Drivers of housing purchasing decisions: a data-driven analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a clear understanding of the features that increase the probability of condos’ sale, with a focus on design-related features. Design/methodology/approach The present research uses survival analysis (SA) and the Cox proportional-hazards regression (CPHR) to analyze condo sales data provided by the REALTORS® Association of Edmonton (RAE) (Alberta, Canada). Findings The analysis of the provided data shows that the listed price, building age, appliances and condo fees have less effect on the time a condo spends on the market compared to the condo’s physical features, such as construction material, interior finishing and heating type and source. Research limitations/implications The data used in the present research comes from one geographical area (i.e. Edmonton, Canada). Furthermore, the data provided by the RAE does not include any real estate transactions not involving a realtor. Additionally, the present research, owing to its focus on design-related features, does not control features related to the external environment, such as community and transportation proximity. Practical implications The findings of the present research help construction practitioners (e.g. architects, builders and realtors) better understand the features that influence condo buyers’ decisions. This knowledge helps to develop designs and marketing strategies that increase the likelihood of selling and decrease the time listed condos spend on the market. Originality/value The present research expands our knowledge of the drivers influencing the purchasers’ decisions concerning the building’s physical features that can be controlled during the design stage. Also, analyzing the provided data by using SA and CPHR, as followed in this paper, facilitates the inclusion of records that are listed but not sold, which helps to overcome the survivorship bias and avoid the over-optimism that exists in the present literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".