Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of a survey conducted by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to discuss the extent to which qualified valuers have adapted their valuation practices in the light of guidance published by RICS in respect of sustainability and commercial property. The findings are placed within a wider debate between assessment of market value and investment value (worth).

The paper is a theoretical discussion incorporating the results from an empirical survey of valuation practitioners.

The paper reveals that guidance published by RICS in 2011 has achieved limited, but variable, impact in terms of impacting on valuation practice due to a combination of factors including lack of knowledge of the guidance, non-requirement of clients to request sustainability reporting within valuations, paucity of data. It found that where worth (investment value) is required, sustainability factors are more likely to impact the calculation than where an estimate of market value is prepared. The paper identifies theoretical problems and practical barriers hindering an integration of sustainability aspects into valuation practice.

The empirical work was conducted prior to the embedding of guidance within the mandatory provisions of the “Red Book”; the study therefore reports on a direction of travel rather than the current position. The implications for research are the requirement to enhance data capture and to seek ways to break down the barriers to more comprehensive integration of such data so that worth and market values may begin to converge.

The paper has practical implications for both the education of valuers which is proposed through the RenoValue project discussed in the paper and for the RICS in monitoring progress towards more specific integration within valuers’ calculations. Further, the paper identifies that clients and lenders have a key role to play through the instructions given to valuers.

There is now widespread recognition that properties which are not resource efficient and which are not equipped to flex to changing occupier needs may not currently be “future proofed” in investment value terms and are likely to see value erosion over time. Further, buildings have a key role in terms of climate change policy. Whilst new buildings can be mandated to meet improved efficiency standards, the ways in which buildings owners can be encouraged to upgrade will be important moving forward. One way is through a value chain response.

The survey is the most comprehensive investigation of valuer’s practice in relation to sustainability and the assessment of market value and worth undertaken. This provides a unique insight into the effectiveness of professional guidance and enables an informed discussion as to appropriate ways to enhance guidance moving forward.

This paper aims to examine the experiences of valuers when valuing market dominant and non‐dominant standard lease structures. The research compares the perceptions and approaches of New Zealand valuers when valuing gross and net leases, two standard lease types commonly utilised in the New Zealand commercial property market.

The study employs a structured survey of 87 commercial valuers practising in Auckland (where net leases dominate) and Wellington (where gross leases dominate) complemented by in‐depth interviews with senior commercial valuers employed by large national/international multidisciplinary real estate companies.

The results suggest that valuers find the process of valuing standard non‐dominant lease structures more demanding than valuing dominant leases and tend to be comparatively less confident about carrying out valuations of leases with which they are less familiar. This lack of confidence tends to result from the lack of comparable evidence and the added complexity of the valuation process requiring additional valuer expertise and judgement. In addition the study uncovers the adoption of place‐based differential valuation practices that have built up over time between the two centres under study.

The paper contributes to the literature relating to valuer behaviour by revealing that even within one country with the same rules and professional standards different valuation practices may evolve. This study specifically identifies different dominant lease structures as being one of the reasons for these differential valuation practices. The findings also highlight the difficulties perceived by valuers when valuing non‐dominant leases and in turn this may have implications when comparing the valuation outcomes of similar buildings within different markets.

Valuation of portfolio securities continues to hold the limelight in the arena of mutual fund regulation. For the last four years, mutual fund regulators have repeatedly emphasized the need to adopt or revise procedures to address valuation issues that address modern market conditions resulting from such forces as globalization and the development of derivatives and other exotic securities.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the rationale for integrating sustainability issues into property valuation theory and practice and to provide initial suggestions for valuers on how to account for sustainability issues within valuation reports.

The authors emphasise the key role of valuation professionals and of the valuation process itself in achieving a broader market penetration of sustainable construction. It is explained that, on the one hand, property valuation represents the major mechanism to align economic return with environmental and social performance of property assets, and thus to express and communicate the advantages and benefits of sustainable buildings. On the other hand, it is explained that gradual changes in market participants' perceptions in favour of sustainable buildings must be reflected within the property valuation and associated risk assessment process (otherwise valuers would produce misleading price estimates). The authors identify both the financial benefits and risk reduction potential of sustainable design as well as valuation input parameters that would allow these benefits to be reflected in property price estimates.

The authors show that the main reasons for immediately and rigorously integrating sustainability issues into property valuation are as follows: more sustainable patterns of behaviour are urgently necessary to sustain the viability of the Earth's ecosystems; a huge untapped market potential exists for sustainable property investment products and consulting services; sustainable buildings clearly outperform their conventional competitors in all relevant areas (i.e. environmentally, socially and financially); neglecting the benefits of sustainable design leads to distorted price estimates; and reflecting sustainability issues in property price estimates is already possible and the validity of this decision depends solely on the valuer's capability and sophistication to explain and justify his/her assumptions within the valuation report. However, it is also shown that efforts need to be undertaken to improve the description of property assets in transaction databases in order to provide the informational databases necessary to empirically underpin a valuer's decision to assign a “valuation bonus” to a sustainable building or a “valuation reduction” to an unsustainable/conventional one.

The paper postulates that valuation reports should be extended to include the following additional elements: a clear description of the availability of certain sustainability‐related property characteristics and attributes; a statement of the valuer's opinion about the benefits of these characteristics and attributes; and a statement of the valuer's opinion about the impact of these benefits and/or risks on property value.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

The paper addresses the practical problems which emerge when attempting to apply longitudinal approaches to the assessment of property depreciation using valuation‐based data. These problems relate to inconsistent valuation regimes and the difficulties in finding appropriate benchmarks.

The paper adopts a case study of seven major office locations around Europe and attempts to determine ten‐year rental value depreciation rates based on a longitudinal approach using IPD, CBRE and BNP Paribas datasets.

The depreciation rates range from a 5 per cent PA depreciation rate in Frankfurt to a 2 per cent appreciation rate in Stockholm. The results are discussed in the context of the difficulties in applying this method with inconsistent data.

The paper has methodological implications for measuring property investment depreciation and provides an example of the problems in adopting theoretically sound approaches with inconsistent information.

Valuations play an important role in performance measurement and cross border investment decision making and, therefore, knowledge of inconsistency of valuation practice aids decision making and informs any application of valuation‐based data in the attainment of depreciation rates.

The paper provides new insights into the use of property market valuation data in a cross‐border context, insights that previously had been anecdotal and unproven in nature.

The research investigates valuers' understanding of the value of sustainability in property and its' consideration in valuation practice in Australia. This paper explores valuers' perceptions of the relationships between sustainability and market values, sustainability and valuation variables, and the value influence of industry sustainability certification schemes. Further, this paper tracks prevalence of certified buildings in Australian commercial markets and the evolution of valuers' knowledge of sustainability certifications used in Australia.

This paper reports on the next rendition of a longitudinal study examining valuers’ practice in Australia. This research explores the evolution of Australian valuers' perception and knowledge of sustainability in valuation practice. The survey data has been periodically collected from practising valuers from 2007 to 2021. The survey questions investigate valuers' knowledge development, understanding, reporting and consideration of the relationship between sustainability and market value.

The results have identified the evolution of the influence of normative research on valuers' perceptions of the relationship between sustainability and value; with a clearer understanding emerging over time of where the value relationships are identified in valuation variables. Greater alignment between empirical Australian studies and valuers' perceptions of the influence of sustainability ratings on value, demonstrate the value connection for higher rated buildings under NABERS (energy rating) and Green Star. Whilst only 41% of the study's participants are including sustainability in their valuation reports, they include a higher level of commentary on building descriptions and initiatives, building ratings, and reporting of owner and tenant objectives, than in previous studies. Knowledge development relating to sustainability certification tool, NABERS was identified. This is likely linked to the introduction of mandatory disclosure legislation. This has also led to increased awareness and valuers' knowledge of the differences between the two key rating tools used in Australia.

The research has several limitations: firstly, recruitment of valuers and the number of valuers' responses has varied over time; secondly, due to collection methods respondents have a greater likelihood of having an interest in and knowledge of sustainability creating potential for positive bias; thirdly, respondents may have responded to the survey in different years, but due to anonymity there has been no ability to track this. The results provide insights into the Australian valuation profession but may not be fully representative of the profession overall in Australia.

The broader agenda of net zero, climate change, mitigation and carbon requirements, whether driven by market forces or government legislation, are generating changes in property markets as investors' reconsider their positions and model the implications of carbon emissions on their bottom lines. Introductions of policy and legislation over time in the Australian context have led to changes in valuation practice and increasing consideration of energy efficiency and ratings in the valuation of assets. However, further guidance and research still is required in Australia to assist in the knowledge development of valuers, and their ability to consider the emerging effects of sustainability, net zero and other market driven objectives including legislation, and how these may affect or influence their evaluation of market evidence and thus property values.

The research has tracked valuers' understanding, knowledge, and consideration of sustainability and energy efficiency in valuation practice since 2007. In that time the research has found that, as the market has evolved and more rated buildings are built (or retrofitted), so too has valuers' knowledge and consideration in valuation practices evolved. Valuers are more engaged with industry rating tools such as NABERS. This suggests that the Australian mandatory disclosure policies have contributed to changes in the market, which are then interpreted by valuers and reflected in their perceptions and consideration of energy ratings in valuation practice.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.