IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v50y2023i6p1624-1644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting housing construction period based on a cox proportional hazard model––an empirical study of housing completions in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Zhang
  • Eric J Miller

Abstract

The completion progress of residential development projects and the length of construction are frequently discussed in the construction industry, but rarely studied by urban modellers. Nonetheless, a realistic reflection of housing supply processes is important for urban microsimulation and land use modelling. To predict the dwelling units generated over space and time, this paper decomposes the housing supply process into two major components: housing starts and completions, the nature and modelling logic of which are quite different. This paper deals with the latter segment, aiming to answer the question of: how long will it take to complete construction of new dwellings? A Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) Model is employed to examine the “survival†rate of residential building projects and the probabilistic distribution of construction periods. Narrowing down the scope of research, this study investigates housing completions at the individual project level, and discusses the impact of structure type, surrounding land use, and accessibility on the housing completion rate. The Cities of Toronto, Hamilton, and Brampton in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) were selected to conduct the empirical study, with each representing different types of urban form to test model compatibility. The hazard models show good performance in replicating completion rates, and the impact of each factor on hazard ratio indicates that, single detached dwelling units with relatively homogeneous land use have the shortest completion time. This study could provide one component of a comprehensive framework for modelling housing supply, especially in urban microsimulation systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Zhang & Eric J Miller, 2023. "Predicting housing construction period based on a cox proportional hazard model––an empirical study of housing completions in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(6), pages 1624-1644, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:50:y:2023:i:6:p:1624-1644
    DOI: 10.1177/23998083221143386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23998083221143386
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23998083221143386?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Chan & Mohan Kumaraswamy, 1999. "Modelling and predicting construction durations in Hong Kong public housing," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 351-362.
    2. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Ordered Choices and Heterogeneity in Attribute Processing," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 44(3), pages 331-364, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P. Velumani & N. V. N. Nampoothiri & M. Urbański, 2021. "A Comparative Study of Models for the Construction Duration Prediction in Highway Road Projects of India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Tsegay Gebrekidan Tekleselassie, 2017. "Subjective Wellbeing and Institutions: The Case of Rural Ethiopia," Working Papers 016, Policy Studies Institute.
    3. Falco, Paolo & Maloney, William F. & Rijkers, Bob & Sarrias, Mauricio, 2015. "Heterogeneity in subjective wellbeing: An application to occupational allocation in Africa," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 137-153.
    4. Surendran Padmaja, Subash & KHED, VIJAYALAXMI Dundappa & Krishna, Vijesh V., 2021. "What Would Others Say? Exploring the Gendered and Caste-based Social Norms in Central India through Vignettes," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 314028, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Tekleselassie, Tsegay Gebrekidan, 2016. "Three essays on the impact of institutions and policies on socio-economic outcomes," Economics PhD Theses 1316, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. D. R. Ogunsemi & G. O. Jagboro, 2006. "Time-cost model for building projects in Nigeria," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 253-258.
    7. Sarrias, Mauricio, 2016. "Discrete Choice Models with Random Parameters in R: The Rchoice Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 74(i10).
    8. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    9. Fischer, Anke & Glenk, Klaus, 2011. "One model fits all? -- On the moderating role of emotional engagement and confusion in the elicitation of preferences for climate change adaptation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1178-1188, April.
    10. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    11. Alejandra R. Enríquez & Angel Bujosa Bestard, 2020. "Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 203-217, May.
    12. Lahiri, Kajal & Zhao, Yongchen, 2015. "Quantifying survey expectations: A critical review and generalization of the Carlson–Parkin method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 51-62.
    13. Stanley, John & Stanley, Janet & Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David, 2019. "Social exclusion: The roles of mobility and bridging social capital in regional Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 223-233.
    14. Wei Tong Chen & Ying-Hua Huang, 2006. "Approximately predicting the cost and duration of school reconstruction projects in Taiwan," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(12), pages 1231-1239.
    15. Cinzia Cirillo & Yangwen Liu & Jean-Michel Tremblay, 2017. "Simulation, numerical approximation and closed forms for joint discrete continuous models with an application to household vehicle ownership and use," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1105-1125, September.
    16. Kajal Lahiri & Yongchen Zhao, 2013. "Quantifying Heterogeneous Survey Expectations: The Carlson-Parkin Method Revisited," Discussion Papers 13-08, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.
    17. Grebitus, Carola & Seitz, Carolin, 2014. "Relationship between attention and choice making," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182669, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Varotto, Silvia F. & Farah, Haneen & Toledo, Tomer & van Arem, Bart & Hoogendoorn, Serge P., 2018. "Modelling decisions of control transitions and target speed regulations in full-range Adaptive Cruise Control based on Risk Allostasis Theory," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 117(PA), pages 318-341.
    19. Paleti, Rajesh & Bhat, Chandra R., 2013. "The composite marginal likelihood (CML) estimation of panel ordered-response models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 24-43.
    20. David Hensher, 2014. "Attribute processing as a behavioural strategy in choice making," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 12, pages 268-289, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:50:y:2023:i:6:p:1624-1644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.