Wood, G; Davis, P; Byrne, P; McAllister, P and Wyatt, P (2011) Precisely wrong or roughly right? An evaluation of development viability appraisal modelling. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 16(3), pp. 249-271. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of choices of model structure and scale in development viability appraisal. The paper addresses two questions concerning the application of development appraisal techniques to viability modelling within the UK planning system. The first relates to the extent to which, given intrinsic input uncertainty, the choice of model structure significantly affects model outputs. The second concerns the extent to which, given intrinsic input uncertainty, the level of model complexity significantly affects model outputs. Design/methodology/approach Monte Carlo simulation procedures are applied to a hypothetical development scheme in order to measure the effects of model aggregation and structure on model output variance. Findings It is concluded that, given the particular scheme modelled and unavoidably subjective assumptions of input variance, that simple and simplistic models may produce similar outputs to more robust and disaggregated models. Evidence is found of equifinality in the outputs of a simple, aggregated model of development viability relative to more complex, disaggregated models. Originality/value Development viability appraisal has become increasingly important in the planning system. Consequently, the theory, application and outputs from development appraisal are under intense scrutiny from a wide range of users. However, there has been very little published evaluation of viability models. This paper contributes to the limited literature in this area.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | appraisal; development; modelling; planning; uncertainty; United Kingdom; viability |
| Index terms: | evidence, methodology, complexity, appraisal, United Kingdom, modelling, development appraisal, variance, Monte Carlo simulation |
| Subjects: | factor and component analysis, research methods, Geography, measurement and scaling, systems engineering, evaluation and assessment methods, value management, modelling and simulation, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here