Search results

The assertion that land registration guarantees landownership security is common knowledge. Thus, efforts at securing landownership in particularly, the developing world have concentrated on the formulation and implementation of land registration policies. However, over the years, whilst some studies claim that land registration assures security, a lot of other studies have established that security cannot be guaranteed by land registration. Also, there is evidence from research that has shown that land registration can be a source of ownership insecurity in some cases. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the underpinning principles of land registration and their application in order to establish whether or not land registration can actually guarantee ownership security.

It is a literature review paper that looks at the existing literature on landownership, security and land registration systems. The land registration principles that have been subjected to critical analysis are the publicity function of land registration, the legality of ownership emanating from land registration and the warranty provided by the State in land registration, specifically, under the Torrens system.

An analysis of the underpinning principles of land registration shows that land registration per se cannot guarantee ownership security and this helps to explain the findings of the numerous studies, which have established that landownership security cannot be assured by land registration. The paper concludes by identifying the right role of land registration as well as a mechanism that can effectively protect or secure landownership.

Land registration policies and programmes in the developing world are often funded by the international donor community and the findings provide useful insights regarding the actual role of land registration and for policy change in terms of what can secure landownership.

Even though there are two schools of thought regarding research on the link between land registration on one hand, and landownership security on the other, none of the studies has made an attempt to consider the nexus by critically examining the principles that underpin land registration to support their arguments.

An appraisal is normally conducted to determine financial viability of property development projects for several purposes. The residual valuation method is normally used to appraise such projects and the purpose of the paper is to examine its financial viability decision rules (FVDRs) used by practitioners.

The qualitative research approach was adopted based on the case study strategy of enquiry where 48 development appraisal reports from 37 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors registered firms in London were accessed from the internet and critically reviewed.

Site-specific and area-wide development appraisals for planning purposes dominated the reports. Five FVDRs were identified. A development project is financially viable if: (i) computed residual profit expressed as a percentage return is equal to or greater than a determined market benchmark risk-adjusted return; (ii) computed residual profit expressed as a percentage return is positive; (iii) calculated residual land value is greater than open market land value or benchmark land value; (iv) computed residual land value is positive; and (v) there is a surplus when appraisal cost variables including land costs plus allowance for developer’s profit are deducted from gross development value. In some reports, it was discovered some appraisal cost variables were excluded whilst others were inappropriately treated.

The first and third FVDRs are reasonable whilst the remaining are fraught with problems and using them can make development projects that are financially unviable to be viable. Also, excluding relevant cost variables and treating some inappropriately understate the appraisal cost component resulting in incorrect financial viability outcomes. These can lead to wrong recommendations about financial viability being proffered that negatively affect the practitioners’ clientele. The dominance of development appraisals for planning purposes shows the important role development appraisals continue to play in the English planning system.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, it is the first time FVDRs in development appraisals have been systematically investigated in England with resultant new empirical findings and arguments.

In English valuation practice, when valuing small to medium size (StMS) shops, rental analysis is undertaken using zoning based on the argument that shop fronts including window displays attract customers to shops and that most trading takes place in the internal frontage area making it the most valuable part of shops. Albeit zoning has been critiqued, it remains the preferred method of rental analysis. The paper aims to answer two research questions: are shop fronts including window displays the only factor that attracts customers to shops? And is the frontage space within shops the area most trading takes place?

The exploratory qualitative research methodology was used, and primary data collected by observing 178 shops in selected five shopping areas. The observational data were complemented with the use of secondary data.

The study has shown that shop fronts are not the only factor attracting clientele to shops as there are other varied factors including location, availability of Internet and hoardings. There is no evidence to suggest most goods in shops are displayed at the frontage space that attract most customers to that area, thereby, making the area the most valuable part, which decreases backwards.

These findings coupled with extant research evidence implies zoning can lead to under or over valuation of StMS shops (which is not good for retail real estate (RE) management or market), and turnover generated from shops is the overarching determinant of rental values in valuation.

This is the first time the very foundation/underpinning principles of zoning have been subjected to scrutiny in England.

The purpose of this paper is to test the accuracy of the explicit time variable (ETV) and the strictly cross-sectional (SCS) hedonic models when constructing house price indices in developing markets using Ghana as a case study.

The quantitative research methodology is adopted where the accuracy of the two hedonic models used in the construction of house price indices is examined using the mean squared error (MSE) and out-of-sample technique. Yearly indices are constructed for each of the models using 60 per cent of the sample data and 40 per cent is used to forecast house prices for each observations based on which the MSEs are calculated.

The two models produce similar house price trend but the SCS model is more volatile. The ETV model produces the lower MSE, suggesting that it is better to pool data together and includes time dummies (ETV) to estimate indices rather than running separate regressions (SCS) to estimate the index. Using the Morgan–Granger–Newbold test, it is found that indeed the difference between the forecast errors of the two models are statistically significant on a 1 per cent level confirming the accuracy of the ETV model over the SCS model.

This paper has produced convincing results recommending the use of the ETV hedonic model to construct house price indices which is of use to practitioners and academics.

The introduction of financial products like the property derivatives and home equity insurances to the financial market calls for accurate and robust property price indices and the hedonic method is mostly used to construct these indices. While there have been a lot of test conducted as to which variant of the hedonic method to use in developed markets, little is known about the developing markets. This paper contributes to fill these gaps.