Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Mateusz Tomal (2019)
Behawioralne aspekty decyzji inwestycyjnych samorządów lokalnych – na przykładzie gmin województwa małopolskiegoEKONOMISTA
D. Hanink, R. Cromley, A. Ebenstein (2012)
Spatial Variation in the Determinants of House Prices and Apartment Rents in ChinaThe Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45
Tin Leung (2011)
HONG KONG INSTITUTE FOR MONETARY RESEARCH ANCHORING AND LOSS AVERSION IN THE HOUSING MARKET : IMPLICATIONS ON PRICE DYNAMICS
M. Tomal (2022)
Self-reported and Market Home Values in Housing Wealth Inequality Measurement: Evidence from Warsaw and PragueCritical Housing Analysis
Katherine Kiel, Jeffrey Zabel (1999)
The Accuracy of Owner-Provided House Values: The 1978-1991 American Housing SurveyReal Estate Economics, 27
Justyna Brzezicka, K. Kobylińska (2021)
An Analysis of the Income and Price Elasticity of Demand for Housing in View of Price Dynamics on the Residential Property MarketReal Estate Management and Valuation, 29
R. Gaca (2018)
Price as a Measure of Market Value on the Real Estate MarketReal Estate Management and Valuation, 26
Taylor Oshan, A. Fotheringham (2018)
A Comparison of Spatially Varying Regression Coefficient Estimates Using Geographically Weighted and Spatial‐Filter‐Based TechniquesGeographical Analysis, 50
N. Crosby, A. Lavers, J. Murdoch (1998)
Property valuation variation and the 'margin of error' in the UKJournal of Property Research, 15
R. Thaler (1980)
Toward a positive theory of consumer choiceJournal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1
M. Tomal, M. Helbich (2022)
The private rental housing market before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A submarket analysis in Cracow, PolandEnvironment and Planning. B, Urban Analytics and City Science, 49
Monika Bazyl (2009)
Hedonic price model for Warsaw housing market
Mei Wang, M. Rieger, T. Hens (2017)
The Impact of Culture on Loss AversionCultural Finance
Sewin Chan, Samuel Dastrup, I. Ellen (2014)
Do Homeowners Mark to Market? A Comparison of Self-reported and Estimated Market Home Values During the Housing Boom and BustNYU Wagner School of Public Service Research Paper Series
G. Northcraft, M. Neale (1987)
Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisionsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39
The Economic Journal, 115
D. Haurin, Stephanie Moulton, Wei Shi (2018)
The Accuracy of Senior Households’ Estimates of Home Values: Application to the Reverse Mortgage DecisionReal Estate eJournal
T. Kuzmenko, C. Timmins (2011)
Persistence in housing wealth perceptions: evidence from the census data
Justyna Brzezicka (2016)
Znaczenie heurystyki zakotwiczenia i dostosowania w procesie wartościotwórczym na rynku nieruchomości, 15
Ewa Stasiak (2013)
UNCERTAINTY OF PROPERTY VALUATION AS A SUBJECT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH, 21
M. Tomal (2020)
Modelling Housing Rents Using Spatial Autoregressive Geographically Weighted Regression: A Case Study in Cracow, PolandISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf., 9
Sumit Agarwal (2006)
The Impact of Homeowners' Housing Wealth Misestimation on Consumption and Saving DecisionsHousing & Community Development Law eJournal
S. Gaechter, Eric Johnson, A. Herrmann (2022)
Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choicesTheory and Decision, 92
Philip Robins, R. West (1975)
Measurement errors in the estimation of home value
J. Kain, J. Quigley (1972)
Note on Owner's Estimate of Housing ValueJournal of the American Statistical Association, 67
A. Furnham, Hua Boo (2011)
A literature review of the anchoring effectJournal of Socio-economics, 40
Denise Dipasquale, C. Somerville (1995)
Do House Price Indices Based on Transacting Units Represent the Entire Stock? Evidence from the American Housing SurveyJournal of Housing Economics, 4
R. Trojanek, Michał Głuszak, Justyna Tanas (2018)
THE EFFECT OF URBAN GREEN SPACES ON HOUSE PRICES IN WARSAWInternational Journal of Strategic Property Management
S. Dommer, V. Swaminathan (2013)
Explaining the Endowment Effect through Ownership: The Role of Identity, Gender, and Self-ThreatJournal of Consumer Research, 39
Carin Cruijsen, D. Jansen, M. Rooij (2014)
The Rose-Colored Glasses of HomeownersHousehold Finance eJournal
Simona Romani, G. Gistri, S. Pace (2012)
When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brandsMarketing Letters, 23
K. Ihlanfeldt, J. Martínez-Vázquez (1986)
Alternative value estimates of owner-occupied housing: Evidence on sample selection bias and systematic errorsJournal of Urban Economics, 20
C. Brunsdon, S. Fotheringham, M. Charlton (2010)
Geographically Weighted Regression: A Method for Exploring Spatial NonstationarityGeographical Analysis, 28
Ole Sønstebø, J. Olaussen, A. Oust (2021)
Opening Bid Strategies in English AuctionsJournal of Real Estate Research, 43
Science, 185
A. Tur-Sinai, L. Fleishman, D. Romanov (2020)
The accuracy of self-reported dwelling valuationJournal of Housing Economics
K. Cheung, Julian Chan, Sijie Li, Chung Yiu (2021)
Anchoring and Asymmetric Information in the Real Estate Market: A Machine Learning ApproachJournal of Risk and Financial Management
R. Trojanek, Michał Głuszak (2018)
Spatial and time effect of subway on property pricesJournal of Housing and the Built Environment, 33
China Economic Review, 24
Jing Yao, A. Fotheringham (2016)
Local Spatiotemporal Modeling of House Prices: A Mixed Model ApproachThe Professional Geographer, 68
Craig Watkins (2001)
The Definition and Identification of Housing SubmarketsEnvironment and Planning A, 33
Pinghan Liang, Nan Gao (2020)
Homevalue misestimation and household leverage: An empirical study of Chinese urban householdsCities
Marco Gonzalez-Navarro, C. Quintana‐Domeque (2009)
The reliability of self-reported home values in a developing country contextJournal of Housing Economics, 18
M. Strahilevitz, G. Loewenstein (1998)
The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of ObjectsERN: Primary Taxonomy (Topic)
Daniel Melser (2013)
How Well Do Australian Home‐Owners Know the Value of Their Home?Urban Economics & Regional Studies eJournal
J. Goodman, John Ittner (1992)
The accuracy of home owners' estimates of house valueJournal of Housing Economics, 2
D. Kahneman (1992)
Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51
L. Kish, J. Lansing (1954)
Response Errors in Estimating the Value of HomesJournal of the American Statistical Association, 49
Hugo Benı́tez-Silva, Selçuk Eren, Frank Heiland, S. Jiménez-Mart́ın (2008)
How Well Do Individuals Predict the Selling Prices of Their Homes?
D. Kahneman, J. Knetsch, R. Thaler (1991)
Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo BiasJournal of Economic Perspectives, 5
M. McCord, Sean Macintyre, Paul Bidanset, D. Lo, P. Davis (2018)
Examining the spatial relationship between environmental health factors and house pricesJournal of European Real Estate Research
Journal of Housing Economics, 29
W. Maddux, Haiyang Yang, Carl Falk, Hajo Adam, Wendi Adair, Y. Endo, Z. Carmon, Steven Heine (2010)
For Whom Is Parting With Possessions More Painful?Psychological Science, 21
K. Kopczewska, Piotr Cwiakowski (2021)
Spatio-temporal stability of housing submarkets. Tracking spatial location of clusters of geographically weighted regression estimates of price determinantsLand Use Policy, 103
Nan Gao, Pinghan Liang (2019)
Home value misestimation and household behavior: Evidence from ChinaChina Economic Review
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72
S. Huck, Jörg Oechssler, G. Kirchsteiger (1997)
Learning to Like What You Have - Explaining the Endowment EffectMicroeconomic Theory eJournal
C. Jaeger, S. Brosnan, D. Levin, O. Jones (2020)
Predicting variation in endowment effect magnitudesEvolution and Human Behavior, 41
Emmanuel Jiménez (1982)
The Value of Squatter Dwellings in Developing CountriesEconomic Development and Cultural Change, 30
C. Windsor, Gianni Cava, J. Hansen (2015)
Home price beliefs: Evidence from Australia☆Journal of Housing Economics, 29
Real Estate Economics, 35
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the drivers behind the accuracy of self-reported home valuations in the Warsaw (Poland) housing market. Design/methodology/approach – In order to achieve the research goal, firstly, unique data on subjective residential property values estimated by their owners were compared with market-justified ones. The latter was calculated using geographically weighted regression, which allowed for taking into account spatially heterogeneous buyers’ housing preferences. An ordered logit model was then used to identify the factors influencing the probability of the occurrence of bias towards over or undervaluation. Findings – The results of the study revealed that, on average, homeowners overvalued their properties by only 1.94%, and the fraction of interviewees estimating their properties accurately ranges from 20% to 68%, depending on the size of the margin of error adopted. The drivers of the valuation bias variation were the physical, locational and neighbourhood attributes of the property as well as the personal characteristics of the respondents, for which their age and employment situation played a key role. Originality/value – In contrast to previous studies, this is the first to examine drivers behind the accuracy of self-reported home valuations in a Central and Eastern Europe country. In addition, this work is the first to consider heterogeneous housing preferences when calculating objective property values. Keywords Housing market, Geographically weighted regression, Valuation bias, Emerging economy, Endowment effect Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Identifying the existence of the valuation bias in the housing market is important for several reasons. First, this phenomenon affects liquidity in the housing market, i.e. the larger the difference between subjective and objective home value, the fewer the transactions. Second, the valuation bias can affect banking services; in particular, as Huck et al. (2005) highlighted, excessive overvaluation of properties by their owners results in low demand for reverse mortgages. Third, the presence of the valuation bias can distort the examination of population wealth, which can lead to misguided housing policies. It is therefore critical to identify the extent of the accuracy of self-reported home valuations in the residential property market. In the scientific literature to date, research on the valuation bias in the context of housing has been done, for example, among the United States (US) (Kiel and Zabel, 1999), Mexico (Gonzalez-Navarro and Quintana-Domeque, 2009), Israel (Tur-Sinai et al., 2020), China (Gao and Liang, 2019), Australia (Melser, 2013), the Netherlands (van der Cruijsen et al., 2014) and Philippines (Jimenez, 1982) residents. On this basis, the first research gap can be identified, i.e. the lack of similar surveys for any housing market in Central and Eastern Journal of European Real Estate Research JEL Classification — C21, D91, R31 pp. 425-443 © Emerald Publishing Limited Funding: The publication is financed by the National Science Centre of Poland (grant no. 2020/04/X/ 1753-9269 HS4/00458) and supported by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) under the START program. DOI 10.1108/JERER-02-2022-0004 Europe (CEE). It is important to fill this gap as the housing markets in the countries JERER mentioned above are still in the process of formation after the communist period, and the 15,3 knowledge on the accuracy of self-reported home valuations may significantly contribute to better public policies in the field of housing, mortgage, taxes and construction. Filling the identified scientific gap can only occur through new empirical analyses, not by referring to studies in other countries, because the owner’s home valuation bias may be largely due to the endowment effect. The latter is an anomaly from standard economic theory and, in the framework of behavioural economics, can be defined as the situation when people demand more for the surrender of an object than they would be willing to pay (WTP) for it (Thaler, 1980; Kahneman et al., 1991). In general, the endowment effect leads property owners to assign excessively high values to their flats, often well above what is justified by the market (Tur-Sinai et al., 2020). However, the overvaluation bias might differ between societies because, as empirically confirmed by Maddux et al. (2010), there is considerable variation in the magnitude of the endowment effect across the globe. The same applies to loss aversion tendency (Wang et al., 2017), which is the underlying cause of the endowment effect. All of this means that research on the accuracy of self-reported home valuations must be done independently for individual housing markets. In view of the above premises, the first objective of this paper is to estimate the accuracy of self-reported home valuations in the Polish housing market, taking as an example the city of Warsaw, the capital of Poland. The research uses a unique database in the Polish circumstances concerning subjective property values estimated by their owners. The study’s second objective is to identify the determinants explaining the variation in the valuation bias among the surveyed respondents. This study contributes to the current literature in several ways. First, it is the first analysis of the accuracy of home valuations determinedbyrealestateownersinaCEEcountry and one of the few carried out for emerging markets. Second, in order to accurately estimate objective property values, a hedonic price model with both spatial effects (spatial heterogeneity and autocorrelation) is applied, which has not been used in this type of analysis before. 2. Literature review and hypothesis development 2.1 Magnitude of the owners’ valuation bias identified in current housing studies As already mentioned in the Introduction section, the accuracy of self-reported home valuations has been analysed in dozens of scientific studies. Dominating here are mainly works conducted for the real estate market in the US, on the basis of which it can be concluded that, on average, the owners of flats overestimate their value by about 5%. A very similar result can be observed in the context of studies performed for Australian cities. In particular, two such analysis have been produced so far, and the average valuation bias is þ2%. These similarities between the Australian and American housing markets, maybe due to almost identical cultural peculiarities of societies in these countries (see Table 1), which affects the level of endowment effect. On the other hand, diametrically different results in terms of owners’ valuation bias can be observed for China and Mexico. In particular, in these countries, the respondents overestimated the value of their residential properties by 60–100%, which could be due to the very low value of individualism for these societies. Therefore, it was decided to look more closely at the functional relationship between estimation error and particular dimensions of culture. In particular, one can notice that the higher the level of individualism, the lower the level of power distance and masculinity in a given society, the more accurate the predictions in terms of property value estimation by their owners (see Table 1). On this basis, the first research hypothesis was formulated as follows: H1. Taking into account the values of the cultural dimensions of individualism, power distance and masculinity in the Polish housing market, it is predicted that owners on average overestimate the value of their properties by 16–28%. The accuracy of self-reported home valuations Table 1. The average values of valuation bias in the housing market surveyed and values of cultural dimensions Cultural dimension value Author(s) Average valuation bias Country Individualism Power distance Masculinity Kish and Lansing (1954) þ4% USA 91 40 62 Kain and Quigley (1972) 2% USA Robins and West (1977) þ5% USA Ihlanfeldt and Martinez-Vazquez (1986) þ16% USA Goodman and Ittner (1992) þ6% USA DiPasquale and Somerville (1995) þ7% USA Kiel and Zabel (1999) þ5% USA Agarwal (2007) þ3% USA Benıtez-Silva et al. (2015) þ5–10% USA Chan et al. (2016) þ3–4% USA Haurin et al. (2018) þ4% USA Average value þ5.4% USA Melser (2013) þ3% Australia 90 38 61 Windsor et al. (2015) þ1% Australia Average value þ2% Australia van der Cruijsen et al. (2014) þ13% The 80 38 14 Netherlands Jimenez (1982) þ1% Philippines 32 94 64 Gonzalez-Navarro and Quintana-Domeque (2009) þ60% Mexico 30 81 69 Gao and Liang (2019) þ100% China 20 80 66 Liang and Gao (2021) þ17% China Average value þ58.5% China Tur-Sinai et al. (2020) þ20% Israel 54 13 47 Functional dependence y ¼ –0:31 ln x þ 1:44 y ¼ 0:13 ln x − 0:27 y ¼ 0:11 ln x − 0:20 2 2 2 R ¼ 0:61 R ¼ 0:12 R ¼ 0:06 This study – prediction for Poland based on the þ16% – based on the Poland 60 68 64 identified above functional dependencies individualism dimension þ28% – based on the power distance dimension þ26% – based on the masculinity dimension Note(s): y denotes the level of valuation bias in a given country, x is a value of a given culture dimension (individualism or power distance or masculinity) 2.2 Drivers of the valuation bias JERER Examining Table 1, one can find that the mean estimation error is positive in almost every 15,3 study to date. As noted in the Introduction section, this situation may be due to the endowment effect. This fact was pointed out, among others, by Gao and Liang (2019), who described the results of their analysis and stated that “the self-reported home value doubles the real value. It falls into the framework of the Endowment Effect: people normally overvalue the product of their own”. Therefore, in order to develop research hypotheses in terms of factors that may influence the level of home value misestimation, the theory behind the endowment effect can also be useful. In the scientific literature to date, it has been shown that the magnitude of the endowment effect varies between different subjects (Jaeger et al., 2020). In this context, it should be noted that residential properties are extremely heterogonous goods that differ from one another in the characteristics describing their physical parameters as well as their location and neighbourhood. Therefore, it is assumed that: H2. The magnitude of the endowment effect in the housing market and thus the accuracy of self-reported home valuation depend on the property’s physical characteristics and the specifics of its location and neighbourhood. The above hypothesis has been positively verified, among others, by Tur-Sinai et al. (2020), who, while researching the housing market in Israel, noticed that owners of properties with air conditioning significantly overestimate their value in comparison to the rest of the respondents. This may result from the fact that the climate in this state is characterised by very high average air temperatures, and therefore having air conditioning may generate higher levels of loss aversion among owners. Also, a study by Ihlanfeldt and Martinez- Vazquez (1986) indicated that the overvaluation of properties by their owners increases with each additional bathroom and when having a carport. A similar relationship was also found by van der Cruijsen et al. (2014), who, when analysing the property market in the Netherlands, found that the endowment effect increases with each additional room and when a garden or patio is present. On the other hand, Kiel and Zabel (1999) concluded that valuation bias is not correlated with the property’s physical characteristics, indicating the need for further research in this area. In the context of analysing the physical characteristics of real estate and the scale of the occurrence of the endowment effect, attention should also be paid to the issue of luxury goods in the housing market. According to the theory of the endowment effect, its magnitude can be determined as the difference between the minimum value the seller is willing to accept (WTA) and the maximum value the buyer is WTP. In the case of luxury goods, an increase in the value of WTP can be expected due to the enjoyment of standing out (Romani et al., 2012). When considering the above premise, another research hypothesis was defined, which is: H3. The level of the overestimation bias decreases as the market value of the property increases. Some studies to date have positively verified the above hypothesis. For example, we can cite the works done by Gonzalez-Navarro and Quintana-Domeque (2009), Goodman and Ittner (1992) and Tur-Sinai et al. (2020). On the other hand, Kain and Quigley’s (1972) analysis shows a completely opposite relationship. With regard to the attributes of neighbourhood and location, it is also possible to identify studies in which the authors have undertaken to test whether these types of attributes affect the error in real estate owners’ estimation of property values. As an example, here is an analysis by Kuzmenko and Timmins (2011), who, examining the US housing market, found that the tendency for owners to overestimate property values is significantly higher in Asian and Hispanic neighbourhoods. Also, research done in Mexico by Gonzalez-Navarro and Quintana-Domeque (2009) indicates a relationship between the real estate neighbourhood and The accuracy the magnitude of the valuation bias. In this case, the authors identified that in new housing of self-reported developments, the magnitude of this type of effect is much smaller, and property owners, home compared to others, estimate the value of their dwellings much more accurately. In the valuations context under consideration, it is also important to note the study of van der Cruijsen et al. (2014), where the researchers found that an estimation error decreases in urban areas, which can be explained by the possibility of anchoring on transactions in the immediate vicinity. The anchoring effect is one of the cognitive heuristics (Furnham and Boo, 2011). Tversky and Kahneman (1974) define that the anchoring effect involves making erroneous judgments as a result of being attached to some pre-presented value. In real estate transactions, this effect can lead to treating, for example, asking prices (Northcraft and Neale, 1987; Brzezicka, 2016; Cheung et al., 2021; Sønstebø et al., 2021) or previous property purchase prices (Leung and Tsang, 2013) as an anchor. It should be noted that the strength of the endowment effect may be various for different individuals and therefore depend on the personal characteristics of the owners. One factor that is very likely to affect the endowment effect is age. It can be expected that with age, one can notice growing the self-possession link with the property (ownership account) as well as the increasing reluctance to get rid of it (loss aversion account). Therefore, it can be assumed that: H4. As property owners age, they increasingly overvalue their property relative to what is justified by the market. In the existing scientific literature on the housing market, the above hypothesis has not been resolved. Namely, there are both studies available that identify a positive correlation between age and the degree of property overvaluation (Agarwal, 2007; Ihlanfeldt and Martinez- Vazquez, 1986; Tur-Sinai et al., 2020), as well as those where a negative relationship has been found (Goodman and Ittner, 1992; Melser, 2013; van der Cruijsen et al., 2014). Another important personal factor that may influence the scale of the occurrence of the endowment effect is the respondent’s education. It may be assumed that people with higher education might rely more on various analyses and cold calculations and less on attachment to their property when valuing it. On this basis, another hypothesis can be formulated as follows: H5. Individuals with higher education compared to others are characterised by a significantly smaller overestimation bias. Previous research indicates a relatively unambiguous effect of the above variable on the valuation bias. Among others, Chan et al. (2016), Kain and Quigley (1972) and Kuzmenko and Timmins (2011) found that each additional year of education improves the accuracy of respondents’ predictions about the value of their properties. The next personal variable that can significantly shape the magnitude of the endowment effect is the income of the individual or the household as a whole. It should be noted that possessors with higher incomes are characterised by higher levels of loss aversion (Gaechter et al., 2007), and therefore it can be postulated that: H6. Higher household income increases the overestimation bias. It should be noted that previous studies analysing the relationship defined in hypothesis H6 are not so clear. Among others, the work done by Chan et al. (2016) and Tur-Sinai et al. (2020) support the above hypothesis. On the other hand, an inverse relationship is reported in the analysis performed by Haurin et al. (2018). Another important factor that may influence the magnitude of the endowment effect is a person’s employment situation. It can be assumed that unemployed people have a higher degree of attachment to property compared to employed people, which is a direct result of JERER more time spent in the dwelling. With regard to employed people, it is also possible to 15,3 hypothesise the occurrence of differences in the strength of the endowment effect. Namely, as indicated by a study conducted by Gaechter et al. (2007), the level of loss aversion is lowest for entrepreneurs and managers, implying that these types of respondents are much less likely to overvalue their properties. Consequently, another research hypothesis is posed, which is: H7. The unemployed, in comparison to those in active employment, overvalue their properties significantly more. Among the employed, the lowest overvaluation bias can be observed for entrepreneurs and respondents holding managerial positions. The above hypothesis was confirmed, among others, in a study conducted by Kuzmenko and Timmins (2011) for the real estate market in the United States, where the unemployed significantly overestimated the value of their properties. On the other hand, for the same market, the opposite results were indicated by Agarwal (2007), according to whom the self- employed, compared to others, overestimated their dwellings much more. The scale of the occurrence of the endowment effect may also be affected by the way the property was obtained. It can be assumed that people who bought property compared to those who got it for free will be more loss averse due to the fact that they had to spend a lot of capital to acquire it. On the other hand, such individuals may become anchored on the purchase price resulting in the disappearance of the endowment effect, especially if the purchase was relatively recent (Kain and Quigley, 1972). Consequently, a clear-cut hypothesis cannot be formulated here. The intensity of the endowment effect may also differ for men and women, as pointed out in their study by Dommer and Swaminathan (2013). The authors noted that the variable strength of the possession-self link is higher for women than for men. On the other hand, van der Cruijsen et al. (2014) found that men are generally characterised by overconfidence which causes them to overestimate their possessions more than women. On the basis of both the above premises, also, in this case, it was not decided to set an unambiguous research hypothesis. 3. Methodology 3.1 Data and study area The study area is the city of Warsaw, where the largest residential market in Poland operates. This analysis uses two databases, i.e. a survey questionnaire data (Tomal, 2021) and a state database on residential property transaction prices. The survey has been carried out using computer-assisted web interview (CAWI) technique between the 6th and 10th of November 2020 and covered randomly selected 1,000 residents of Warsaw who are owners or co-owners of a flat. Given that, according to valuation theory and practice, the best available measure of a property’s value is the transaction price (Gaca, 2019) and following the latest research on the accuracy of self-reported home valuations (Gonzalez-Navarro and Quintana-Domeque, 2009; Melser, 2013; Windsor et al., 2015; Chan et al., 2016; Tur-Sinai et al., 2020), interviewees were asked about the value of their dwelling using the question: “How much do you think you could currently receive if you sold the flat you own/co-own and in which you reside at the moment?”. Moreover, in order to avoid anchoring respondents in offer prices presented on online portals, the time for answering the question was limited to three minutes. In addition, respondents were asked to provide characteristics of the dwelling for which they estimate the value in terms of its physical, locational and neighbourhood attributes. The survey questionnaire was also supplemented with data on the respondent’s personal characteristics and information on how the dwelling was obtained. Table 2 presents basic descriptive statistics for the collected data based on the survey questionnaire. It should be emphasised The accuracy Standard of self-reported Variable Mean deviation Minimum Maximum home Self-reported value of a flat 685,778.44 372,120.11 190,000 3,125,000 valuations Personal characteristics of a respondent Age 42.75 13.64 20 78 Household income (138 persons refused to reply) 9,835.72 6,469.54 3,000 50,000 Gender (1 – Male, 0 – Female) 477 Primary or secondary education (1 – Yes, 0 – No) 524 Higher education (1 – Yes, 0 – No) 476 Unemployed (1 – Yes, 0 – No) 66 Blue-collar worker (1 – Yes, 0 – No) 535 Manager or entrepreneur (1 – Yes, 0 – No) 399 The way of obtaining a flat Method of obtaining housing (1 – Purchase, 0 – 745 Acquisition not requiring a financial contribution) Purchase of a dwelling within the last two years (1 – 278 Yes, 0 – No) Dwelling and building characteristics – physical characteristics Number of rooms 2.25 1.40 1 10 Floor area 61.41 31.32 20 210 Storey on which the flat is situated 2.59 1.89 1 13 Age of the building 27.03 24.23 1 200 Number of storeys in the building 5.61 2.91 2 21 Availability of cellar or basement (1 – Yes, 0 – No) 729 Availability of garage or parking space (1 – Yes, 0 – 889 No) Flat in developer condition (1 – Yes, 0 – No) 112 Characteristics of the dwelling – locational features Distance in a straight line in meters to the city 4598.68 2448.82 300 12,000 centre (Old Town) Housing characteristics – neighbourhood features Distance in a straight line in metres to the nearest 738.93 736.01 20 500 park Distance in a straight line in metres to the nearest 699.78 996.11 50 10,000 school Distance in a straight line in metres to the nearest 285.66 307.73 20 2500 bus or tram stop Distance in a straight line in metres to the nearest 448.50 518.19 29 3000 supermarket Table 2. Note(s): For dummies variables, the value indicates the number of cases where a given variable takes the Survey data – value 1 descriptive statistics that thanks to such a large research sample compared to the entire city population, which amounts to 1,790,658 people as of 2019, this study can be considered representative in the context of not only the studied city but also other large urban areas in Poland and CEE. As regards the second database, i.e. that concerning real estate prices observed on the residential market in Warsaw, only information on transactions carried out up to 3 months prior to the survey was used. This approach was aimed at minimising the impact of time on the research design. Finally, after eliminating outliers and incomplete observations, 7,198 transactions were obtained. 3.2 Investigating the valuation bias level JERER The following formula is used to identify the level of the valuation bias in the housing market 15,3 under study: S O i i VB ¼ (1) where S is the self-reported (subjective) value of the i-th property declared by its owner and O i i represents the estimated value of the same property based on observed transaction prices. In other words, O captures the value of the i-th residential property that is justified by the market. Therefore, the present study is based on revealed rather than stated preferences as in experimental studies. In order to determine O this analysis starts with the equation: O ¼ expðlnv Þ * expðln floor area Þ (2) i i i wherebv is the estimated market value of the i-th flat and is calculated using the hedonic model accounting for the effects of spatial heterogeneity and autocorrelation: ln y ¼ β ðu ; ν Þþ β ðu ; ν Þln MP þ β ðu ; ν Þln x þ ε (3) j j j j j j j j jk j j0 j1 jk k¼2 where y is the house price (PLN/m )ofthe j-th flat, ðu ; ν Þ denotes the geographical j j j coordinates of the j-th flat, ε is the error term, ln x is the k-th ln regressor, ln MP is the ln j jk mean price of flats in the district where the j-thflatis located.Thisvariableiscalculatedas the ln mean price in the primary or secondary market, depending on which market the given transaction occurred. The incorporating of the ln MP regressor aims to account for the spatial autocorrelation of prices [1]. The set of regressors in Eq. (3) include the flat’s characteristics described in Table 2, plus a variable concerning the dwelling’s floor area squared to take into account the non-linear relationship between the property floor area and the price. Eq. (3) is a traditional geographically weighted regression (GWR) outlined by Brunsdon et al. (1996). GWR is a locally weighted regression that allows modelling the relationships between the dependent variable and predictors across space. Specifically, for each observation, a multiple regression model is estimated based on the subset of data, which is selected based on the distance from the regression point (fixed bandwidth) or based on the number of nearest neighbours (adaptive bandwidth). However, the latter is frequently used because the density of observations often varies across the study area (Fotheringham et al., 2003). In addition, the chosen subset of data is weighted by a kernel function, whereby generally, observations that are closer to the regression point have a stronger impact. Fotheringham et al. (2003) recommend using the bi-square kernel function, as it produces a continuous weighting function up to a certain distance and zero weights for the remaining observations. The spatial weight from a bi-square kernel function can be written as follows: h i w ¼ 1 ða =bÞ when a < b; 0 otherwise (4) jp jp jp where a is the Euclidean distance between the regression point jand observation p, bis the jp optimal bandwidth. For the location of the regression point, the weight is equal to 1 and then decreases as the distance increases. Finally, when the distance between locations is greater than or equal to the assumed bandwidth, the weight is 0. Following Fotheringham et al. (2003)’s guidelines, a bi-square kernel function and an adaptive bandwidth were assumed in this study, and the latter was selected by cross-validation (CV). The latter procedure consists in minimising the following expression: X The accuracy CVðb Þ¼ lny lny ðb Þ (5) r j r ð−jÞ of self-reported home where b denotes the r-th bandwidth and lny refers to the fitted value from GWR with ð−jÞ valuations the j-th location being omitted during model calibration. Finally, b for which the CV score is thelowestserves asa b. Considering the above, GWR allows generating the hedonic function varying in space, which is not possible in the traditional ordinary least squares (OLS) model that estimates one set of parameters for the whole study area. However, accounting for the spatial heterogeneity of the housing attributes’ marginal prices is crucial for properly modelling the housing market. This is mainly due to the fact that submarkets with different housing preferences are present in the residential market (Watkins, 2001). One of the main alternatives to GWR is spatial filtering. However, Oshan and Fotheringham (2018) demonstrated that both techniques produce very similar results, with GWR being more intuitive and simpler to use in applied research. Consequently, GWR is very widely used for research to explore, model and predict variations in housing sales and rental prices (Hanink et al., 2012; Yao and Stewart Fotheringham, 2016; McCord et al., 2018; Tomal and Helbich, 2022) [2]. After calibrating the GWR model, the ln market (objective) value of 1 m of each flat i is calculated as: J J K J X X X X 1 1 1 b b b lnbv ¼ β ðu ; ν Þþ β ðu ; ν Þ ln MP þ β ðu ; ν Þ ln x (6) id j0 j j j1 j j i jk j j ik J J J k¼2 j¼1 j¼1 j¼1 d d d where the index d refers to a Warsaw district and d ¼ 1 ... 16, β ðu ; ν Þ is intended to j j j0 j¼1 capture the mean value of the estimated intercept in a district d from Eq. (3). The expressions J J P P 1 1 b b β ðu ; ν Þ and β ðu ; ν Þ represent the mean value of the calibrated parameters j j j j j1 jk J J j¼1 j¼1 d d from Eq. (3) in a district d for the ln MP covariate and the regressor k respectively. In other words, Eq. (6) allows calculating the average parameter values generated by the model (3) for all districts in Warsaw. The ln unit market value of a flat i is then determined on this basis and depending on its location in a given district. Finally, Eq. (2) is used to estimate the market value for each dwelling i. 3.3 Exploring the valuation bias drivers An ordered logit model is applied to identify the determinants of the accuracy of self-reported home valuations. It is important to determine the maximum valuation error so that the estimated home values by owners can still be considered acceptable and reflective of the property’s true market value. However, there is no established magnitude of this type of error in the scientific literature. Therefore, the margin of error findings for property evaluations prepared by real estate appraisers can be used to determine it. It is assumed that the margin of error in extreme cases can amount to ±20%; however, as a rule, it is accepted at a level equal to ±10 to ±15% (Crosby et al., 1998). Kucharska-Stasiak (2013), on the other hand, indicates that for residential properties, this margin should be less than ±5%. Therefore, this study is conducted for four situations when the margin of error is 5, 10, 15 and 20%, respectively. Taking the above into account, depending on the value of the variable VB a new dependent JERER variable ðLÞ is constructed taking values 1, 2 or 3 as follows: 15,3 (1) if VB ≥ MOE then L ¼ 3 VB (2) if MOE > VB > − MOE then L ¼ 2 VB i VB (3) if VB ≤− MOE then L ¼ 1 i VB where MOE is the adopted margin of error, SD denotes the standard deviation of VB . VB VB i According to the above assignment, the significant valuation bias occurs only for observations for which the variable L takes the value 1 or 3. For a value of 3, it is an overestimation error, while for a value of 1, it is an underestimation error. In order to model the valuation accuracy, all the variables presented in Table 2 were taken as covariates in logit models. 4. Results and discussion 4.1 Estimates of valuation bias analysis The starting point for determining the drivers of the valuation bias variation in the Warsaw residential market was estimating geographically weighted regression to explain real estate transaction prices. The estimated GWR model eliminated spatial autocorrelation of residuals ðMoran’sI ¼ –0:009; p ¼ 0:22Þ [3]. Further, the performance of the GWR model in terms of goodness-of-fit is high. In particular, the overall R was 0.79 (see Table 3), which is a comparable or better result to other studies analysing the housing market in Warsaw (Bazyl, 2009; Trojanek et al., 2018; Trojanek and Gluszak, 2018; Kopczewska and Cwiakowski, 2021). Second, the local R values (see Figure 1) also indicate that there are no locations for which price variability is explained to a small extent. Finally, the estimated Cook’s distances indicate the absence of outlier observations that could significantly disturb the parameter estimates (see Figure 1). In particular, for all locations, the Cook’s distance is significantly less than the accepted cut-off value of 1 (Cook and Weisberg, 1982). Analysing the average values of the generated parameters, one should conclude that they are in line with the expectations (see Table 3). Interestingly, between the flat floor area and the dependent variable, a non-linear relationship has a U-shaped pattern. In particular, up to a certain point, each additional square metre of a flat decreases its unit price, then this dependence changes its form, i.e. the bigger the area, the higher the price for 1 m . The above phenomenon may be a consequence of the Veblen effect in the real estate market and, what is important, has also been confirmed in other studies analysing prices of flats in Warsaw (Trojanek et al., 2018). In the case of the residential market, the Veblen effect is associated with the desire to own a luxury property, which increases the prestige of its owner (Brzezicka and Kobylinska, 2021). A large useable area characterises luxury real estate, and therefore a potential buyer of such a property, along with the increase in its size, does not expect a lower price per 1 m but rather paradoxically is even WTP an additional amount for it. The results obtained are also in line with other studies regarding the neighbourhood and locational regressors. For example, the shorter the distance to the city centre, school and bus/tram stop, the higher the house price per 1 m , which has been confirmed by Trojanek and Gluszak (2018). Furthermore, a supermarket’s vicinity is not considered a housing amenity, which may result from the noise produced by these buildings (Tomal, 2020). When considering the diagnostic tests conducted and the directions of influence of individual variables on house prices, it should be concluded that the estimated GWR model is a reliable predictive tool. After calibrating the GWR model for the transactional housing prices, the real market value for each flat i was calculated, and further the corresponding valuation error. In Table 4, The accuracy Variable Mean STD Minimum Median Maximum SH SC [%] of self-reported Intercept 4.012 12.704 63.095 3.237 80.835 Yes 42.15 home Ln floor area 0.741 0.871 4.561 0.739 3.282 Yes 34.81 valuations Ln floor area squared 0.085 0.109 0.394 0.084 0.569 Yes 31.97 Ln building age 0.066 0.057 0.204 0.064 0.123 Yes 60.33 Ln number of storeys in the 0.032 0.115 0.446 0.025 0.349 Yes 38.00 building Ln storey number 0.032 0.032 0.186 0.028 0.132 Yes 38.92 Ln rooms 0.037 0.108 0.465 0.024 0.237 Yes 32.28 Primary market 0.163 0.266 1.515 0.133 1.222 Yes 54.18 Ln MP 0.957 1.516 6.662 0.968 8.867 Yes 84.46 Ln distance to city centre 0.206 0.561 2.266 0.125 1.779 Yes 45.07 Ln distance to supermarket 0.005 0.042 0.185 0.004 0.127 Yes 31.89 Ln distance to school 0.005 0.052 0.282 0.005 0.177 Yes 25.13 Ln distance to park 0.009 0.042 0.195 0.011 0.196 Yes 34.03 Ln distance to nearest bus/tram 0.004 0.05 0.185 0.002 0.137 Yes 27.86 stop Basement 0.004 0.041 0.186 0.007 0.139 Yes 16.51 Garage 0.050 0.072 0.397 0.058 0.453 Yes 52.65 0.792 Bandwidth 204 N 3597 Note(s): STD means standard deviation. Due to the fact that the calibration of a GWR model is computationally demanding, 50% randomly selected observations were used for this purpose. SH means spatial heterogeneity. The latter was assessed based on Fotheringham et al. (2003) by comparing the interquartile value of the GWR local parameter estimates with twice the OLS standard error. A positive Table 3. difference indicates a significant spatial variation in the local parameters. SC means percent of significant cases Estimates of the at 0.10 level GWR model Figure 1. Local R2 values and Cook’s distances of the estimated GWR model one can see the estimates of this analysis. As we can see, on average, owners of properties in Warsaw overestimate their value by only 1.94%, which indicates very high accuracy of their valuations and contradicts the expectations created based on the specifics of the Polish society (hypothesis H1 is not confirmed). This result may be due to several reasons. First, the residential market in Warsaw is one of the most liquid markets in Poland, i.e. characterised by JERER Value Average valuation bias [PLN] Average valuation bias [%] 15,3 Average 10,440.68 1.94% Standard deviation 170,593.71 21.13% Minimum 1,187,724.31 52.52% Maximum 903,463.52 93.75% Margin of error Type of valuation bias ±5% ±10% ±15% ±20% Significant overvaluation bias 417 (42%) 334 (34%) 242 (24%) 175 (18%) No valuation bias 204 (20%) 364 (36%) 540 (54%) 681 (68%) Significant undervaluation bias* 379 (38%) 302 (30%) 218 (22%) 144 (14%) Table 4. y z Note(s): Number of cases when VB ≥ MOE . Number of cases when MOE > VB > − MOE . Estimates of the i VB VB i VB valuation bias analysis * Number of cases when VB ≤− MOE i VB a very high number of transactions. All this contributes to the fact that real estate purchase is becoming more and more routine, which lowers the level of information asymmetry on the market and leads to the reduction of the level of the endowment effect by weakening the loss aversion phenomenon (Kahneman, 1992). In addition, as many as 16% of the respondents surveyed expressed the view that they were not satisfied with their housing situation and, as a result, their attachment to housing as a thing may be significantly reduced (Tomal, 2021). In this context, it should also be stressed that the majority of the survey participants were relatively young people who very often grew up in a spirit of social mobility rather than attachment to one place. It should also be noted that depending on the concept adopted for the size of the margin of error, between 20 and 68% of the sample is found to be free of valuation error for margins of error of respectively 5 and 20%. Furthermore, for these extremes of the margin of error, approximately 40 and 15% of the sample is characterised by an over or underestimation error. These values further confirm the high accuracy of valuations made by Warsaw property owners. Next, it was checked whether there is spatial heterogeneity in the average valuation bias across the Warsaw districts. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 2, which Figure 2. Average values of the valuation bias across the Warsaw districs shows that the valuation bias is absent in the city’s central districts, which may be related to The accuracy the presence in these areas of luxury properties for which the endowment effect is low. The of self-reported obtained results also indicate a very strong localism of the Warsaw residential market, within home which the formation of homogenous sub-markets can be observed, confirming the valuations conclusions drawn by Kopczewska and Cwiakowski (2021). On the other hand, the above estimates contradict those obtained by Melser (2013), who observed no change in the magnitude of owners’ valuation bias; however, that study compared results between cities, not between districts within a single agglomeration. 4.2 What drives the accuracy of self-reported home valuations? The next stage of the study was intended to explore the drivers of the valuation bias variation using the ordered logit method (see Table 5). Specifically, four ordered logit models were estimated separately for each error margin level. Analysing first the estimates of the average marginal effects for the physical, neighbourhood and locational characteristics of the property, it can be seen that in at least two models variables describing the age of the building, the floor area of the flat, the distance to the city centre and the nearest park and school turned out to be statistically significant. In relation to the first variable, it can be noted that as the age of the building increases, so does the probability of overvaluation of properties by their owners. This relationship is in line with expectations because the older the building, the longer the length of ownership of flats by individual residents, which in turn increases the level of estimated values due to the duration-of-current-ownership effect (Strahilevitz and Loewenstein, 1998). In terms of the ln floor area variable, the same kind of impact can be observed as for the regressor described above. Regarding the covariate on the distance to the city centre, the results obtained fully confirm the preliminary conclusions drawn in the previous sub-section. In the case of the last two regressors, the proximity of a park or a school increases the likelihood of property owners overvaluing their property. Taking all the above into account, hypothesis H2 can be positively verified. The result presented in Table 5 also confirms the previously identified relationship in the literature review section that the overvaluation bias is unlikely to happen for more expensive properties, which verifies hypothesis H3. It can also be concluded from the above that households living in low-value homes significantly overestimate their values. Tomal (2022) noted that this phenomenon might be a consequence of the high level of the endowment effect and a lack of access to hard information, and a desire to avoid embarrassment or social stigma among the poor. When examining the estimates of the average marginal effects for variables describing the respondent’s characteristics, it should be noted that a significant relationship exists only for the regressors relating to age and employment situation, and consequently, of hypotheses H4–H7, only hypothesis H4 was confirmed. Specifically, growth in the respondent’s age increases the probability that the respondent’s overvalue their properties, which can be justified by high level of the endowment effect among these people. Moreover, findings regarding being an entrepreneur are in total contradiction to hypothesis H7. Namely, the results obtained revealed that this type of person tends to significantly overvalue properties. This situation may be due to the fact that people in higher positions tend to make decisions (in this case concerning property valuation) based on behavioural factors such as overconfidence or overoptimism heuristic (Tomal, 2019). All this can lead to a significant overvaluation error. The obtained results also indicate that the way in which the respondent acquired the dwelling does not influence the accuracy of respondents’ home valuations. Therefore, it can be concluded with a high probability that the anchoring effect does not play a major role in the Warsaw housing market, at least in terms of anchoring in the purchase price of real estate. JERER 15,3 Table 5. Logit model estimates – drivers of the valuation bias variation Average marginal effects Model 1: MOE 5 ±5% Model 2: MOE 5 ±10% Model 3: MOE 5 ±15% Model 4: MOE 5 ±20% Covariate L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 Personal characteristics of a respondent y y y Ln age 0.061 0.001 0.062 0.033 0.002 0.036 0.031 0.004 0.035 0.019 0.005 0.025 Ln household 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.001 0.009 0.021 0.002 0.023 0.017 0.005 0.023 Income Gender 0.033 0.001 0.033 0.022 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 Higher education 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.007 Unemployed 0.052 0.001 0.053 0.005 0.001 0.005 0.011 0.001 0.013 0.013 0.003 0.016 y y Manager or 0.029 0.001 0.030 0.043* 0.003* 0.047* 0.027 0.003 0.031 0.003 0.001 0.003 entrepreneur The way of obtaining a flat Purchase 0.023 0.001 0.024 0.029 0.002 0.031 0.016 0.002 0.018 0.011 0.003 0.015 Purchase within 0.032 0.001 0.032 0.021 0.001 0.022 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 the last two years Physical characteristics of a flat Ln rooms 0.043 0.001 0.044 0.028 0.002 0.031 0.010 0.001 0.012 0.008 0.002 0.011 Ln floor area 1.830** 0.049 1.880** 1.556** 0.119* 1.675** 1.279** 0.167* 1.447** 0.091** 0.267** 1.182** Ln storey number 0.006 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.009 Ln building age 0.023* 0.001 0.024* 0.027** 0.002 0.029** 0.005 0.001 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.005 Ln number of 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.006 0.008 0.015 0.002 0.017 0.001 0.001 0.002 storeys in the building Basement 0.023 0.001 0.023 0.019 0.001 0.020 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.017 0.005 0.022 Garage 0.007 0.001 0.007 0.011 0.001 0.011 0.016 0.002 0.018 0.014 0.004 0.018 Locational and neighbourhood characteristics of a flat y y y Ln distance to city 0.100* 0.002 0.103* 0.079* 0.006 0.085* 0.071* 0.009 0.081* 0.051 0.014 0.065 centre y y y Ln distance to 0.021* 0.001 0.022* 0.021** 0.001 0.023** 0.012 0.001 0.014 0.003 0.001 0.004 nearest park (continued) The accuracy of self-reported home valuations Table 5. Average marginal effects Model 1: MOE 5 ±5% Model 2: MOE 5 ±10% Model 3: MOE 5 ±15% Model 4: MOE 5 ±20% Covariate L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 L 5 1 L 5 2 L 5 3 Ln distance to 0.019* 0.001 0.020* 0.007 0.001 0.008 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.012* 0.003 0.015* nearest school Ln distance to 0.012 0.001 0.013 0.011 0.001 0.012 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.002 nearest bus/tram stop Ln distance to 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.002 nearest supermarket Other characteristics Primary market 0.042 0.001 0.044 0.021 0.001 0.023 0.026 0.003 0.029 0.021 0.006 0.028 Ln estimated 1.912** 0.052 1.964** 1.634** 0.126* 1.760** 1.371** 0.1799* 1.551** 1.025** 0.299** 1.325** market value District fixed YES YES YES YES effects Observations 862 862 862 862 Pseudo R 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.44 a b Note(s): baseline category is primary or secondary education. baseline category is a blue-collar worker. ** one per cent level of significance. * five per cent level of significance. ten per cent level of significance. The number of observations is lower because some respondents refused to answer regarding their income 5. Conclusions JERER Based on the study carried out, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) on average, 15,3 homeowners overvalue their properties by only 1.94% compared to what is justified by the market; (2) depending on the margin of error used, between 20 and 68% of the sample made an accurate forecast of the value of their property. In contrast, overestimation and underestimation errors occurred in both cases in about 15–40% of respondents; (3) there are significant differences in the valuation bias across the districts of the studied city. In the central areas of the city, respondents are most likely to undervalue their properties; (4) the level of the valuation bias is a function of the physical, neighbourhood, and locational characteristics of the dwelling, the level of its market value, and the respondent’s personal characteristics. This study has several limitations. First, this survey lacks information on the exact locations of the dwellings owned by the respondents, but only in the districts. This fact affects the accuracy of determining the market values of interviewees’ properties. Second, as far as the database containing transactions of flats is concerned, no information was available on the technical condition and standard of flat, which implies an omitted variable bias. Future research should extend the area of analysis to housing markets characterised by a lower degree of liquidity, where a higher intensity of the endowment effect is expected to occur as a result of an increased level of loss aversion caused by the less routine nature of property sales transactions. In these types of markets, asymmetry of information will also be a far greater problem, which may result in an increased average estimation error. Finally, subsequent analyses should also pay attention to the problem of measuring self-reported home value. In particular, it should be checked whether there are differences in the results of the analysis depending on the orientation of the question to the transaction price of the property or its value. This paper also has important policy implications. First of all, central or local authorities analysing the housing wealth in large Polish agglomerations may successfully use for this purpose not only transaction prices but also owners’ self-reported home valuations due to very low average estimation error. Secondly, such high accuracy of owners’ estimations can be a starting point for a discussion on the property appraisal profession, particularly the preparation of professional opinions for typical residential real estate. Notes 1. There is no information on the exact locations of respondents’ dwellings, and thus it is not possible to account for both spatial effects in a better way. 2. A detailed description of GWR is available in Fotheringham et al. (2003). 3. The residuals from the OLS model showed very strong spatial autocorrelation ðMoran’sI ¼ 0:303; p ¼ 0:001Þ. The test was performed using a k-binary row-standardised spatial weight matrix ðk ¼ 4Þ. References Agarwal, S. (2007), “The impact of homeowners’ housing wealth misestimation on consumption and saving decisions”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 135-154. Bazyl, M. (2009), “Hedonic Price Model for Warsaw Housing Market”, Department of Applied Econometrics Working Papers, Vol. 8, pp. 1-16. Benıtez-Silva, H., Eren, S., Heiland, F. and Jimenez-Martın, S. (2015), “How well do individuals predict the selling prices of their homes?”, Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 12-25. Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A.S. and Charlton, M.E. (1996), “Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity”, Geographical Analysis, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 281-298. Brzezicka, J. (2016), “Znaczenie heurystyki zakotwiczenia i dostosowania w procesie wartosciotworczym The accuracy na rynku nieruchomosci”, Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Administratio Locorum, Vol. 15 No. 1, of self-reported pp. 31-44. home Brzezicka, J. and Kobylinska, K. (2021), “An analysis of the income and price elasticity of demand for valuations housing in view of price dynamics on the residential property market”, Real Estate Management and Valuation, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 97-110. Chan, S., Dastrup, S. and Ellen, I.G. (2016), “Do homeowners mark to market? A comparison of self- reported and estimated market home values during the housing boom and bust”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 627-657. Cheung, K.S., Chan, J.T., Li, S. and Yiu, C.Y. (2021), “Anchoring and asymmetric information in the real estate market: a machine learning approach”, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, Vol. 14 No. 9, p. 423. Cook, R.D. and Weisberg, S. (1982), Residuals and Influence in Regression, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, USA. Crosby, N., Lavers, A. and Murdoch, J. (1998), “Property valuation variation and the’margin of error’in the UK”, Journal of Property Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 305-330. DiPasquale, D. and Somerville, C.T. (1995), “Do house price indices based on transacting units represent the entire stock? Evidence from the American housing survey”, Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 195-229. Dommer, S.L. and Swaminathan, V. (2013), “Explaining the endowment effect through ownership: the role of identity, gender, and self-Threat”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1034-1050. Fotheringham, A.S., Brunsdon, C. and Charlton, M. (2003), Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships, John Wiley & Sons, Newcastle. Furnham, A. and Boo, H.C. (2011), “A literature review of the anchoring effect”, The Journal of Socio- Economics, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 35-42. Gaca, R. (2019), “Price as a measure of market value on the real estate market”, Real Estate Management and Valuation, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 68-77. Gaechter, S., Johnson, E.J. and Herrmann, A. (2007), “Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices”, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract51010597 (accessed 20 April 2021). Gao, N. and Liang, P. (2019), “Home value misestimation and household behavior: evidence from China”, China Economic Review, Vol. 55, pp. 168-180. Gonzalez-Navarro, M. and Quintana-Domeque, C. (2009), “The reliability of self-reported home values in a developing country context”, Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 311-324. Goodman, J.L. and Ittner, J.B. (1992), “The accuracy of home owners’ estimates of house value”, Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 339-357. Hanink, D.M., Cromley, R.G. and Ebenstein, A.Y. (2012), “Spatial variation in the determinants of house prices and apartment rents in China”, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 347-363. Haurin, D., Moulton, S. and Shi, W. (2018), “The accuracy of senior households’ estimates of home values: application to the reverse mortgage decision”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 655-697. Huck, S., Kirchsteiger, G. and Oechssler, J. (2005), “Learning to like what you have: explaining the endowment effect”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 115 No. 505, pp. 689-702. Ihlanfeldt, K.R. and Martinez-Vazquez, J. (1986), “Alternative value estimates of owner-occupied housing: evidence on sample selection bias and systematic errors”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 356-369. Jaeger, C.B., Brosnan, S.F., Levin, D.T. and Jones, O.D. (2020), “Predicting variation in endowment effect magnitudes”, Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 253-259. Jimenez, E. (1982), “The value of squatter dwellings in developing countries”, Economic Development JERER and Cultural Change, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 739-752. 15,3 Kahneman, D. (1992), “Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 296-312. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. (1991), “Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 193-206. Kain, J.F. and Quigley, J.M. (1972), “Note on owner’s estimate of housing value”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 67 No. 340, pp. 803-806. Kiel, K.A. and Zabel, J.E. (1999), “The accuracy of owner-provided house values: the 1978-1991 American housing survey”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 263-298. Kish, L. and Lansing, J.B. (1954), “Response errors in estimating the value of homes”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 49 No. 267, pp. 520-538. Kopczewska, K. and Cwiakowski, P. (2021), “Spatio-temporal stability of housing submarkets. Tracking spatial location of clusters of geographically weighted regression estimates of price determinants”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 103, p. 105292. Kucharska-Stasiak, E. (2013), “Uncertainty of property valuation as a subject of academic research”, Real Estate Management and Valuation, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 17-25. Kuzmenko, T. and Timmins, C. (2011), “Persistence in housing wealth perceptions: evidence from the census data”, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi510.1.1.702. 5942&rep5rep1&type5pdf (accessed 20 April 2021). Leung, T.C. and Tsang, K.P. (2013), “Anchoring and loss aversion in the housing market: implications on price dynamics”, China Economic Review, Vol. 24, pp. 42-54. Liang, P. and Gao, N. (2021), “Homevalue misestimation and household leverage: an empirical study of Chinese urban households”, Cities, Vol. 109, p. 103043. Maddux, W.W., Yang, H., Falk, C., Adam, H., Adair, W., Endo, Y., Carmon, Z. and Heine, S.J. (2010), “For whom is parting with possessions more painful?: cultural differences in the endowment effect”, Psychological Science, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1910-1917. McCord, M.J., MacIntyre, S., Bidanset, P., Lo, D. and Davis, P. (2018), “Examining the spatial relationship between environmental health factors and house prices: NO2 problem?”, Journal of European Real Estate Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 353-398. Melser, D. (2013), “How well do Australian home-owners know the value of their home?”, Australian Economic Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 31-44. Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1987), “Experts, amateurs, and real estate: an anchoring-and- adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 84-97. Oshan, T.M. and Fotheringham, A.S. (2018), “A comparison of spatially varying regression coefficient estimates using geographically weighted and spatial-filter-based techniques”, Geographical Analysis, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 53-75. Robins, P.K. and West, R.W. (1977), “Measurement errors in the estimation of home value”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 72 No. 358, pp. 290-294. Romani, S., Gistri, G. and Pace, S. (2012), “When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 807-824. Sønstebø, O.J., Olaussen, J.O. and Oust, A. (2021), “Opening bid strategies in English auctions”, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 123-143. Strahilevitz, M.A. and Loewenstein, G. (1998), “The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 276-289. Thaler, R. (1980), “Toward a positive theory of consumer choice”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-60. Tomal, M. (2019), “Behawioralne aspekty decyzji inwestycyjnych samorza ˛dow lokalnych–na The accuracy przykładzie gmin wojewodztwa małopolskiego”, Ekonomista, Vol. 2, pp. 226-242. of self-reported Tomal, M. (2020), “Modelling housing rents using spatial autoregressive geographically weighted home regression: a case study in Cracow, Poland”, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, valuations Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 346. Tomal, M. (2021), Exploring and Modelling the Endowment Effect in the Housing Market: Evidence from an Emerging Economy, Repozytorium Otwartych Danych Badawczych RepOD, Warsaw, doi: 10.18150/HE5BDH (accessed 15 September 2021). Tomal, M. (2022), The Applicability of Self-Reported Home Values in Housing Wealth Inequality Assessment: Evidence from an Emerging Country, Housing Studies, submitted for publication. Tomal, M. and Helbich, M. (2022), “The private rental housing market before and during the covid-19 pandemic: a submarket analysis in Cracow, Poland”, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1646-1662. Trojanek, R. and Gluszak, M. (2018), “Spatial and time effect of subway on property prices”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 359-384. Trojanek, R., Gluszak, M. and Tanas, J. (2018), “The effect of urban green spaces on house prices in Warsaw”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 358-371. Tur-Sinai, A., Fleishman, L. and Romanov, D. (2020), “The accuracy of self-reported dwelling valuation”, Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 48, p. 101660. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: heuristics and Biases: biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty”, Science, Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124-1131. van der Cruijsen, C., Jansen, D.-J. and van Rooij, M. (2014), “The Rose-Colored Glasses of homeowners”, available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2437350 (accessed 20 April 2021). Wang, M., Rieger, M.O. and Hens, T. (2017), “The impact of culture on loss aversion”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 270-281. Watkins, C.A. (2001), “The definition and identification of housing submarkets”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 2235-2253. Windsor, C., La Cava, G. and Hansen, J. (2015), “Home price beliefs: evidence from Australia”, Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 41-58. Yao, J. and Stewart Fotheringham, A. (2016), “Local spatiotemporal modeling of house prices: a mixed model approach”, The Professional Geographer, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 189-201. Further reading Tomal, M. (2022), “Self-reported and market home values in housing wealth inequality measurement: evidence from Warsaw and Prague”, Critical Housing Analysis, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 29-38. Corresponding author Mateusz Tomal can be contacted at: tomalm@uek.krakow.pl For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Journal of European Real Estate Research – Emerald Publishing
Published: Oct 17, 2022
Keywords: Housing market; Geographically weighted regression; Valuation bias; Emerging economy; Endowment effect; C21; D91; R31
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.