Preference changes depending on age groups of criteria affecting the real estate value

Abstract

In this study, whether or not the criteria affecting plot value changes depending on age was investigated in Ankara, Konya and Kayseri, which are three major cities of The Central Anatolian Region in Turkey, through survey method. 2,531 respondents, who were 18 and older, were included in the survey based on a technical viewpoint. Respondents consisted of 559 experts and 1,915 citizens. Fifty seven survey forms were considered invalid for several reasons and excluded from evaluation. The experts were selected from among people who worked on real estate valuation by using The Purposeful Sampling Method. The citizens were chosen from among people who could as well be agents in purchase and sale of the real estate by using The Simple Random Sampling Method. The survey questions were prepared on a Five-Point Likert Scale. These were made up of a total 82 questions and two main titles as locational (64 criteria) and neighbourhood (18 criteria) features (except for demographic questions). The age of the respondents was classified into six different groups. Whether or not averages of criteria were significantly different depending on the age groups was tested by ANOVA. Differences between the age groups were determined through several criteria.

Keywords

• Real Estate Valuation
• Plot
• Criteria
• Survey
• Age

References

1. Açlar, A., Demir, H., & Çağdaş, V., 2003. Taşınmaz değerleme uzmanlığı ve Jeodezi-Fotogrametri (Harita) Mühendisliği [Real estate valuation expert and Geodesy- Photogrammetri (Map) Engineering], HKM Jeodezi, Jeoinformasyon ve Arazi Yönetimi, 88, 15-20.
2. Altunışık, Remzi., Çoşkun, Recai., Bayraktaroğlu, Serkan., & Yıldırım, Engin., 2010. Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: SPSS uygulamalı [Research methods in social sciences: SPSS applied]. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
3. Bender, A., Din, A., Hoesli, M., & Brocher, S., 2000. Environmental preferences of homeowners, further evidence using the AHP method. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 18(4), 445-55.
4. Bulut, B., Allahverdi, N., Kahramanlı, H., & Yalpır, Ş., 2011. A SVR based approach on real-estate valuation, International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4(15), 323- 333.
5. Çakır, P., & Sesli, A. F., 2013. Arsa vasıflı taşınmazların değerine etki eden faktörlerin ve bu faktörlerin önem sıralarının belirlenmesi [Determination of factors affecting the real-estate value of land property and the rank of importance of these factors]. Harita Teknolojileri Elektronik Dergisi, 5(3), 1-16.
6. Damigos, D., & Anyfantis, F., 2011. The value of view through the eyes of real estate experts: A fuzzy delphi approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 171-78. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.009
7. Doğan, N., & Doğan, İ., 2014. Birinci tür hata’nın kontrolü ve adımsal (stepwise) çoklu karşılaştırma testleri [Control of type I error and stepwise multiple comparison tests]. Düzce Üniversitesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(1), 28-33.
8. El-Gohary, M., 2004. Property valuation model effect of traffic noise on property value. ECE 557 Project, 1-4.

9. Gulnar, B., 2007. Araştırma görevlilerinin iş tatminini sağlama aracı olarak örgütsel iletişim ve iletişim doyumu: kamu ve özel üniversite karşılaştırması [Organizational communication and communication satisfaction as a means of job satisfaction for research assistants: A comparison between public and private universities]. Doktora tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Halkla İlişkiler ve Tanıtım A.B.D., Araştırma Yöntemleri Bilim Dalı, Konya.
10. Hammer, T.R., Coughlin, R.E., & Horn IV., E.T., 1974. The effect of a large urban park on real estate value. Journal of the American Planning Association, 40(4), 274-77. doi: 10.1080/01944367408977479
11. Henry, E.N.N., 2013. From turtle populations to property values: The effects of lakeshore residential development and the invasive zebra mussel. PhD diss., Michigan State University, Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan.
12. Hurma, H., Kubaş, A., & İnan, İ.H., 2012. Emlak yönetiminde gayrimenkul değerlerine etki eden faktörlerin analizi. Namık Kemal Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 1, Tekirdağ.
13. IBM, 2015. One-Way ANOVA Post Hoc Tests, Available at: , [Accessed Date: October 25, 2015].
14. Jim, C.Y., & Chen, W.Y., 2009. Value of Scenic Views: Hedonic Assessment of Private Housing in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 226-34. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.009
15. Kayri, M., 2009. Araştırmalarda gruplar arası farkın belirlenmesine yönelik çoklu karşılaştırma (Post-Hoc) teknikleri [Multiple comparison (Post-Hoc) techniques for determining of the difference between groups in researches]. Fırat Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 51-64.
16. Köktürk, E., 2009. Taşınmaz değerleme: Durum saptaması ve yönelimler [Real estate valuation: Situation detection and trends]. 12. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve Teknik Kurultayı, Paper presented at Twelfth Turkey Map Scientific and Technical Conference, Ankara, May 11-15.
17. Kryvobokov, M., 2005. Estimating the weights of location attributes with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Donetsk, Ukraine. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 2(2), 5-29.
18. Kuşan, H., Aytekin, O., & Özdemir, İ., 2010. The use of fuzzy logic in predicting house selling price. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 1808-1813.
19. Lipscomb, C.A., Wang, Y., & Kilpatrick, S.J., 2012. Unconventional shale gas development and real estate valuation issues. The Official Journal of the Southern Regional Science Association, 42, 161-75.
20. Mortgage Calculator, 2016. The History of American Mortgage, Available at: , [Accessed Date: April 3, 2016].
21. Muehlenbachs, L., Spiller, E., & Timmins, C., 2015. The housing market ımpacts of shale gas development. American Economic Review, 105(12), 3633-59.
22. Nişancı, R., 2005. CBS ile nominal değerleme yöntemine dayalı piksel tabanlı kentsel taşınmaz değer haritalarının üretilmesi [The production of pixel based urban land value maps with nominal valuation method using GIS]. Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Jeodezi ve Fotogrametri Mühendisliği A.B.D., Trabzon.
23. OECD, 2015. Health Spending and Health at a Glance 2015, OECD Indicators, Available at: and , [Accessed Date: March 8, 2016].
24. Psych Colorado, 2015. Multiple Comparison Procedures, Available at: , [Accessed Date: October 25, 2015].
25. Real Estate Tax Law, 1970. 1319 Numbered [1319 Sayılı Emlak Vergisi Kanunu], Yayımlandığı Resmi Gazete Sayısı 13576.
26. Ridker, R.G., & Henning, J. A., 1967. The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 49(2), 246-57.
27. Selim, H., 2009. Determinants of house prices in Turkey: Hedonic regression versus artificial neural network. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 2843- 2852.
28. Szczepanska, A., Senetra, A., & Wasilewicz- Pszczołkowska, M., 2015. The effect of road traffic noise on the prices of residential property–A case study of The Polish City of Olsztyn. Transportation Research Part D, 36, 167-77.
29. Teker, S., Önden, İ., & Hekimoğlu, H., 2012. İstanbul Finans Merkezi Projesi ve Bölgesindeki Emlak Fiyatlarına Etkisi, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(4) 62-76.
30. TKGM, 2015. İllere Göre Tapu İstatistik Bilgilerinin Dağılımı 2015, Available at: , [Accessed Date: July 13, 2016].
31. TUIK, 2015. İllerin Nüfusu, Yıllık Artış Hızı ve Net Göç Hızı 2015, Available at: , [Accessed Date: July 13, 2016].
32. Turaman, C., 2001. Yaşlı sağlığı hizmetlerinin birinci basamakta planlanması [Planning elderly care at the basic level of health services]. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics, 4(1), 22-27.
33. UNECE WPLA 2001. Land (real estate) mass valuation systems for taxation purposes in Europe, Moscow: The Federal Land Cadastre Service of Russia, Available at: , [Accessed Date: March 3, 2015].
34. UNECE WPLA 2014. Survey on land administration systems, Geneva: United Nations, Available at: , [Accessed Date: March 3, 2015].
35. USPAP 2013. The uniform standards of professional appraisal practice, The United States of America: The Appraisal Foundation, Available at: , [Accessed Date: March 5, 2015].
36. Yalpir, S. 2007. Bulanık mantık metodolojisi ile taşınmaz değerleme modelinin geliştirilmesi ve uygulaması: Konya örneği [The Development and application of a real-estate valuation model with fuzzy logic methodology: Konya case study]. Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Jeodezi ve Fotogrametri Mühendisliği A.B.D., Konya.
37. Yalpir, S., Durduran, S.S., Unel F.B., & Yolcu, M., 2014. Creating a valuation map in GIS through Artificial Neural Network Methodology: A case study. Acta Montanistica Slovaca, 19(2), 89-99.
38. Yomralıoğlu, T., 1993. A nominal asset value-based approach for land readjustment and its implementation using Geographical Information Systems. PhD diss., University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Department of Surveying, UK.
39. Yomralıoğlu, T., 1997. Taşınmazların değerlendirilmesi ve kat mülkiyeti mevzuatı [Assessment of real estate and legislation of condominium ownership]. Trabzon: JEFOD-Kentsel Alan Düzenlemelerinde İmar Planı Uygulama Teknikleri.
40. YSK, 2015. İl/İlçe Seçmen ve Sandık Sayıları 2015, Available at: , [Accessed Date: July 13, 2016].
41. Zheng, S., Cao, J., Kahn, M.E., & Sun, C., 2014. Real estate valuation and cross-boundary air pollution externalities: Evidence from Chinese Cities. J Real Estate Finan Econ, 48, 398-414. doi: 10.1007/s11146- 013-9405-4
42. Zoning Law, 1985. 3194 Numbered [3194 Sayılı İmar Kanunu]. Yayımlandığı Resmi Gazete Sayısı: 18749.