Enhancing Property Valuation in Post-War Recovery: Integrating War-Related Attributes into Real Estate Valuation Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses post-war property valuation by integrating war-related considerations into the ISO 19152 Land Administration Domain Model, resulting in a valuation information model tailored for Syria's post-war landscape. This model serves as a foundational reference for property valuation in conflict affected areas. Additionally, property valuation is enhanced through the incorporation of war-related attributes via visualization modeling, aiding comprehension of real estate dynamics amidst and following conflict.

The topic covered is highly topical and the structure of the paper is clear and complete in all its parts, although the proposed approach is rather complex. The objectives of the study also appear clear. The only doubts, as they are less clear, concern the availability of information or circumstances that can validate the proposed model ex post; just as it would be necessary to highlight and detail the limits of the proposed model.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study conceptualises a systematic approach for post-war real estate valuation, with a view to uphold property rights and promote equitable development in conflict-affected neighbourhoods by

prioritizing war-inflicted damage on real estate and builds upon Cadastre information necessary for mass valuation and existing ISO Land Administration Domain Model (LADM). The research  augments this with war-related characteristics and 3D modelling thereby developing a property valuation systems tailored for post-disaster scenarios and recovery strategies using Syria as an exploratory Case study.

 The study is clear and well written. There are only a few aspects which require clarification. The study uses a field survey that evaluates real estate conditions and values within a significantly affected neighbourhood in Rural Damascus. The authors do identify that a purposive sampling approach was applied using 35 interviews to capture perspectives and experiences. Given that this is the first aspect of the research design, and specifically insights into property prices, characteristics and condition, it would be useful to present a summary table identifying for example the percentage of local experts and residents and also the results

Some minor aspects need address. A complete proof to remove errors in referencing, for example Page 3, line 140 (Error! Reference source not found.). This is found throughout.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.           The technique applied for the data analysis was not reflected in the abstract. What sort of data analysis was done? Also, for housing data, median prices serve better than the mean. There is also a fundamental difference between prices, value, and cost. These concepts have different meanings and implications in property valuation and should be used appropriately.

2.           The insights are not novel or unexpected: “The analysis reveals significant fluctuations in property values during wartime, with severely damaged properties experiencing notable declines (averaging 20 approximately -75%), followed by moderately damaged properties (averaging approximately -21 60%). In the post-war phase, rehabilitated properties demonstrate value improvements (ranging 22 from 1.8% to 22.5%, depending on the quality of improvements), while others continue to depreciate 23 (ranging from -55% to -65%).” They do not seem novel and follow the logic expected for damaged properties. Certainly, property values increase with improvements. We need to get a defined contribution, that way it establishes your paper as different and contributes greatly to the literature.

3.           Regarding your claim of developing post-war property valuation standards, there is no attempt to relate it to any valuation professional organisation such as the IVSC. What is the IVSC or RICS guide or best practice for these sorts of applications in property valuation? The discussion around GIS or land administration/property information models for property valuation is not entirely new and does not seem an issue since they do not form the crux of property valuation.

4.           The first few paragraphs of the Introduction section can be greatly improved. The manuscript moves from defining the importance of property valuation to property rights to financial support for property reforms that empower property rights. Then, the second paragraph goes straight into valuation inaccuracy and how property values work. It feels like the author(s) are jumping through very important concepts without establishing how they contribute or give rise to the study. The author(s) can consider sticking to one narrative – property valuation and property rights or valuation inaccuracy and property market operation.

5.           A whole lot has been done in this study, but it fails in one fundamental area, why is this study important? Why should this study be read? The author(s) need to define how important the Syrian property market is to the Syrian people, to the Middle East property market or to the global property market, and the implications of not adopting the suggestions. These are some ways to show why this study should be of interest. As is, the study has weak motivation.

6.           The Literature Review section has to be greatly improved. A claim is made that the study’s proposition differs from conventional post-war valuation methods “This study advances the state of the art by remedying these deficiencies inherent in extant research concerning real estate valuation”, but no reference or claim or narrative was shown on such conventional method. So how can we compare to know which is better? For GIS property information systems for property valuation, lots of work was done by Peter Wyatt in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and these are the foundation works for the visualisation and use of land and geographic information systems for valuation. These works need to be consulted and appropriately used to improve your manuscript.

7.           Your study relates more towards property administration or at best supporting tools for property valuation by integrating a GIS-based model instead of the claim of improving the property valuation approach. For instance, the claim “Property valuation systems rely on accurately identifying property units and associated immovable rights” is correct. However, in all countries both transparent and untransparent, property valuations require physical inspections, which leads to accuracy. The only valuations requiring computer-based information systems and automated models are assigned a risk level and caveats to show it can be unattainable within certain contexts.

8.           Theoretical justifications need to be provided for the approach taken in the data and methods. It is good to provide a why based on practice and similar studies. For instance, in the Abstract section, there is no indication that interviews were conducted to collect the property price data, but this is included in the manuscript. Apart from these concerns, doubts can be raised about the credibility of your sources. Real Estate companies are very good sources, but neighbourhood residents do not seem to be good sources unless you establish their profile. You need to provide justification based on extant literature in markets with no access to property databases (Africa, parts of Asia). See an example of a good paper in this regard “Sources and reliability of property market information for property valuation practice in Ghana by Baffour Awuah et al. (2017)”.

Suggestions for improvements

1.      Your study can be given a better motivation. Why is this study important? Also, reflect on the true nature of the paper – property administration and visualisation vs valuation. As is, this study contributes little to valuation methods in post-stress (war, financial crises, disaster) environments.

2.      The contributions are not unexpected and may hurt the acceptability of your paper given that it is expected that improvements lead to value increases. This has been established by lots of studies using Hedonic Models.

3.      The Introduction section can be improved and more focused.

4.      The Literature section should be improved. What are the issues with the conventional techniques that you seek to improve? What are those studies? For works of this nature, some literature, especially the fundamental ones are missing, especially if you insist on equating it to a property valuation approach.

 

5.      The data needs to be improved and cited better. Median prices vs mean prices. If you insist on using the mean, you need to provide justifications. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of the English Language can be greatly improved. The manuscript needs thorough editing. Furthermore, some sentences seem unnecessary and contrived. For instance, “Before delving into the details of our data and methods, it is imperative to outline the structure of our paper.” You can go ahead without this statement.

The use of English can be simplified, and the narrative made clearer by removing superfluous sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf