德国专家调查调查

Matthias Soot, A. Weitkamp
{"title":"德国专家调查调查","authors":"Matthias Soot, A. Weitkamp","doi":"10.15396/eres2019_115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experts’ decisions influence appraisals. The choice of model and of data sources have a direct impact on the valuation results. In Germany, the committee of valuation experts (Gutachterausschuss) which derives the public market data is using the instrument of experts surveys regularly. Also, some private appraisers use this instrument if no data is available. The average number of participants is regularly less than 10 people. The results are used in reports and for court decisions. However, the reports do not indicate the accuracy of the survey result. Although the uncertainty of the experts cannot be quantified, the highest court in Germany accepted a subjective expert’s survey in the context of real estate appraisal in 2012.While experts’ knowledge and its influence are widely studied in international context, a research gap can be identified for the German market. To improve the use of surveys in real estate valuation the following research questions should be answered: Do the topic and structure of the survey lead to a different dispersion in the answers? Is it possible to structure the response behavior of participants by different categories?In the investigation, we collected the raw material of surveys made by the committees of valuation experts in Germany and appraisers. Firstly, the structure of the survey is investigated (clear question, available meta-information, etc.). We categorize them by the topic and structure of the survey with a content analyzes. Afterward, we derive accuracy indicators from the dispersion within each category and discuss differences within the same category of different surveys. In this discussion, we will have a look at the spatial or temporal experiences of the experts in relation to dispersion and if there are systematic biases. Based on our findings, recommendations are derived.","PeriodicalId":152375,"journal":{"name":"26th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigation on Experts’ Surveys in Germany\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Soot, A. Weitkamp\",\"doi\":\"10.15396/eres2019_115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Experts’ decisions influence appraisals. The choice of model and of data sources have a direct impact on the valuation results. In Germany, the committee of valuation experts (Gutachterausschuss) which derives the public market data is using the instrument of experts surveys regularly. Also, some private appraisers use this instrument if no data is available. The average number of participants is regularly less than 10 people. The results are used in reports and for court decisions. However, the reports do not indicate the accuracy of the survey result. Although the uncertainty of the experts cannot be quantified, the highest court in Germany accepted a subjective expert’s survey in the context of real estate appraisal in 2012.While experts’ knowledge and its influence are widely studied in international context, a research gap can be identified for the German market. To improve the use of surveys in real estate valuation the following research questions should be answered: Do the topic and structure of the survey lead to a different dispersion in the answers? Is it possible to structure the response behavior of participants by different categories?In the investigation, we collected the raw material of surveys made by the committees of valuation experts in Germany and appraisers. Firstly, the structure of the survey is investigated (clear question, available meta-information, etc.). We categorize them by the topic and structure of the survey with a content analyzes. Afterward, we derive accuracy indicators from the dispersion within each category and discuss differences within the same category of different surveys. In this discussion, we will have a look at the spatial or temporal experiences of the experts in relation to dispersion and if there are systematic biases. Based on our findings, recommendations are derived.\",\"PeriodicalId\":152375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"26th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"26th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15396/eres2019_115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"26th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15396/eres2019_115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

专家的决定影响评估。模型和数据源的选择直接影响到评估结果。在德国,获取公开市场数据的估价专家委员会(Gutachterausschuss)经常使用专家调查的工具。此外,如果没有可用的数据,一些私人估价师也会使用这种工具。参与者的平均人数通常少于10人。调查结果用于报告和法庭判决。然而,报告并未表明调查结果的准确性。虽然专家的不确定性无法量化,但德国最高法院在2012年接受了房地产评估背景下的主观专家调查。虽然专家的知识及其影响在国际范围内得到了广泛的研究,但可以确定德国市场的研究差距。为了提高调查在房地产估价中的应用,应该回答以下研究问题:调查的主题和结构是否导致了答案的不同离散度?是否有可能根据不同的类别来组织参与者的反应行为?在调查中,我们收集了德国估价专家委员会和估价师的调查资料。首先,调查的结构(明确的问题,可用的元信息等)。我们根据调查的主题和结构对它们进行分类,并进行内容分析。然后,我们从每个类别内的离散度推导出准确性指标,并讨论不同调查中同一类别内的差异。在这次讨论中,我们将看看专家在空间或时间上的经验,以及是否存在系统偏差。根据我们的研究结果,提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigation on Experts’ Surveys in Germany
Experts’ decisions influence appraisals. The choice of model and of data sources have a direct impact on the valuation results. In Germany, the committee of valuation experts (Gutachterausschuss) which derives the public market data is using the instrument of experts surveys regularly. Also, some private appraisers use this instrument if no data is available. The average number of participants is regularly less than 10 people. The results are used in reports and for court decisions. However, the reports do not indicate the accuracy of the survey result. Although the uncertainty of the experts cannot be quantified, the highest court in Germany accepted a subjective expert’s survey in the context of real estate appraisal in 2012.While experts’ knowledge and its influence are widely studied in international context, a research gap can be identified for the German market. To improve the use of surveys in real estate valuation the following research questions should be answered: Do the topic and structure of the survey lead to a different dispersion in the answers? Is it possible to structure the response behavior of participants by different categories?In the investigation, we collected the raw material of surveys made by the committees of valuation experts in Germany and appraisers. Firstly, the structure of the survey is investigated (clear question, available meta-information, etc.). We categorize them by the topic and structure of the survey with a content analyzes. Afterward, we derive accuracy indicators from the dispersion within each category and discuss differences within the same category of different surveys. In this discussion, we will have a look at the spatial or temporal experiences of the experts in relation to dispersion and if there are systematic biases. Based on our findings, recommendations are derived.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信