicate an acceptable degree of accuracy can be achieved when using basic hedonic GWR models that account for location in an intuitively simple way, thus providing transparency and efficiency to the mass appraisal process. GWR accounts for location giving comparatively more accurate results at little or no extra cost.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2011.11104335.pdf 14445921.2011.11104335.pdf (244kB)

Keywords

Geographic Information Systems - Geographically Weighted Regression - Location - Mass Appraisal

References

  • Adair, A., J. Berry, et al. (1996). “Hedonic Modelling, housing submarkets and residential valuation.” Journal of Property Research (1): 67–83.
  • Adair, A. S., J. N. Berry, et al. (2000). “The Local Housing System in Craigavon, N. Ireland: Ethno-religious Residential Segregation. Socio-tenurial Polarisation and Sub-markets.” Urban Studies (7): 1079–1092.
  • Borst, R. and W. McCluskey (2008). “Using Geographically Weighted Regression to Detect Housing Submarkets: Modelling Large-Scale Spatial Variations in Value.” Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration (1).
  • Bourassa, S., E. Cantoni, et al. (2007). “Spatial Dependence, Housing Submarkets, and House Price Prediction.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economic143160.
  • Chhetri, P., R. Stimson, et al. (2006). “Modelling the Factors of Neighbourhood Attractiveness Reflected in Residential Location Decision Choices.” Chiikigaku Kenkyu (Studies in Regional Science) (2): 393–417.
  • Clapp, J. (2003), “A Semiparametric Method for Valuing Residential Locations: Application to Automated Valuation”. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 27:303–320.
  • Eckert, J., Ed. (1990). Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers.
  • Fotheringham, A., C. Brunsdon, et al. (2002). Geographically Weighted Regression the analysis of spatially varying relationships, Wiley.
  • Gallimore, P., M. Fletcher, et al. (1996). “Modelling the Influence of Location on Value.” Journal of Property Valuation and Investment (1): 6–19.
  • Galster, G. (1996). “William Grigsby and the Analysis of Housing Sub-markets and Filtering.” Urban Studies (10): 1797–1805.
  • Goodman, A. and T. Thibodeau (2003). “Housing market segmentation and hedonic prediction accuracy.” Journal of Housing Economic181–201.
  • Kauko, T. and M. d’Amato, Eds. (2008). Mass Appraisal Methods An international perspective for property valuers. Real Estate Issues. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Ming, Y. and K. Siu (2003). “Refining the Effects of Location on Computer Assisted Rating Valutaion.” Pacific Rim Property Research Journal (3): 224–247.
  • Moore, W. and J. Myers (2010). “Using Geographic-attribute Weighted Regression for CAMA Modeling.” Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration (3): 5–28.
  • O’Connor and Eichenbaum (1988). “Location Value Response Surfaces: The Geometry of Advanced Mass Appraisal.” Property Tax Journal (3): 277–296.
  • Rossini, P. and P. Kershaw (2008). Automated Valuation Model Accuracy: Some Empirical Testing. 14th Pacific Rim Real Estate Conference. Kuala Lumpur.
  • Tobler, W. (1970). “A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region.” Economic Geography (Supplement): 234–240.
  • Ward, R. (2006). “Developing Location Effects Using Cluster Analysis with Response Surface Analysis.” Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration (2): 5–17.
  • Ward, R. D., J. R. Weaver, et al. (1999). “Improving CAMA Models Using Geographic Information Systems/Response Surface Analysis Location Factors.” Assessment Journal (1): 30–39.