Urban Development Policy Making

Urban Development Policy Making

Property Valuation and Urban Revenue Collection within a Participatory Governance Framework: The Case of Isfahan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Reza Nasr Esfahani 1
Mostafa Nabati Nejad 2
Elham Agharian 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of Economics & Entrepreneurship, Art University of Isfahan, Iran
2 Ph.D. in Entrepreneurship, Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 M.A. in Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
10.22034/judpm.2026.580224.1099
Abstract
This study was conducted to improve the property valuation system of Isfahan City for the assessment of municipal charges by incorporating the participation of real estate consultants. The research adopted a descriptive–analytical approach and involved 914 participants, including municipal property valuation experts and members of the Isfahan Real Estate Consultants Association, who were selected through random sampling. Data were collected using structured questionnaires based on a detailed geographical zoning framework, with a precise distinction between main and secondary streets. The findings revealed that the average discrepancy between expert-assessed property values and market prices amounted to 60 million Iranian Rials in the residential sector and 130 million Iranian Rials in the commercial sector. In the residential sector, 22% of regional valuation codes exhibited low discrepancies (less than 10%), 31% showed moderate discrepancies (10–30%), and 47% required re-evaluation. The corresponding figures for the commercial sector were 9%, 19%, and 72%, respectively. A hybrid valuation model was developed based on minimizing estimation errors and empirically testing alternative weighting schemes. The optimal model assigned a weight of 70% to expert valuations and 30% to market-based valuations. The results demonstrated that this combination significantly reduced the gap between expert-assessed values and actual market prices. The findings confirm the effectiveness of the proposed hybrid model in urban property valuation systems. It is recommended that the Municipality of Isfahan employ this model for the periodic updating of benchmark property values. The application of the proposed approach can contribute to enhancing the efficiency of building charge assessment mechanisms and increasing transparency in urban governance and municipal management.
Keywords
Participatory governance
property valuation
building charges (urban development fees)
spatial/regional pricing
Isfahan
Subjects
1.    Slack E. The property tax: In theory and practice. IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance No. 7. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance; 2011.
2.    Bird RM, Slack E. International handbook of land and property taxation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004.
3.    Horvath S, Soot M, Zaddach S, Neuner H, Weitkamp A. Deriving adequate sample sizes for ANN-based modelling of real estate valuation tasks by complexity analysis. Land Use Policy. 2021;107:105475.
4.    Silver H, Scott A, Kazepov Y. Participation in urban contention and deliberation. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2010;34(3):453-477.
5.    Blok A, Meilvang ML. Picturing urban green attachments: Civic activists moving between familiar and public engagements in the city. Sociology. 2015;49(1):19-37.
6.    Wilson A, Tewdwr-Jones M, Comber R. Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: App development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci. 2019;46:286-302.
7.    Meilvang ML, Carlsen HB, Blok A. Methods of engagement: On civic participation formats as composition devices in urban planning. Eur J Cult Polit Sociol. 2018;5(1-2):12-41.
8.    McCluskey W, Franzsen R. Property tax in Africa: Status, challenges, and prospects. Cambridge (MA): Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; 2017.
9.    Cheyne C. Changing urban governance in New Zealand: Public participation and democratic legitimacy in local authority planning and decision-making 1989-2014. Urban Policy Res. 2015;33(4):416-432.
10.              Bauer A, Steurer R. Innovation in climate adaptation policy: Are regional partnerships catalysts or talking shops? Environ Polit. 2014;23(5):818-838.
11.              Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, De Colle S. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
12.              Slack E, Bird RM. How to reform the property tax: Lessons from around the world. IMFG Paper No. 25. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance; 2015.
13.              United Nations Human Settlements Programme. The value capture toolkit: Land-based financing for urban development. Nairobi: UN-Habitat; 2019.
14.              Pagourtzi E, Assimakopoulos V, Hatzichristos T, French N. Real estate appraisal: A review of valuation methods. J Prop Invest Finance. 2003;21(4):383-401.
15.              International Valuation Standards Council. International valuation standards. London: International Valuation Standards Council; 2021.
16.              Direction Générale des Finances Publiques. Révision des valeurs locatives cadastrales [Revision of cadastral rental values]. Paris: Ministry of Economy and Finance; 2021.
17.              International Association of Assessing Officers. Standard on mass appraisal of real property. Kansas City (MO): International Association of Assessing Officers; 2013.
18.              Grover R. Mass valuations. J Prop Invest Finance. 2016;34(2):191-204.
19.              Lieske SN, van den Nouwelant R, Han JH, Pettit C. A novel hedonic price modelling approach for estimating the impact of transportation infrastructure on property prices. Urban Stud. 2021;58(1):182-202.
20.              Youngman J. A good tax: Legal and policy issues for the property tax in the United States. Cambridge (MA): Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; 2016.
21.              Midgley G, Cavana RY, Brocklesby J, Foote JL, Wood DR, Ahuriri-Driscoll A. Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. Eur J Oper Res. 2013;229(1):143-154.
22.              Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. Annual report. Ontario: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation; 2021.
23.              Bundesministerium der Finanzen. Reform der Grundsteuer in Deutschland [Reform of property tax in Germany]. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Finance; 2022.
24.              Peterson GE. Unlocking land values to finance urban infrastructure. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2008.
25.              World Bank. Philippines urbanization review. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2018.
26.              Iranian National Tax Administration. Direct Taxes Act. Updated ed. Tehran: Iranian National Tax Administration; 2020. [Persian].
27.              Majlis Research Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Evaluation report on the National Real Estate System and challenges of vacant housing tax. Tehran: Majlis Research Center; 2022. [Persian].
Urban Development Policy Making
Volume 3, Issue 3 - Serial Number 8
Autumn 2026
Pages 393-409

  • Receive Date 27 February 2026
  • Revise Date 14 April 2026
  • Accept Date 26 May 2026
  • Publish Date 23 September 2026