Does the analytical hierarchy process help appraisers make better decisions? A quasi-experimental approach for property investment comparables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Income from investment properties can fluctuate depending on the state of the economy. The idea that there is always a potential exit (sale) value whenever the property stops performing at its optimum or deflation in the economy will always appeal to investors. To determine housing prices, investors would rely on a direct comparison approach (DCA) of recent substitute sales in the open market. Appraisers use this approach to develop an opinion of value when there is a plethora of recent sales to analyse. Design/methodology/approach The study was designed to establish the use of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach as a support tool for deciding property appraisals. A case study of an industrial single-storey stand-alone building with grade-level parking in the south-east of Calgary, Canada, was investigated with the AHP approach. The result was cross-referenced with the DCA. Findings Using a consistency index of 0.077321 and a consistency ratio of 0.085912, the matrix multiplication was determined to be 0.456706. The average valuations derived from the adjusted price per square foot using the direct comparison method and the unadjusted price per square foot using the AHP were deemed the best value estimate in the light of available comparables. The implications of the findings suggest that AHP, as a quantitative technique, can support and validate the use of similar non-recent sale comparables when appraising investment properties with the DCA. Originality/value AHP is an alternative aid in quantitatively deciding the most significant value attribute for comparison before subjective adjustments. When intuitively applied in the DCA, these subjective adjustments almost always lead to an overvaluation of properties.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".