BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF LANDADMINISTRATION

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF REAL PROPERTY VALUATION

THE IMPACT OF LAND USE PLAN ON EXISTING PROPERTY VALUE: THE

CASE OF FINOTESELAM TOWN, AMHARA, ETHIOPIA

BY
BERHANU ABAWA

June 2023
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
 BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF LANDADMINISTRATION

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM OF REAL PROPERTY VALUATION

THE IMPACT OF LAND USE PLAN ON EXISTING PROPERTY VALUE: THE

CASE OF FINOTESELAM TOWN, ETHIOPIA
By

Berhanu Abawa Gashu

A Thesis

Submitted to the Institute of Land Administration, Bahir Dar University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master’ of Science in Real Property
Valuation

Principal Advisor: Berhanu Kefale (Ph.D)

June 2023
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

© 2023 Berhanu Abawa

 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is an original report of my own research, has been
written by me and has not been submitted for any previous degree. The investigational work
is almost entirely my own work; the collaborative contributions have been indicated clearly
and acknowledged. I understand that non-adherence to the principle of academic honesty and
integrity, misrepresentation/fabrication of any idea/data/ facts/ source will constitute
sufficient ground for disciplinary action by the university and can also evoke penal action
from the source which have not been properly cited or acknowledged.

Berhanu Abawa

Name of candidate Date Place

i
 Bahir Dar University

Institute of Land Administration

Post Graduate Program in Real Property Valuation

Approval of Thesis for Defense
I hereby certify that I have supervised, read, and evaluated this thesis titled “The impact of
land use planning on existing property value: In the case of Finoteselam town, Ethiopia” by
Berhanu Abawa prepared under my guidance. I recommend the thesis be submitted for oral
defense.

___________ ___________
Advisor’s Name Signature Date

___________ ___________
Department Head Signature Date

ii
 APPROVAL SHEET

Bahir Dar University

Institute of Land Administration

Post Graduate Program in Real Property Valuation

Approval of Thesis for defense result
As members of the board of examiners, we examined this dissertation/thesis entitled “The
impact of land use planning on existing property value: In the case of Finoteselam town,
Ethiopia” by Berhanu Abawa. We hereby certify that the thesis is accepted for fulfilling the
requirements for the award of the degree of Master’s in Real Property Valuation.

Board of Examiners

External examiner name Signature Date

___________ ___________
___________ ___________
Internal examiner name Signature Date

___________ ___________
___________ ___________
Chairperson’s name Signature Date

___________ ___________

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

From the very beginning, I would like to my heartfelt thanks to almighty God and his mother
St. Mary, for having made everything possible and giving me strength and courage to
complete this study. Without the aid of God, all the things wouldn't have been possible.

I would like to express my gratitude to Woldia University for giving me the opportunity to
study MSc in Real Property Valuation at Bahir Dar University. Also thank Bahirdar
University for accepting me and teaching me new knowledge. And then, I would also like to
express my appreciation and thanks to Dr. Berhanu Kefale who is my advisor, for his
valuable suggestions, guidance, patient and constant support as well as encouragement, all of
which contributed significant to this paper.

I extend my sincere gratitude to Finoteselam municipality especially plan implementation;

construction and supervision office, to help me a lot in providing the required data during
fieldwork. And special thanks to the residents of the two districts in Finoteselam town (01 &
02) for giving their valuable time to give me useful information for my study.

Finally, to the brothers and sisters who have been by my side in this study, I would like to
express my highest respect and gratitude for your endless support and for giving me your
valuable companionship. Also, I would like to thank all of my colleagues and friends who
gave me valuable comments for this study.

iv
 ABSTRACT

Land use plans are useful to guide how to use and build property in a different zone for
physical and economic development. However, restrictions that are adopted by land use
plans have an impact on existing property value regarding physical condition, conformity,
and rental prices. This led to a decline in existing property values. Therefore, this study aims
to analyze the impact of land use plans on the value of existing properties. The study applied
a mixed research approach. Systematic random sampling was used to select 250 respondents
from pure and mixed commercial land use areas. In addition, using purposive sampling, six
key informants (vulnerable group or property owners who were prohibited from renovation,
remodeling, and expansion of existing property) were included in commercial land use.
Primary data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, and direct field observation,
whereas secondary data was found from different journals, books and Finoteselam land use
planning map. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the conforming status of
existing properties whereas binary logistic regression and multiple linear regressions were
employed to analyze the effect of land use plan on physical conditions and rental value of
existing properties respectively. Also, comparative theory analysis is employed to develop an
appropriate land use planning approach for existing property value. This study found that
91.95% of existing properties have been forced to continue being non-conforming for two
decades in terms of the raw material they are made of, the number of floors they have and
the purpose they are designed for. The probability that existing property is physically poor is
directly related to restrictions imposed by the land use plan. Also, existing properties
appeared to have less rental prices primarily as the result of the land use plan's restrictive
contents. Finally, this study found that the comprehensive land use planning approach is
stagnant and remains the cause for existing property being physically poor, non-conforming
and having less rental value. This implies that the need for a better approach to land use
planning is unquestionable. Therefore, this study established a land use planning approach
called Strategic-Advocacy planning, which is a mixing of strategic and advocacy planning
approaches that can solve existing problems that arise from a comprehensive planning
approach.

Key words: Existing properties, Land use plan, Non-conforming structure, Non-conforming use

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURE..................................................................................................................... x
ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the study ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2, Research Problem........................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Objectives of the study ................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 General Objective .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.2 Specific objective ................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research questions....................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Significance of the study............................................................................................................... 6
1.7. Scope of the study ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.8, Limitations of the study ............................................................................................................... 7
1.9, Organization of the paper ........................................................................................................... 7
1.10 Operational definitions of terms ................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 9
2.1. Land use restrictions and the conformity of existing properties ................................................ 9
2.1.4. Non-conforming properties .................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Land use plan restrictions and physical conditions of existing property ................................... 10
2.3 land use planning restriction and existing properties rental prices ........................................... 12
2.4 Urban land use planning theories .............................................................................................. 15
2.4.1 Comprehensive land use planning approach /RCM/ ........................................................... 15
2.4.2 The advocacy land use planning approach.......................................................................... 17
2.4.3 Strategic land use planning approach ................................................................................. 20
2.4.4 Ethiopian urban land use planning approach...................................................................... 21
2.3. Lessons learned from the literature .......................................................................................... 22

vi
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 23
3.1. Description of the study area .................................................................................................... 23
3.2, Research design ......................................................................................................................... 24
3.3. Sampling design ......................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1. Sampling frame................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2. Sampling unit ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.3. Sampling techniques .......................................................................................................... 25
3.3.4. Target population ............................................................................................................... 25
3.3.5. Sample size determination ................................................................................................. 26
3.4. Data source and methods of collection..................................................................................... 26
3.5. Data Collection instruments ...................................................................................................... 27
3.5.1. Primary data collection Instruments .................................................................................. 27
3.5.2 Secondary data Collection Instruments .............................................................................. 28
3.6 Methods of data analysis ........................................................................................................... 28
3.6.1 Qualitative data analysis ..................................................................................................... 28
3.6.2 Quantitative data analysis ................................................................................................... 29
3.7 Model Specification .................................................................................................................... 30
3.7.1 Binary logistic regression model (BLR) ................................................................................ 30
3.7.2. Multiple linear regression model (MLR) ............................................................................. 33
3.8 Operation of variables and analysis tools .................................................................................. 35
3.9 Data Presentation ....................................................................................................................... 36
3.10 Ethical Consideration................................................................................................................ 36
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 37
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 37
4.2 Data reliability test ..................................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Socio economic and Demographic data ..................................................................................... 37
4.3.1 Demographic characteristics for sample respondents/property owners ........................... 37
4.3.2. Demographic characteristics of Key informants ................................................................ 39
4.4. Respondents response rate ....................................................................................................... 41
4.5. Land use restrictions and their effect on the conforming state of existing properties in three
land use planning period .................................................................................................................. 41
4.5.1 Building height restrictions (BHR) in three Land use plans periods .................................... 44
4.5.2 Construction material restriction (CMR) in three land use planning periods ..................... 46

vii
 4.5.3 Land use restriction in three land use planning periods ..................................................... 48
4.6. Land use plan and their effect on the physical conditions of existing properties in the three
land use plan period ......................................................................................................................... 53
4.6.1 Existing properties physical condition ................................................................................. 53
4.6.2. Inferential analysis.............................................................................................................. 55
4.6.3 Interpreting the regression results ...................................................................................... 58
4.6.2 Testing the research hypothesis and interpretation of regression result ........................... 61
4.7. Restrictive land use plan and their impact on the rental price of existing properties in the case
area ................................................................................................................................................... 66
4.7.1. Regression Analysis ............................................................................................................ 67
4.8 Appropriate urban planning approach and framework for existing property value.......... 74
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ....................................... 83
5.1. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 83
5.2. RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................. 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 86
APPENDIXES ........................................................................................................................ 93
Appendix 1: questionnaires .............................................................................................................. 93
Appendix 2: Existing properties general information ...................................................................... 98
Appendix 3: Regression results ........................................................................................................ 99
Appendix 4: rental prices per meter square price of existing properties in kebeles 01 and 02 .... 101

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sample size determination ........................................................................................ 26

Table 2:Independent Variable coding ..................................................................................... 30
Table 3:Dependent Variable Coding ...................................................................................... 32
Table 4:Independent variable coding ...................................................................................... 34
Table 5:Operational summery................................................................................................. 35
Table 6: Reliability test ........................................................................................................... 37
Table 7: Sample Respondents demographic characteristics .................................................. 38
Table 8: Respondents response rate ....................................................................................... 41
Table 9: Conforming status of existing properties .................................................................. 42
Table 10: Conforming status of existing properties ................................................................ 46
Table 11:Properties under changed land use .......................................................................... 49
Table 12: Non-conforming structures in terms of material and numbers of floors ................ 52
Table 13:Miller's criteria for properties physical conditions .................................................. 53
Table 14: Multicollinearity diagnosis and descriptive statistics for extreme outliers ............ 56
Table 15: Case processing summary....................................................................................... 57
Table 16: Prediction ability of the model ............................................................................... 58
Table 17: Testing of the model fitting .................................................................................... 58
Table 18: Model summary ...................................................................................................... 59
Table 19: classification table without independent variable ................................................... 59
Table 20:variables in the model .............................................................................................. 60
Table 21: Statistical information’s of rental prices ................................................................. 67
Table 22: Multicollinearity test ............................................................................................... 68
Table 23: Normality testing for dependent variable ............................................................... 69
Table 24: significance test of model ....................................................................................... 70
Table 25: Model summary ...................................................................................................... 72
Table 26: Coefficients of determination ................................................................................. 72
Table 27:Comparative analysis of land use planning approaches .......................................... 77

ix
 LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1: Location map for the study area ----------------------------------------------------------- 23

Figure 2:Building height restriction in three land use planning period -------------------------- 45
Figure 3:Changed properties by 2000s’ land use plan ---------------------------------------------- 48
Figure 4: Changed properties by the 2010's land use plan ----------------------------------------- 50
Figure 5:Changed properties by the 2020's land use plan ------------------------------------------ 51
Figure 6: Existing properties physical looks --------------------------------------------------------- 66
Figure 7: Normality check by P-P plot --------------------------------------------------------------- 68
Figure 8: Homoscedastic test--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69
Figure 9: General conceptual framework of strategic-advocacy land use planning approach 82

x
 ACRONYMS

ANRS Amhara National Regional State

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

BLR Binary Logistic Regression

ETB Ethiopian Birr

LUP Land Use Ulan

NDP Neighborhood Development Plan

MLR Multiple Leaner Regression

MRA Multiple Regression Analysis

SPSS Statistical Package Software for Social Science

xi
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study

Plans about how to use and build property in different zone is land use plan (Berger, 2014).
As the author explained, an urban planning method where a municipality or other level of
government divides land in to different area for different purpose, zoning. It can be designed
for a single use or mixed use for control the future development of the town or the city
though restrictive land use plans (Forys et al., 2015).

Historically BC, The Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Eshnunna, which were written in
the mud-brick cities of Mesopotamia before 4,000 years ago, may have been the first
attempts to regulate land use. Later, extensive discussion of land use issues was included in
Jewish legal codes. Even in the placement and construction of buildings, these ancient Jewish
regulations emphasized ethical behavior. (Hildegard, 2018) and (Watson, 2013).

As Watson (2013) reviewed, because of new scientific rationality manufacturing area

transformed to modern urban zonings and the industrial zone segregated from neighborhood.
This had experienced in France, Germany and British in late 19th century to create healthy
residential zone and segregated industrial zone. This approach contributed greatly to the
economic growth of cities in these developed countries in the mid-19th century. In particular,
it made possible to manage the development of cities and individual real properties
(Buitelaar, 2014).

In Ethiopia, it is not more than three decades since implementing land use plan to control the
future physical growth of cities and towns in a modern zonal way. As FDRE urban planning
proclamation No.574/2008 stipulated that cities should be guided and control by a visionary
structural plan. Following this, land use plan began to serve as the implementation tools for
prepared structural plan on towns and cities. Similarly, Zenebe, (2002) stated that,
Finoteselam town where this study conducted has been governed by a land use plan to make
visionary town since 1992.
In the past few years, several studies have been done regarding land use plan and property
value in both developed and developing countries. According to those, the impact of land use

1
plan on existing property value is different. Those are amenity effect, scarcity effect and
restrictive effect (Jaeger, 2006).

An amenity impacts of land use plan happen when a land use creates, enhance and protect
public services that are advantageous to communities. This public service promotes growth
of the community and improves the livability of regulated land; as a result property value is
increased. Similarly, other land use ordinance like pertaining environmental protection, open
public space and the management of disruptive elements such as noise, traffic congestion and
pollutions create an amenity consequence as well (Jaeger, 2006 and Dodman et al., 2013).
These studies come to the conclusion is that the majority of land use plan are adopt in place
to preserve, maintain or enhance community-beneficial service. As a result, existing assets
have appreciated.

The second way that a land use plan can affect existing property value is through the scarcity
effect. The scarcity created when land use plan in developed or potentially developable areas
is reducing the availability of particular area of land in a particular zone, which can increase
the value of existing property in the regulated area (Jaeger, 2006). On the other hand, land
use plan has a significance impact on existing property value by adopting restrictions on use
and construction of properties. Those restrictions are use of land, maximum building height,
building material (Ding, 2013; Francis et al, 2020). When those restrictions implemented
following a land use change, existing properties used for purposes they were not originally
designed for and being non-conforming property in terms of use and structure to the changed
zoning. This led properties value become diminished (Rolheiser et al., 2018 and Fillippova,
2015).

Problems like mentioned above exist in Ethiopia since all cities and towns guided their future
economical and physical development by regional centered comprehensive land use plan.
According to FDRE urban planning proclamation No.574/2008 stipulated that, in order to
achieve a balanced and coordinated national, regional and local development in Ethiopia, it
was necessary to led and control towns/cities in a visionary way, and to replace the existed
centralized town and cities planning with a decentralized system. Therefore, all towns/cities
in Ethiopia guided though comprehensive zonal land use plan since 2008. One of those towns
that the study focuses on is Finoteselam, the capital of weast Gojjam. Based on proclamation,

2
two land use plans have been implementing in Finoteselam town since 2010. But
surprisingly, Finoteselam town have been governed by land use plan since 2000. Therefore,
restrictive land use plans have been used as implementation tool for economic and physical
development plans since 2000 (Zenebe, 2010). So, a scholarly investigation is needed to
analyze the effect of such restrictive land use plans on existing property value since 2000(the
adoption of the first land use plan)-2022(the adoption of third land use plan) and this needs to
formulate a possible model to demonstrate the effect and value relationship accordingly.
Therefore, this specific overview addresses these issues in the context of Finoteselam town
since 2000 G.C.

1.2, Research Problem

Land use plan serve as a tool for towns/cities to control and guide their economic and
physical development. But its restrictive content has significant impact on property value
(Easley et al., 2013). Studies have shown the negative impact of land use plan on existing
property value. Ding (2013) conducted a study in Beijing found that land use plan with
permitted maximum building height restriction had a negative impact on the rental price of
existing properties. Also Jaker (2006) and Nakajima et al. (2021) conducted studies
independentlly in Oregon, America and Fukoca, Japan respectivly. As they reveal that where
the adoption of permitted maximum building height restriction, restrictions of construction
material and restrictions of land use, the value of existing property being decreased compered
to properties having less restrictive land use plan or exempted from those restrictions.
However, most of the studies done in this area are in developed countries, so they focus on
the negative impact of maximum land use planning restrictions on existing properties. They
often do not address the minimum restriction set by the land use plan that can affect existing
property value. In addition, their studies show the impact of land use planning on existing
property, but do not indicate in which land use planning approach it was conducted.
However, as land use planning approaches are different, their effects on property value may
be different. Therefore, they did not recommend any alternative land use planning approach
to overcome the negative effects on existing property value. This may create a gap in the
existing knowledge. This study attempts to address this issue and fill the gap.

3
In Ethiopia, there are limited studies which discuses about the impact of comprehensive land
use plan on existing property value. Regarding this, comprehensive land use planning
approach has been implementing in all towns/cities since FDRE urban planning proclamation
No.574/2002 stipulated to achieve a vision, balanced and coordinated national, regional and
local development. But this planning approach is long ranging (10-20 years planning
periods), not detail and flexible for changes. More specifically, to enhance physical and
economic development since 2000 land use plan have been used as a tool for Finoteselam
town mainly though land use restriction, minimum building height restriction and
construction material restriction (Zenebe, 2002). Then, especially the two residential districts
kebele 01 and 02 in the town changed to mixed and pure commercial by consecutive land use
plans; most of the existing houses were one story but they were changed to two up to four
stories by imposing minimum building height restriction since 2000 the implementations of
the first land use plan started from. And most of existing houses made of wood and mud were
subjected to construction material restriction. Contrary to the physical and economic
development plan in the two kebeles where these restrictive land use plan adopted, outdated
physical conditions and non-conforming properties are trends which they need to renovation
and remodeling respectively. So, individual existing property value need to investigation.

Therefore, the motivation on doing a research on this topical area is due to the fact that
almost all studies in the context of this problem is that: I), existing literature emphasized
more on developed country and metropolitan cities. As a result, the extent of restrictive
content and their effect may differ between economically developed countries and
developing countries, including Ethiopia (Jaker, 2006 and Ding, 2013); ii), there are limited
studies on this area in Ethiopia in general and in Finoteselam in particular (Degualem, 2018);
iii), there are limited studies on this topical area in relation to value determinants like
physical conditions and conforming statuses of existing properties in Ethiopia and in
Finoteselam in particular. Therefore, this study attempts to fill the abovementioned gaps.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General Objective

The main objective of the study is to analyze the impact of comprehensive land use planning
approach on existing property value .

4
 1.3.2 Specific objective
✓ To assess the restrictions of land use plan that affect the conforming status of existing
properties under three planning periods (2000-2009, 2010-2019, 2020-2022/2023)
✓ To analyze the restrictions in the land use plan that affect the physical conditions of existing
properties
✓ To analyze effect of land use plan restriction on the rental price of existing properties in the
study area
✓ To assess appropriate urban land use planning approaches for existing property value

1.4 Research questions

✓ What are the restrictions of land use plan that create non-conforming properties in the three

planning periods?

✓ How do land use planning restrictions relate to the physical conditions of existing property?

✓ How the restrictive natures of land use plan affect the rental prices of existing properties?

✓ What are the approaches of urban land use planning that affects existing property value?

1.5 Hypothesis

The study required testing the hypotheses. These hypotheses are possibilities about the
outcome of the results, and they may be written as alternative hypotheses specifying the
results to be expected and also may be written as in the null form to indicating no expected
difference or no relationship between groups on a predicted variable (Creswell, 2014).
Therefore, for this study to verify the relationship between the dependent variable (property
value) and independent variables (restrictions of land use plans), to accept or reject the
significance of the study, the following hypotheses were developed regarding the effects of
land use plans on the existing property value in the case of Finoteselam town:

H1: Building height restrictions have significance negative effects on existing property value

H2: Constriction material restrictions have significance negative effects on existing property
value

5
H2: Land use restrictions have significance negative effects on existing property value

1.6 Significance of the study

In developed country, urban land use plan is based on own socioeconomic concept, and if it
is applied directly to the town of poor country will have a negative impact rather than
positive effect (Watson, 2009). In this regard, this study not only serves as an input for
planers but also fill the knowledge gap by clearly identifying the relationship between the
land use ordinance and existing property value.

The study highly significant for appraisers interested to estimate the values of land and
properties in relation to the plan impacts of different urban land use activities as well as
forecasting the impacts of the future plans on the specific properties based on the past and the
current trends of land use plans. As Land use ordinance used as implementation tools for
town structure plan, this research also provides information for key stakeholders to take pro-
active measures and to involve in structure plan preparation to minimize its negative impacts
on the property value. Finally, the findings of this study will be used as a direction for further
research work in relation to municipal land use plan and property value.

1.7. Scope of the study

Geographically: As mentioned in the introduction, the study is conduct in Finoteselam town

mainly undertaken in two kebeles (01 and 02) specifically on pure and mixed commercial
land use zone. The main reason for the selection of this kebeles is that they have been under
land use plan for more than 23 years and the impact of plans in this area is significant.
Conceptually: The research focuses only on the effects of comprehensive land use planning
on existing properties. In doing so, the paper only concentrates on seeking information about
the conforming status of existing properties (conforming to the land, non-conforming use to
the land and non-conforming structure to the land), physical conditions of existing properties
in relation to land use restriction (poor physical condition under land use restrictions and
good physical condition under land use restrictions) and rental prices of existing properties
under different land use restrictions. Further, the study assesses land use planning approach
to develop appropriate approach for existing property value.

6
1.8, Limitations of the study

In this study, there were two challenges when collecting important data. First, the availability
of relevant literature and documents, especially local literature or studies on property values
regards municipal Land use plans were no or limited. As a result, most of the source is
foreign. Another limitation was the absence of comprehensive empirical pieces of evidence
about the impact of plans in structure plan on property value. Because of this, in needs search
and review for each plan impact on property value.as a result, it takes long time.

1.9, Organization of the paper

The first chapter provided a background of the research, which includes background of the
study, problem statement, research objectives, hypothesis, scope of the study, limitation of
the study, significance of the thesis/paper.
Chapter two is literature review. Basically it focuses on theoretical backgrounds and
empirical pieces evidence about the study. Such as basic concepts and definitions of plans in
Land use plan, property values, impacts of land use changes on property values. Finally,
lessons learned from the literature and some terminologies applicable for this study are
included in the literature review part.
In Chapter three the research methodology were presented. This portion put the way how to
conduct, how to collect and analyze data in the study regarding to the topic.
The four chapter of the study is result and discussion. It is detail description, analysis and
presentations of findings of the study based on the research hypothesis finally, the fifth
chapter is the conclusions and the recommendations of the study.

1.10 Operational definitions of terms

Zoning: a component of urban planning that is intended to advance and safeguard the
welfare of the city’s residents in general, including their health, safety, and economic
wellbeing (K.Burgess, 1931).
Structure plan: A Structure Plan is a long term (ten to fifteen years) statutory framework
used to guide the development or redevelopment of land. It is used to define; future
development and land use patterns; the layout of trunk (primary distribution networks)

7
infrastructure and main transportation routes, including terminals; conservation and protected
areas; and other key features for managing the direction of development (Maple et.al, 2010).
Land use plan: is a system of rules used by governments to regulate the kind of physical
structures that may be built in different part of the or city, as well as kind of uses that the
buildings and land may be put to within those specific jurisdictions (Lawrence& Michael,
2008)
Non-conforming use: A nonconforming use is a use lawfully existing prior to the change in
a Land use ordinance, which then prohibits that use where it is currently located (Wilson,
2011)
Non-conforming structure: nonconforming structure is a structure lawfully existing under
prior land use plans, but which could not be constructed new under current plans
Property value: it reveals the possible price of a given property at a given time (Shehu et al.,
2015).

8
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Land use restrictions and the conformity of existing properties

Various researchers have studied the restrictive plans that may affect existing and proposed
property value separately without linking them to urban land use planning (Ding et al., 2013).
But, each of the restrictive plan is created and applied to a city or town based on the cities’ or
town’s governing plan. Land use or land use restrictions, building floor numbers or height
limit and building material restrictions, setbacks, building forms can be applied on the cities
through the land use plan.

2.1.4. Non-conforming properties

‘‘Nonconforming occur in two categories: use and structures. A nonconforming use is a use
lawfully existing prior to the change in a land use ordinance, which then prohibits that use
where it is currently located. On the other hand, a nonconforming structure is a structure
lawfully existing under prior land use plans, but which could not be constructed new under
current plans’’ (Wilson Rede, 2011). Scholars in the field of urban planning and real estate
interpreted legal non-conformities in a similar way. Ientilucci (2003) defined a legal non-
conformities is that structure or use that met the requirement of the Land use ordinance when
the structure or use was establish, but does not conform to the current requirements of land
use in which the structure or use are located i.e. Use or structure can become nonconforming
due to a land use of the property on which it is located.

These aspects of planning also impact on the poor, and in a study of nine cities in Africa,
Asia and Latin America, Davis (2001) found that most had planning and building standards
which were unsuited to lower income earners. As he depicted, most of existing building and
houses for living purpose became non-conforming regarding use and structure. Land use
contains simultaneously an urban welfare ideal and restrictive conditions with hierarchical
principles, both of which establish intra-class (and sometimes racial and ethnic)
differences(Jaeger, 2006). Therefore, includes some and excludes others.

For urban development and growth, new standards are implemented through a structural plan
or master plan. Therefore, land use, existing structure, site design feature and lot size may no

9
longer meet the newly adopted standards. As most scholars argue that, the concept of
nonconformity arises from these processes (Bassett, 1949 and Bellotti et.al., 2021). When the
government applies such standards to existing properties, there is a possibility that they may
become non-conforming.as a result, existing properties may not conform to the newly
implemented standards. According to John M. et.al (2005) non-conforming property can be
created when building height limits, minimum standards for construction materials, building
form and setbacks are implemented following land use change. For example, when the land
use plan is implemented, there is a possibility that a residential area may be converted in to
commercial land use. As a result, the house built for living purpose become non-conforming
for the new land use and standards, and services such as expansion and renovation will be
restricted by the town or city municipality. Similarly, when a minimum and maximum height
limit imposed on a single story house, they become unsuitable for newly implemented
building height plan and are called non-conforming structure. This trend for existing
properties may cause to decrease in value as scholars depicted in their studies ( Bellotti et al.,
2021; and Wilson, 2011).

There are no or very little researches on the impact of minimum building height restrictions
on property value in developing countries, especially in Ethiopia. This study will fill this gap
as a starting point for other researchers to establish the effect of this restriction on property
value when applied to low income property owners.

2.2 Land use plan restrictions and physical conditions of existing property

Numerous researchers describe obsolescence in similar term and meaning in their study
(Emmanuel et.al, 2019 and Francis et.al , 2020). According to those researchers, factors that
cause obsolescence are age, construction error, level of wear and tear, low service level, poor
accessibility. As their perspective and definition, except economic obsolescence others
cannot be the direct result from urban planning. But when we see meanings, let’s see that
they can be direct result of urban structural planning. Emmanuel et.al, (2019) defined three
fundamental obsolescence types: i) “Physical obsolescence occurs when a property loses
value due to old age, gross mismanagement and physical neglect resulting in deferred
maintenance that is usually too costly to repair”. Let we relate this issue to the land use
change as this study involved. When the land changed from residential use to commercial

10
use, the restrictive plan like construction material and building height followed with this
change. Especially, when those restrictive plans imposed on existing property, the owner
should be constructing or built their property based on the restrictions. If this restrictions
adopted on the property owner who cannot built as the permission of the restriction, the
property will gate long aged and crumbled physical condition and construction materials that
require excessive maintenance. So, the land use plan can direct cause for physical
obsolescence. Perhaps the researchers did not see it in this way because the place where they
did the study was not at the absolute poverty and the restrictions were adapted to an
economic perspective. ii) “Functional obsolescence occurs when a property loses value due
to its architectural design, building style, size, outdated amenities; local economic conditions
and changing technology”. Assume if a neighborhood was built two decades ago, and
following the land use change, there was the adoption of minimum building height restriction
and change in use, and the property owner could not work according to the adoption; the
property may be out of date in terms of architecture in long time. And also they will be out of
date in terms of beauty, size, technology and their demand will decrees. This fact has become
common to see in Finoteselam where the study is conducted. iii) “Economic obsolescence
manifests when a property loses value because of external factors such as land use change,
local traffic pattern changes or the construction of public nuisance type properties and
utilities such as sewer treatment plant, prison, and refuse dump site on adjoining properties”.
According to researchers defined here, Economic obsolescence can occur following change
in land use or land use change. As I mentioned above, functional and physical obsolescence
may create by restrictive plan following land use change. However, if economic
obsolescence is directly created by land use change, we can say that it is the cause of physical
and functional obsolescence. But this cannot always be true, it is depends on the location and
economic condition of the study area, Finoteselam.

Francis et.al , (2020) examined the influence of building obsolescence on rental values of
property in Uyo, Nigeria. They were used Relative importance Index (RII) and linear
regression analysis to analyze the gathered data related to obsolescence. They showed that
the age of buildings, construction faults, level of deterioration, poor level and standard of
services, poor accessibility and over-supplied market significantly impacted on the level of
building obsolescence. As this study depicted the land use plan in the structure plan did not

11
responsible for the building obsolescence. But, they concluded that, the rental value is
directly related to and affected by the degree of obsolescence. Also, age is direct responsive
for obsolescence in their research, however reconstructing and renovation restrictions on
existing assets do not suggested by the researchers that assets may become old and have
direct role in obsolescence.

In general, researchers about obsolescence or physical conditions in different countries do

not have much related with urban land use planning. However, we can understand from the
interpretation given to economic obsolescence above by different scholars that urban
planning and land use change is the cause of economic obsolescence. In the context of
restrictive plans and low income property owners, economic obsolescence can be the cause
for physical and functional obsolescence as explained above with the definition. Emmanuel
et al. ( 2019) and Francis et al. (2020) they argue that the rate of obsolescence of the property
can be depend by age in terms of land use change, architectural style and aesthetics,
technology, physical conditions, service and standards.

2.3 land use planning restriction and existing properties rental prices

Construction materials are subjected to land use plan in cities and it may the primary
determinants of property value. One of the restrictive plan include in urban land use plan is
the restriction of building and housing construction materials. Although many studies have
shown that raw materials are important in determining property value, there is little to say
about this due to restrictive plans. According to Watson, (2016) study, the concept of urban
planning was directly applied to poor countries from the western and not only did not grow
cities as intended, but also excluded the poor and reduces property value. In addition,
because of the minimum standards for the use of construction materials come with and is
implemented, it prohibits property owners from using locally available raw materials for
renovation or reconstructions. If property owners fail to comply with the restrictive plans,
existing property will become nonconforming and less desirable. Various studies have shown
that nonconformity have a significant negative impacts on property value (Gail Easley et al.,
2009 and John M. et al., 2005). We can bring this to Ethiopia’s small and developing zone
and district towns. For example, since implementation of land use change in the structural
plan of the town of Finoteselam, where this study conducted, the limit of raw material for

12
construction has been set. According to these requirements, property owners in the zone that
has changed from residential land use to commercial land use can only work with cement
blocks and equivalent material. However, the house built before the implementation of this
restrictive plan are known by the municipality of the town as legal non-conforming structures
because they are not suitable for the new land use since existing properties made of wood and
mud which are available from the area. Studies depicted that this situation can have a
negative impact on the value of existing homes by making less desirable (Ibrahim et al.,
2018). If the building or houses are built according to the restrictions, they can have positive
role in their value, but in town like Finoteselam, existing properties without being renovated
under this restriction and reworked with their content has become outdated from the context
of architectural style, technology and use. Existing assets in these situations have high
probability of long aging and nonconformity. This situation leads to the existing property to
physical and functional obsolescence. As some scholars founded that, property value can be
determined by their non-conformity levels (Emmanuel et al., 2019). To prevent from
happening, urban planners and municipalities should consider adapting to the income status
of property owners and the market or investment activity in the area before implementing
restrictive plan though structural plan on existing and proposed properties.

A building height restriction is a minimum and maximum number of floors or height that
follows a change in land use through urban structure plan or master plan. This limitation can
be due to different objectives that cites or towns want to achieve. Different metropolitan
cities have implemented building height restrictions through their structural plan for different
reason. For example Ding (2013) conducted a study in Beijing, china, where building height
restrictions were implemented by the city government. The reason for this restriction was to
prevent the older and historic buildings in the city center from being overtaken by newer
buildings. The restriction is that the buildings that are planned to be built in this place should
be smaller than the historic building which is existed in the city center. As a result the core of
the city, where this restriction was imposed, has become undesirable for real estate
developers. It also depicted that this area has a significance difference in sale and rental price
compared to area where maximum building height restrictions are not imposed. In Dign’s
study, the hedonic price model was used to study and predict property sale and rental price.
According to this model, property prices increase significantly as moved away from the city

13
center. Therefore, in the center of the city, where there are ‘historical buildings’, the
investment rate has decreased by 87%, and the sale and rental price of buildings have also
decreased. Although this study in Beijing reveals the negative impact of imposing maximum
building height restrictions on property value, it does not say anything about the impact of
imposing a minimum building height limit.

As Nakajima et.al (2021) a study done on Fukuoka city, Japan shows that, the
implementation of maximum building height restriction by the city government has a
negative impact on property value. The maximum building height restriction in this city is
due to the presence of an airport nearby. According to his study property owners up to 4000
meter from the airport are prohibited from building more than 51.1 meters. It stipulates that
after 4000 meter, the height of buildings can increase with a 2% slope. This means increase
four meters height. According to the researcher, the increasing in value can be 12% of the
property. He confirmed that property value increase after 4000M. Overall, this study reviles
that imposing a building height restriction has a negative impact on property value. His study
in Fukuoka city reveals the negative impact of imposing maximum building height restrictions
on property value, it does not say anything about the impact of imposing a minimum building
height limit Although there are no studies showing the impact of a minimum building height
restrictions on the value of existing properties following the implementation of a change of
use through a Land use plan. But this study may fill this gap as a starting point for other
researchers around this concept.

Studies conducted in metropolitan cities confirmed that permitted maximum building height
restrictions have a negative impact on property rent and sale price (Asami et al., 2006);
(Longhui, 2021); (Brueckner, 2003). But when it comes to the developing countries, this
restriction and its effect are not studied. We may divide the building height restriction in to
two, maximum permitted building height restriction and minimum permitted building height
restriction. In developing and poor towns, maximum permitted building height is not a topic
and the restriction is not seen as a concern. Instead, the town municipality set minimum
permitted building height restriction though structural plans to grow and modernize the town.
For example, this has been implemented in the town of Finoteselam (where the researcher

14
conducted this study) for two consecutive decades and will continue for the next 8 years,
according to the structural plan made in 2020.

2.4 Urban land use planning theories

Planning theory is the body of scientific concepts, definitions, behavioral relationships, and
assumptions that define the body of knowledge of urban planning(Sandercock, 1998). And, it
is concerned with the process by which decision is taken. Planning theories helps build
clarity in understanding targeted planning behavior. Although, directs program planning and
evaluation as an integral part of all interest groups in the city/town. Planning theories-
attempt to refine the planning process to produce better urban plan. As Hudson, (1979) there
are some substantive and procedural theories of planning that are used by some developed
and developing countries this time.

2.4.1 Comprehensive land use planning approach /RCM/

The RCM (Rational Comprehensive Model) of planning, which is centered on decisions and
principles that are founded on reason, logic, and scientific facts with little to no emphasis on
values and emotions, traces its origins to Enlightenment epistemology (Sandercock, 1998;
Allmendinger, 2002). Faludi has referred to it as "procedural planning theory" because to its
inclination toward scientific method and its decision-making procedure. The planning
theorist "depends on first-hand experience, thinks on it, and puts it into context," he claims,
viewing planning as a process (Faludi, 1978). As a result, the planner gains knowledge
through experience and may specify the right course of action to take to achieve the desired
outcome. The rational comprehensive model, on the other hand, is referred to as "
technocratic planning" by Sandercock (1998) because it places a strong focus on technical
knowledge and proficiency as well as a firm conviction that social science and technology
can be combined to address problems.

Many critiques have been leveled at the methodology of planning. The RCM was criticized
on emphasizing means over aims and for being "basically 'contentless' in that it specifies
thinking and doing techniques but does not analyze what is the content of these" (Thomas,
1982). The approach is criticized for being overly abstract and for "just providing an enlarged
definition of planning and not addressing how planning actually functioned or what its

15
impacts were" (Taylor 1998). Advocacy planners contended that the RCM's depiction of the
"Public interest" only served the interests of the elite. They contend that there is no shared
social interest and that the RCM disregards both the needs of the underprivileged and those
of the environment (Campbell and Fainstein 2003).
Critics like Lindblom (2003 in Campbell and Fainstein 2003) and Altshuler (1965) have also
questioned the model's comprehensiveness, claiming that it is practically impossible to be
completely comprehensive given the limited time and resources available for making a
decision and considering all available options (Taylor 1998; Campbell and Fainstein 2003).
To understand and make sense of all the pertinent information, it also requires an exceptional
level of knowledge, analysis, and organizational coordination; planners may become more
confused and become less rational as a result. Even if planners are "quite alone" in their
decision-making, according to Forester (1999), they will still do so in anticipation of the
opinions of some other people with whom "they know they must finally come to some form
of agreement," and as a result, the decision is not fully comprehensive or rational in this
sense.
In this concept, the planner is unquestionably "The Knower," relying solely on "his"
professional experience and neutrality to act in the best interests of an undifferentiated
public, according to (Sandercock, 1998). The RCM "prioritizes scientific and technical
information over a variety of equally valuable alternatives, such as experimental, intuitive,
and local knowledges," according to (Sandercock, 1998). These analytical and practical ways
of learning exclude those without a background in the field. In contrast to information
acquired through other techniques like talking, listening, observing, considering, and sharing,
this knowledge is based on technical jargons.
In addition to the constraints mentioned above, there are numerous assumptions that must be
met for the rational choice model to work. As a result, they must all be taken into account.
The model makes the supposition that we have access to information that is sufficient in
terms of quality, quantity, and accuracy. This holds true for both the current circumstance
and different technological conditions.
In this theory, planning sees as a procedure and declares that the planning theorists depends
on first-hand experience, reflects upon it, and puts it into context. But, as most post-
modernist urban planners’ critiques, this approach is ineffective, slow and costly in

16
 responding to unforeseen problems (Sandercock, 1998). As a result, most of developed
countries abandoned this land use planning approach before fifteen years ago (Ghadami et
al.,2015).

The Rational Decision-Making Model has the following drawbacks (Sandercock, 1998)
✓ Requires a lot of time
✓ Requires a lot of information
✓ Assumes that rational, quantifiable criteria are available and accepted;
✓ Assumes precise, stable, preferences
✓ Assumes a reasonable and non-political world

What explains the success of the rational planning model?

For the purposes of the planning process, the portion choice model is regarded as the most useful
and appropriate. It is based on scientific reasoning that considers the application of contemporary
technology and increasing data collection. In order to support a claim, the data collected aids in
creating the justification (Sandercock, 1998). The process of creating alternatives and selecting the
finest one among them is another trait. Also, the stiffness issue was addressed in the last stage for
the first time when the procedure came to an end. Oftentimes, rigorous planning procedures are
criticized.

2.4.2 The advocacy land use planning approach

Paul Davidoff and Linda stone develop the planning theory known as advocacy planning in
1960s. according to this pluralistic and inclusive planning paradigm, planers work to
represent the interests of social groups. Generally, this theory:
✓ Many individuals and groups have different and often conflicting interests related to land
use and urban development that needs experts as advocates
✓ Established upon the concept of pluralism in planning
✓ The goal of the planning process is to determine which of several alternative scenarios or
vision-plans will be adopted and implemented- each respective outcome has different
benefits and costs to each of the groups involved in the planning decisions
Planners tend to advocate for a particular agenda, interests and introduced the question “Who
is the client?” into professional usage as well as “Who is the stakeholder or the essential?”.

17
Residents of the target area of the planning process usually are neither skilled in nor
knowledgeable about planning, they are unable to participate effectively in the planning
decision process. Each of the interests in the planning process needed to be served and
represented by a professional planner with equal knowledge and skill (Nadia, 2014). As the
authors, all over this approach has fundamental values social justice and equity.

The concept of advocacy planning's history

Paul Davidoff introduced the idea of preparing an advocacy campaign. There are numerous
interest groups involved in this kind of planning. These are some examples:
• Political organizations (in power or in opposition)
• Special interest groups such as those opposed to the caste system, those who oppose
racial discrimination, those who support or oppose civil rights, chambers of
commerce, labor unions, NGOs working to protect the environment
• Temporary organizations that oppose current regulations for instance
Through the creation of numerous plans, these groups reflect their own demands. This is how
public participation in advocacy planning is accomplished.
As contrast to the unitary plan of rational planning, plural plans are a concept of advocacy
planning. According to rational planning, a single authority can create a plan with scientific
objectivity that attempts to take into consideration the interests of as many different social
groups as feasible and would enable the society to arrive at the one and only truth. The idea
of value neutrality is defied by advocacy planning, which necessitates the creation of several
plans, each of which is influenced by the ideology of those who are creating it. Social values,
urban value and single property value must be considered in every logical decision-making
process.
Public interest is not given or defined by planners; rather, it is created through political
process, i.e., there must be representation of various groups, which can be accomplished by
creating multiple plans. It holds that truth is only relative. Anything which is deemed
appropriate by those who draft policy is called proper. A decision, not a fact, determines
what is the right path of action. Planners act as advocates by assisting individuals whose
plans align with his own beliefs in doing so. As a result, unlike in rational planning, planners
in advocacy planning have a more nuanced role than simply being technicians. The

18
opportunity to support the strategy that the planner believes in is given. The planner assists
his customers in putting their ideas into words that they, the other parties, and the decision-
makers can understand. Planning for advocacy initiatives also uses instrumental knowledge.
By highlighting his plan's advantages and criticizing the plans created by other parties, the
planner justifies his strategy. This is done in order to secure political backing for the
planner's clients' strategy, which is necessary for its financing and execution. The planner
informs his clients on the numerous organizations and planning procedures. The public is
informed as to why some proposals were adopted and others were not. What reasons are
given for the policies that are put in place?
Since the many plans compete with one another, plural plans ensure the creation of good
quality plans. The plural plans are supported by extensive background research, which is
necessary for justifying these goals. They also guarantee that these plans are generated at a
healthy rate.
No competing party creating a plan will have an unfair advantage of any kind thanks to the
numerous plans. The preparation of alternatives is encouraged by rational planning. Yet
rather than being genuine alternate plans, these are more of a conceptual exercise. This
weakness is solved by advocacy planning, which involves the creation of numerous plans by
various social groups. Planning advocacy campaigns encourages vigorous political debate
and opposition to government action, both of which are essential for a robust democracy and
a reasoned decision-making process.
Plural plans also have the following benefits as Paul Davidoff 1960:
• They can be used to inform the public about the various options, alternatives, and
choices that are available and are firmly backed by their advocates.
• It lessens the public agency's pressure to create alternatives
• It imposes a professional duty on the planners to uphold the client's plan
• Because it won't be in a monopolistic situation, the planning agency will have to
compete with the other competing groups. This will compel it to produce plans of
higher caliber.
• It will steer clear of pointless criticism. Individuals who disagree with the current
plan, such as the master plan, will be required to create a better plan. So,
accountability rises.

19
Additional responsibilities of a planner in advocacy planning
• He works on educational projects.
• He educates his clients on their rights under the various planning laws, how city
governments operate, and any specific programs that may have an impact on their
property and other concerns.
• He informs government organizations and other groups about the situations,
scenarios, and issues facing the group he represents.
• The planner draws attention to the types of biases that underlie the data used in other
plans.
Planning for advocacy has evolved over time to include planning for equity, social, mutual,
and trans active learning, and community-based planning (Flyvbjerg, 1986).

2.4.3 Strategic land use planning approach

A response to the growing paradigms in regional and global competition increased in urban
politics (Nadia, 2014). The most important change in this approach, action alternatives are
not good or bad, but their success is dependent on the results of the game that is played
locally, regionally, and globally. Adopted existing concepts and theories like visioning,
mission statements, and SWOT analysis that pinpoints the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats of the organization, city, or region in question.
As post-modernist urban planners Criticism, this theory is inability to accommodate
traditional ideals of public planning such as accountability, participation, under political
control, and the transparency of public administration (Ghadami et al.,2015).

In recent years, developing countries have abandoned the comprehensive land use planning
approaches and used other efficient land use planning approaches. For example, India, Brazil,
and Argentina have been successful in using a combinations of advocacy and strategic land
use planning approach instead comprehensive approach. It has also comprehensive approach
replaced by the strategic approach in Asia (Singapore and South Coria) and Africa (Nigeria,
Ghana, and Egypt). But Ethiopia still used rigid and stagnant land use planning approach
(comprehensive) which is most of developed and developing countries abandoned before
thirty years ago (Ghadami et al.,2015).

20
2.4.4 Ethiopian urban land use planning approach

In Ethiopia, land use plan has been implementing in all towns/cities since FDRE urban
planning proclamation No.574/2000 stipulated to achieve a balanced and coordinated
national, regional and local development. Therefore, the FDRE government give the
authority to regional governments to develop for their cities/towns future land use in a
comprehensive approach. This planning approach implemented by some urban planning
types like base map for small town and structure plan for the towns that are the center of
zones (Zeneb, 2018).

21
2.3. Lessons learned from the literature

The scope of comprehensive land use planning approach focuses on physically developing
the city. Hence, it imposes usage restrictions on property owners to achieve its objectives and
vision. These restrictions make existing properties non-conforming to existing land use plans.
Following this, expansion, renovation and reconstruction will be prohibited on these non-
conforming existing properties. This calls into question the desirability and value of existing
assets. In connection with this prohibition, it is understood that the physical condition of
existing properties may be poor and their value may be determined by this. Also, the
researchers confirmed that the rental price may decrease due to the restrictions set by the land
use plan. There are many approaches to summary land use planning. Among these,
developed countries in the world have been able to overcome the negative impact on the
value of existing property by using strategic land use planning approach. In some of these
countries, they also use advocacy land use planning approach so that the government does
not become authoritarian in land use planning. It was also understood that in developing
countries, using comprehensive planning approach, strategic planning, advocacy planning
and strategic-advocacy planning approach can reduce the impact on existing property values.
However, comprehensive land use planning approach is being used in developing countries
including Ethiopia. But this type of planning was abandoned fifty years ago by developed
countries because it was rigid, stagnant and had a high impact on existing property.

In general, most of the studies done in this area are in developed countries, so they focus on
the negative impact of land use planning restrictions on existing properties. They often do not
address the minimum restriction set by the land use plan that can affect existing property
value. In addition, their studies show the impact of land use planning on existing property,
but do not indicate in which land use planning approach it was conducted. However, as land
use planning approaches are different, their effects on property value may be different.
Therefore, they did not recommend any alternative land use planning approach to overcome
the negative effects on existing property value. This may create a gap in the existing
knowledge. This study attempts to address this issue and fill the gap.

22
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the study area

Finote Selam is a town in north western part of Ethiopia, located in Jabi Tehnan woreda,
Mirab Gojjam zone of Amhara Regional State. It is located at 10o 41′ North Latitude and 37o
16′ East Longitude, with an elevation between 1850 and 1917 meters above sea level. Now it
is the administrative center of Mirab Gojjam zone. The town is 387 kilometers from Addis
Ababa in the North western direction, 185 kms from regional capital Bahir Dar in the south
and 87 kilometers from Debre Marikos along the main asphalt road.

Figure 1: Location map for the study area

Source: Ethio-GIS data and Finote Selam Structural Plan Report, (2010)

23
The study area was residential in nature before the implementation of the land use plan. But
since 2000 those residential land changed to commercial land use. There are also another
complementary commercial and service activities i.e. schools, clinics, shops, hotels and
administrative offices. The area characterized by commercial activities along the major roads
i.e. banks, cafes, shops, clinics, private schools without no change for a long years and
dominated by residential properties inside the neighborhood i.e. single family detached
home. The rationale behind selection of the two kebeles in Finoteselam is due to its serious
issue with two Grand reasons. First, the structure plan changed the land use has been
happening three times in 22 years but things remain like yesterday. There are no tangible
important outcomes from this change. Second, the two neighborhoods changed its physical
appearance compared to others which the land use plans were not changed. It is unpleasant
looking when compared to adjacent neighborhood.

3.2, Research design

A research's general plan, structure, or strategy that directs the study from its inception to the
end data analysis is referred to as research design (Rahul, 2016). To decide this research
design the researcher must understand and identify the data type is whether qualitative or
quantitative that he going to collect based on research question. So, to address the research
question for this study need both quantitative and qualitative data. Therefore, mixed research
approach (quantitative research design and qualitative research design) is employed for this
study. Specifically, As Nachmias (1992) also mentioned in research, design deals with at
least four issues: what questions to research, what data is relevant, what data to collect, and
how to analyze the results under each research objective. In the first objective the researcher
going to describing and identify existing property’s conformity status under mixed and pure
commercial land use. Therefore, descriptive research design employed to describe and
identify the existing properties conformity status to the land they located. Also the research
employed explanatory research design to identify and measuring the relationship between
land use restrictions with physical conditions and rental prices of existing properties as
indicated in objective two and three. Also, the researcher going to assess an appropriate
urban land use planning approach for existing property value, as planned in Objective 4. To
adopt a land use planning approach, comparative grounded theory analysis is important.

24
Therefore, this research employed a qualitative research design based on existing grounded
theory regarding land use planning approaches.

3.3. Sampling design

For the purpose of attain the research objective, sample design is a tool for selecting a
specific sample respondents. Therefore, this sample design took in to account in the
population were population sample size, sample unite, sampling technique and sample frame.

3.3.1. Sampling frame

For this study valuable information gathered from Property owners in Finoteselam town
particularly in two kebele (01 and 02) and Finoteselam municipal office.

3.3.2. Sampling unit

A single value found in a sample database is referred to as sampling unit (Patel et al., 2019).
For this study the Sampling units were property owner in kebeles 01 & 02, vulnerable
property owner in two districts.

3.3.3. Sampling techniques

This study employed though both probability and non-probability sampling methods. In the
first phase of field study, Purposive (non- probability) sampling was drawn for the qualitative
part of the study. This was just to gain insights of vulnerable property owners who are
restricted from renovation and remodeling existing properties by town municipal office. In
the second phase of field study, probability sampling was drawn for the quantitative part. In
this sampling, the researcher employed systematic random sampling; the reason that the
study used a systematic random sampling method is the numbers of target population
(property owners) in two kebeles (01 &02) specifically the owners where under pure
commercial and mixed use were large.

3.3.4. Target population

Key informants: for this study, key informants (who prohibited from remodeling, renovation,
and expansion of their existing properties by land use restrictions) were taken from
Finoteselam municipal construction and control office. They are six households in two kebles
(01 and 02). whereas 670 target property owners for this study taken from two kebeles

25
specifically the owners where under pure commercial and mixed land use. This is done by
using land use map of 2020 which contain individual plots of land gain from Finoteselam
municipal office.

3.3.5. Sample size determination

The selection of the sample population was though the municipal land use plan and block
map in two districts as shown (Table 1). Based on this, 317 property owners from kebeles 01
under 37 urban blocks and 353 property owners from Keble 02 under 30 blocks which were
pure commercial and mixed land use zone. For the population that is huge, Yamane (1967)
developed the equation to take proportional representative sample size.

𝑁
𝑛 = 1+𝑁(𝑒)2 .

670
𝑛 = 1+670(0.05)2 = 250 in two kebeles

Where n =sample size. N= population size, e= the acceptable sampling error. In this method
95% confidence level and p=0.5 are assumed. Therefore, in order to distributed
questionnaires to 250 sample size from 670 sample population first determined the sample
size in two kebeles by proportional formula as follows: 317*250/670=118 and
353*250/670=132. Then, Systematic random sampling method was used to determined
670
intervals. = 2.68. So, the questionnaire was distributed within every 3rd of the total 670
250

households systematically thought municipal plots of land.

Table 1: Sample size determination

Kebeles Total property owners Blocks Sample size
01 317 37 118
02 353 30 132
Total 670 67 250

3.4. Data source and methods of collection

The required information for the study collected from both primary and secondary sources.
Primary data were developed from property owners and key informants in two kebeles in
Finoteselam. To realize the above process primary data collection was used multiple sources
26
of evidence such as survey questionnaire and unstructured interviews. To elaborate,
unstructured interview employed for a personal interview with selected key informants and
also by using a systematic random sampling method the structured and semi structured
questionnaire planed for each households in commercial zone in two kebeles. Whereas,
Secondary data gathered from related literature, both published/unpublished documents from
relevant offices (Finoteselam municipal office).

3.5. Data Collection instruments

Following resolve the research population and sample, the next step were collecting data
though different instruments. To collect valid data, answer the research hypothesis and attain
the research objectives, the following primary and secondary data collection instruments
were employed.

3.5.1. Primary data collection Instruments

The primary data collection instruments applied in this research uses first-hand sources. The
following primary data collection instruments were employed.

Interview: an interview guide was set in order to gain first hand data from vulnerable
property owners in the study area. Key informants were interviewed face to face and the
responses were also recorded manually. The reason chosen this instrument for this study is
that to understand and analyze how and why land use plan affect the value of existing
property which belongs to key informants in the study area.

Questionnaires: The questionnaire was distributed and collected from properties owner of
sample respondents who live under pure and mixed commercial Land use in selected two
kebeles. Questionnaire distributed to those target property owners where they systematically
randomly selected 250 households from 670 total populations though structured questions.
Structured questionnaire, which is designed on the ordinal and categorical scale of
measurement basis, were used to analyze the correlation between Land use plan, existing
property value, and related variables of the research.

Direct field observation: This research was conducted in two kebeles (01 and 02) mainly on
mixed and pure commercial land use. Therefore, field observation was necessary to first

27
distinguish this area from residential land use with the help of land use zoning map which
gained from the town municipality. And then, taken pictures on the physical conditions of the
existing properties to strengthen the qualitative and quantitative output. And it was important
to check the validity of respondent response and analyzed output regarding physical
conditions of existing properties.

3.5.2 Secondary data Collection Instruments

Secondary data relevant to this study were obtained by electronic searching scholars’
publications regarding the topic. Various related documents such as books, articles, reports
and research papers were collected, referenced and used as secondary data. This data used as
form theories, arguments and support respondents' responses to established concepts relation
to effect of land use plan and existing property value. This data used in this study were
available in printed form.
Also, with the help of a letter of cooperation from Bahirdar University, the land use plan and
reports of Finoteselam town, which was important for this study, was obtained. These
documents obtained from municipality were used to identify the house owners who live in
commercial land use in the selected Kebles. In addition it is important to know the details of
land use plan and where those plans are being implemented.

3.6 Methods of data analysis

As indicated in the section on data collection above, qualitative and quantitative data were
collected in the study area. Therefore, qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques were
employed.

3.6.1 Qualitative data analysis

This method aim to analyze the data gained from key informants, land use plan changes and
land use plans textual report. Content analysis is a qualitative data analysis technique that
involves identifying and analyzing patterns and themes in using different source of data. This
technique is often used when researchers want to gain a deeper understanding of the content
or meaning of a set of documents, such as interview transcripts and survey responses (Nancy
et al., 2014). Therefore, qualitative data analysis in this study involves identifying, narrating
and interpreting information from land use map textual reports and key informants though

28
content analysis. Method triangulation was used to validate this method of analysis. This is
important to cross check the data gained from key informants to land use plan restriction,
land use map textual reports or Finoteselam structural plan report in 2020 with existing
theories.

Also, comparative analysis used for this study on existing grounded theory regarding land
use planning approaches. To support or refusing findings or existing theory based on
different previous theories, comparative theory analysis method is appropriate (Nancy et
al.,2014). For this study it is important to assess and compare existing land use planning
approach/theory in the study area and other land use planning approach. This is helps to
develop appropriate land use planning approaches in relation to existing property value in
particular for the study area and in general for towns in Ethiopia.

3.6.2 Quantitative data analysis

Descriptive statistics provide a summary of the characteristics of the data set, whereas
inferential statistics helps to analyzing relationship between variables and to draw
conclusions about the populations (Raaid et al., 2018). For this study quantitative data
gathered though close-ended questionnaires obtained from existing property owners analyzed
though descriptive and inferential statistics to summarize, analyzing relations between
variables and draw conclusions how land use plans affect existing property’s rental value and
physical conditions. To do this, SPSS 22 were used to perform descriptive and inferential
statistical analysis.

Descriptive analysis: These techniques employed to summarize the data which collected
from the represented given sample population (Brayman, 1988). This descriptive analysis
includes the frequency, percentage, mode, and median of data analysis. To these effects,
depending on the nature of basic research questions and data collected from existing property
owners, the descriptive analysis was used to analyze the frequencies and percentages of the
demographic characteristics of the respondents. Consequently, the categorized data were
analyzed, interpreted, concluded, and presented through summarizing and narrate the
responses of participant.

Inferential analysis

29
To analyze the relationship between the dependent and independent variables, to draw
conclusions how dependent variables affected by predictor variables, to estimate the
probabilities that independent variables affect the outcome variables and to test the research
hypothesis, inferential statistics is important quantitative data analysis method (Korkmaz et
al., 2012). To do these two inferential statistics binary logistic regression (BLR) and multiple
linear regressions (MLR) was employed for this study to attain the objectives set. The
rationales to select these two models are that the objectives of the research focuses on how
existing properties’ physical condition and rental price affected by land use plans. Therefore,
these physical conditions and rental price have different characteristics.
As Miller et.al (2018) the physical conditions of existing properties can be categorized in two
main outcomes “good or poor’. Therefore, in this study due to the dichotomous nature of the
physical condition of properties binomial linear regression (BLR) were employed to obtain
the probability either good or poor physical conditions of existing properties in relation to
land use plans. And also to analyze how land use plans affect the existing properties’ rental
price, due to continues nature of rental price of existing properties multiple linear regression
(MLR) model were appropriate and employed.
The significance of each predictor variable (Land use plans) and the overall significance of
the research model were also highlighted in those inferential analyses in order to answer the
research hypothesis based on the research objectives and problem.

3.7 Model Specification

3.7.1 Binary logistic regression model (BLR)

The most often used regression techniques for modeling binary predicted variables is binary
logistic regression analysis. As Korkmaz et al. (2012), it is a mathematical modeling that is
used to specify the relationship between the binary predicted variable Y, which can code as 0
and 1, and the predictor variables X1, X2…Xn as showed equation 1. As learned from
existing literature in this study the predictor variables in land use plan are building height
restrictions (BHR), land use restrictions (LUR) and construction material restrictions (CMR)
as shown in Table 2.

Table 2:Independent Variable coding

Categorical Variables coding

30
 Frequency Parameter coding
(1) (2) (3)
Building height restrictions BHR G+0 25 .000 .000 .000
(BHR) BHR ≥G+1 39 1.000 .000 .000
BHR ≥G+2 127 .000 1.000 .000
BHR ≥G+3 45 .000 .000 1.000
Constriction material Partially restricted 40 .000
restriction (CMR) (PR)
Fully restricted (FR) 196 1.000
Land use restriction (LUR) Mixed land use 23 .000
(MLU)
Pure commercial land 213 1.000
use (PCLU)
Source: Coded by own

Categorical predictor variables that assigned the value ‘0’ as reference category, whereas the
value ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’ are as a response category as shown the above Table 2. That for all land
use plans explanatory variables the parameter coding for building height restriction (BHR)
considered for exempted building height restriction (G+0) coded as ‘0’ and as reference
category for the explanatory variables are building height restricted under two floors
(BHR≥G+1), building height restricted under three floors (BHR≥G+2) and building height
restricted under four floors (BHR≥G+3) coded ‘1’as a response category shown in the above
Table.

For land use plan explanatory variables the parameter coding for construction material
restriction (CMR) considered for partial restriction coded ‘0’ and used as reference category,
for the explanatory variables’ construction material fully restricted coded ‘1’ and used as
response category. And for the third land use plans explanatory variables the parameter
coding for land use restriction (LUR) considered for mixed use coded ‘0’ and used as
reference category, and for the explanatory variables pure commercial land use coded ‘1’ and
used as response category. Therefore, interpreting results, comparisons are made regarding
the reference category coded ‘0’.

As planned by research objective two, the predicted variable is physical conditions of

existing property (Y). As Millers et al. (2018) existing properties physical rating criteria is

31
dichotomous (Good and Poor). Here the appropriate form for the dependent variable would
be dummy variable taking the values ‘0’ and ‘1’ since two possible outcomes are probable;
Yi = 0, the physical conditions of existing properties is ‘good’ whereas the probable physical
condition is ‘poor’ coded as “1” as shown Table 3.

Table 3:Dependent Variable Coding

Dependent variable encoding

Original Value Internal Value
Good 0
Poor 1
Source: SPSS 22 output
So, this inferential analysis predict the probability that the physical condition of existing
property falls on land use plan. As Korkmaz et al. (2012), the binary logistic regression log
transformation formula as follows:

Ln [P/1-P] =b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 +……….bnxn+ Ɛᵢ …………………………….eq 1

Where: P is the probability that the predicted event happens. ‘P/ (1-P)’ denote the ratio
represents the odds that the predicted event happens. ‘1-P’ represents the probability of
failure. ‘b0’ shows the intercept of the regression. ‘b1- bn’ denote Coefficients representing
the influence of each independent variable ‘x1, x2, x3 …….xn’ on dependent variable ‘Y’
and ‘Ɛᵢ’ represent the error term that the model not discovered.

When the predictor variables BHR, CMR and LUR of land use plan incorporated to equation
1:
Ln [P/1-P]
=b0+b1(BHR≥G+1)+b2(BHR≥G+2)+b3(BHR≥G+3)+b4(CMR)+b5(LU)+Ɛᵢ….eq2
Where: P is the probability that the predicted event happens. ‘P/ (1-P)’ denote the ratio
represents the odds that the predicted event happens. ‘1-P’ represents the probability of
failure. ‘b0’ shows the intercept of the regression. ‘b1- b5’ denote Coefficients representing
the influence of each independent variable (land use plan restrictions on existing property) on
the dependent variable ‘physical conditions of existing properties ’ and ‘Ɛᵢ’ represent the
error term that the model not discovered.

32
3.7.2. Multiple linear regression model (MLR)
It is a mathematical modeling that is used to run the relationship between continuous
predicted variable ‘Y’ and the predictor variables X1, X2…Xn (Owusu, 2018). As his
discussion, a multiple regression function can take as following:
Y = β0 + β1x1 + β2x2 + … + βixi + µ…………………………………………………….eq3
Where ‘Y’ is the outcome variable and ‘x1’ through to ‘xi’ are the predictors variables that
explain the value of ‘x’ or on which ‘Y’ depend. The betas (β0 through to βi) are the
unknown parameters to be predictable from the equation and ‘µ’ is the error or the
disturbance term, which is the model not discovered. Having this, based on the third
objective of this study the dependent variable is rental price of the existing properties. And
based on the previous studies and land use plan reports of Finoteselam town, the predictor
variables that the existing properties rental price depends on are land use plan restrictions.
So, this model is employed to analyze the relationships between rental prices of existing
property with land use restrictions that are adopted by the land use plans (Mooi, 2014). Thus,
the model decomposes the land use plan into variables that affect existing rental values are
building height restrictions (BHR), construction material restrictions (CMR) and land use
restrictions (LUR) as coded in Table 4 below. Let incorporate the independent variables in to
equation 3 as follows:
Y=β0+b1(BHR≥G+1)+b2(BHR≥G+2)+b3(BHR≥G+3)+b4(CMR)+b5(LUR)+Ɛᵢ…….eq4
Where ‘Y’ is the outcome variable (rental prices for existing properties) and ‘BHR≥G+1-
BHR≥G+3, CMR, and LUR’ are the predictors variables that explain the value of ‘x’ or on
which ‘Y’ depend. The betas (β0 through to b5) are the unknown parameters or coefficients
of predictor variables to be predictable from the equation and ‘µ’ is the error or the
disturbance term, which is the model not discovered.
Description and code independent variables for regression:
❖ Building height restriction (BHR): It is a categorical variable which describe the
adoption of building height restriction by the land use plan. It is measured by
restrictions of floors and have four (4) categories (i.e. BHRG+0=exempted from
building height restriction which is used as reference category, BHRG+1=building
height restricted under two floors, BHRG+2= building height restricted under three
floors, BHRG+3= building height restricted under four floors). In order to run

33
 regression, all categories coded to dummy (0 and 1) variable as follows in Table 4
below:

Table 4:Independent variable coding

Categorical Variables coding

Frequency Parameter
Independent variables coding
(1) (2) (3)
Building height restrictions (BHR) BHR G+0 25 0 0 0
BHR ≥G+1 39 1 0 0
BHR ≥G+2 127 0 1 0
BHR ≥G+3 45 0 0 1
Constriction material restriction Partially 40 0
(CMR) restricted
Fully restricted 196 1
Land use restriction (LUR) Mixed use 23 0
Pure 213 1
commercial

Source: SPSS 22 output

As the table 4 depicted the variables coding interpreting as following:
BHRG+0 (exempted building height restriction. It is a base line or reference category used as
contrast to all building height restrictions).
✓ BHR≥G+1 (1= building height restricted under two floors, all other variables
are=0).
✓ BHR≥G+2 (1= building height restricted under three floors, all other variables
are=0).
✓ BHR≥G+3 (1= building height restricted under four floors, all other variables
are=0).
❖ Constriction material restriction (CMR): it is a dummy variable. It describes the
construction material restriction and it has two categories denoted by “fully restricted
and partial restricted” as prescribed Finoteselam 2020’s and 2010’s land use plan
textual report. For this study the restriction “fully restricted” coded as “CMR (1)” and
“partial restricted” coded as “CMR (0)”. The base line or reference category is partial
restriction which is coded “CMR (0)”.

34
 ❖ Land use restriction (LUR): it is a dummy variable to indicate whether the land uses
plan restrict the use either pure commercial or mixed. For this study pure commercial
land use coded as “LUR (1)” and mixed land use coded as “0”. The base line or
reference category is mixed use which is coded “LUR (0) as the table depicted.

3.8 Operation of variables and analysis tools

Table 5:Operational summery

Study objectives Predictor variables Predicted Methods of data
variable analysis

To assess the restrictions Building height restrictions Non-conforming Qualitative (Method

of land use plans that (BHR), Constriction structure, non- triangulation),
affect the conforming state material restriction (CMR), conforming use mapping and
of existing properties land use restriction (LUR) descriptive

To analyze the restrictions Building height restriction Physical Descriptive analysis

in the land use plan that (BHR), Constriction conditions of and binary logistics
affect the physical material restriction (CMR), existing regression
conditions of existing land use plan (LUR) properties
properties

To analyze effect of land Building height restriction rental price of Multiple linear
use plan restrictions on the (BHR), Constriction existing regression and
rental price of existing material restriction (CMR), properties Descriptive analysis
properties in the study area land use plan (LUR)

✓ To develop appropriate Comparative theory

urban land use planning triangulation method
approaches for existing
property value
Source: own computation (2022)

35
3.9 Data Presentation

Both narrative and graphic forms including tables, graphs and pie charts were used to present
data reporting and processing. For the purpose of identifying patterns and trends, the data
should be organized and presented graphically (Brayman, 1988). Therefore, these formats
were used in this study to report the processed data. Last but not least, the study attempts to
address the hypothesis testing by conducting binary logistic regression.

3.10 Ethical Consideration

Data or information from other sources is appropriately cited in the research report using the
Harvard style in the bibliography of the article. At the time of primary data collection: The
researcher was explained the purpose of the study and shown the cooperation letter of Bahir
Dar university for the researcher to respondents before information was collected from each
respondents, key informants, focus groups and Finoteselam municipal office. Respondents
were assured of the confidentiality of the information as the information encrypted and
cannot be traced back to respondents. Therefore, data collected only after respondents have
expressed their willingness to participate.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter consists of the analysis, interpretations and presentations of the findings
resulting from this study. First the respondent background, questionnaire reliability and
response rate are presented; second, qualitative interpretation and data analysis computed
based on the result of key informants. Third, based on the result of the questionnaire,
presented inferential and descriptive analysis of the data. Finally, this study employed the
binary logistic regression and multiple regression to answer the research hypothesis.

4.2 Data reliability test

In this study, to measure the internal consistency of Likert scale questionnaire, reliability test
is mandatory to check the general reliability of questionnaires representing predictor
variables. Crombach’s alpha is a common model to measure the reliability of Likert scale
questionnaires. If the value of Crombach’s Alpha is above 0.70, then the value of
Crombach’s Alpha is very good (Anwar et al., 2016). Table 3 shows the data reliability test
using SPSS.

Table 6: Reliability test

Predictor variable N exclude Items Crombach’s
alpha
Building height restriction 236 14 4 .977
Constriction material restriction 236 14 3 .953
Land use restriction 236 14 3 .962
Source: own computation and resulted from SPSS 22 (2022)

In this study, it is found that the value of Crombach’s Alpha for each question based on the
predictor variable is greater than 0.8 and it is considered to be very high and acceptable as
Table 6 above depicted.

4.3 Socio economic and Demographic data

4.3.1 Demographic characteristics for sample respondents/property owners

In order to gather the intended data regarding property value based on depreciation indicators
and to obviously grasp the study’s findings, a crucial to be familiar with demographic traits
of the sample respondents who are property owners. A complete of 236 respondents capable

37
the questionnaires out of 250 samples accustomed examine how land use plans affect
property value, while 14 respondents failed to respond as depicted below in Table 7.

Table 7: Sample Respondents demographic characteristics

Demographic data Response

Frequency percent
Gender Male 213 85.2
Female 37 14.8
total 250 100
Age 25-34 21 8.4
35-44 64 25.6
≥ 45 165 66
Total 250 100
Monthly revenue ≤1000 6 2.4
1000-4000 110 44
4000-10,000 101 40.4
≥ 10,000 33 13.2
Total 250 100
Living 10 years 17 6.8
experience 20 years 58 23.2
≥30 years 170 70
Level of read and write 12 4.8
education primary 24 9.6
diploma 55 22
secondary school 36 14.4
degree 82 32.8
MSc 38 15.2
Ph.D. 3 1.2
Total 250 100
General key informant information
Six Key Functional design their Case From
informants Age of monthly of the property properties Municipality
informants revenue age
1 45 4000- Residential 15 Restrict from
10,000 rebuilt existing
home
2 52 1000- Residential 26 Restrict from
4000 rebuilt existing
home
3 57 1000- Residential 36 Full renovation
4000 restriction
4 46 4000- Residential 31 Rebuilt the existing
10,000 home
5 36 4000- Residential 37 Full renovation

38
 10,000 restriction
6 29 4000- Residential 31 Full renovation
10,000 restriction
Source: Computed by own from SPSS22 output

As the above table depicted that the demographic information included in the questionnaire
were gender, age, monthly revenue, occupation and level of education. According to gender
distribution, male respondents made up 85.2% (213) of the sample respondents 250 while
female respondents made up 14.8% (37). The participation of both genders in providing
pertinent information was important. Age groups between 25-34 years account for 8.4 %( 21)
of all response, followed by those between 35-44 years, which made up 25.6 %( 64) of all
response, and those older than 45 years, which made up 66 %( 165) of all valid responses.
When the first restrictive land use plan were enacted in 2000, the majority of respondents
from this age group were involved during the plan preparation. As a result, respondents from
this age groups are important to get information on the process of the land use plan
preparation and its implementation afterwards. This answer obtained by identifying the
samples in the study area though the commercial land use plan map.

4.3.2. Demographic characteristics of Key informants

In addition to the above sample property owners, a relevant 10 questionnaire survey was
provided for vulnerable property owners who have cases in municipality construction and
control office in the two Kebles. All the respondents were properly interviewed. This was to
address the perception of vulnerable property owners on the conforming status of existing
properties and restrictions of land use plan. Demographic characteristics of these key
informants were age, monthly revenue, function of the property, and their properties age.
Accordingly, its result is presented briefly hereunder as follows in the above Table 4.

➢ Ages of Key informants

As Table 5 depicted the researcher pursued the gender status of vulnerable property owners
showed that 4(67%) were age above 45 years and the remaining 2(33%) were the age
between35-44. This was important to obtain the information from the scratch back to 2000
when the first land use plan adopted.

✓ Monthly Revenue
39
The above Table 5 shows that 4(67%) of the key informant’s monthly revenue less than
10,000 Ethiopian birr and 2(33%) of key informants have less than 4000 birr. This statistic
show that most of the respondents have low income and also this may conveys that the
respondents had affected by restrictive land use plans.
✓ Functional design of the property
Table 5 shows that all existing properties are designed for the purpose of residence. To
consider the design intent of what existing properties were designed to serve as helped this
research to gain valuable and mandatory response about non-conforming status of existing
properties.
✓ Existing properties ages
As Figure 4 below shows that 4(67%) of the key informant’s property age greater than 30
years and 2(33%) of the properties are under 30 years. The age of an existing asset has
become important in order to gather valuable response from owners related to the physical
conditions and conforming status of existing assets.

Figure 4: property age

✓ Property owners’ case from municipality

As shown in Table 5, 2(33%) owners of existing property was prohibited from rebuilding
their existing home and 4(67%) are prohibited from full renovation. This has served to elicit
significant responses from property owners regarding the restrictive land use plan impacts on
conforming status and physical conditions of existing properties.

40
4.4. Respondents response rate

For this study, the total 250 regular residents rigorously identified and selected among the
670 households under kebeles 01 and kebeles 02 (Table 8). These residents are believed and
expected to provide enough information and good knowhow about study matter. Then the
total 31 questionnaires distributed to these regular households. Among these, only 14
respondents did not respond all questions and three questions from the questionnaire did not
answered by 5 respondents. Except these, 94.4 % of the questions included in the
questionnaire were successfully responded. Also, the focus group discussion and interview
with key informants were all appropriately attended with 100% participation.

Table 8: Respondents response rate

Property owners Frequency percent
Not respond 14 5.6
Respond 236 94.4
Total 250 100
Source: resulted from SPSS 22

4.5. Land use restrictions and their effect on the conforming state of
existing properties in three land use planning period

As Zenebe (2002) since 2000 a comprehensive structural plans which contains under land
use plan was developed for Finote Selam town. The three land use plans (2000-2009, 2010-
2019, 2020-2029) obtained from the municipality confirm this fact. The 2000’s plan
established land use plans and some residential neighborhood were changed to commercial
area. After ten years, the second land use plan was made and put into operation in 2010. This
plan changed the residential area to commercial land use zone even more than before. Also,
the third plan was made in 2020 and it will guide the town until 2029. This plan, in addition
to the commercial land use set in the previous two plans, changed residential neighborhood
to commercial land use. As Finoteselam land use plan textual reports and map, all land use
plans adopted building height restriction (BHR), construction material restriction (CMR) and
land use restriction (LUR) on the existing properties.

Related to those restrictions, though face to face interviews, a valuable response obtained
from an existing properties owners who are victim by land use plans. These property owners

41
are six (6) and all have been restricted renovations and remodeling their existing property by
the municipality due to the minimum requirements that the land use plans were adopted.
According to the interviewee, two of the six houses in pure commercial land use lived less
than thirty-year-old (30) and four houses under pure commercial land use are more than
thirty years old. All of them were built for residential use before the adoption of 2000’s land
use plan, but their current land use is pure commercial zone. Therefore, according to the key
informant’s response the two existing house being continue to be non-conforming to their
land use for twelve 12 years, while the four houses continued to be non-conforming to their
land use for twenty three (23) years as shown below in Table 6.

Table 9: Conforming status of existing properties

Informant’s Building Construction Land use Land use plan Status of properties Duration
property height Material restriction which located being non-
restriction restriction Non- Non- conforming
(CMR) conforming conforming
use structure
✓ ✓
1 G+3 floor ✓ Pure commerce ✓ 12
✓ ✓
2 G+3 floor ✓ Pure commerce ✓ 12
✓ ✓
3 Exempted ✓ Pure commerce ✓ 23
✓ ✓
4 Exempted ✓ Pure commerce ✓ 23
✓ ✓
5 Exempted ✓ Pure commerce ✓ 23
✓ ✓
6 Exempted ✓ Pure commerce ✓ 23
Sources: own computation (2023)
According to the above Table 9 on the two vulnerable key informant, town’s construction
and control office has prohibited them from rebuilt with previous function and material.
Because as the town’s land use plan stipulated that the land use on which these existing
properties are located is commercial and the building height must be four stories and above.
As the owner’s interviewees, they cannot build according to this restrictive land use plan,
they are forced to continue with their existing properties that are not suitable for current land

42
use. This means that the existing houses are forced to remain non-conforming in terms of use
and structure as depicted in above table under number one and two .
The informants who were restricted from full renovations cited three main reasons for the
restriction. As four key informants first reason for being non-conforming is that the existing
homes built for residential purpose and are incompatible for the current commercial land use.
Therefore, the commercial land use restriction did not allow existing property owners to
renovate more than 50% of their old residential homes. As the two key informants, the
second reason for prohibition is the construction material restriction (CMR). Those
vulnerable say that they built their house thirty years ago with mud and wood. However, due
to the low income of those owners, the raw materials they want to do the renovation were
with mud and wood. On the other hand, the land use where these existing houses are located
stipulates that the house to be built must be made of cement blocks and equivalent
construction materials. As a result, these houses that are more than thirty years old are forced
to continue with non-conforming structure to new land use because of the construction
materiel restrictions on the key informants. Similarly, key informants stated that building
height restrictions on renovation of these existing properties. According to two informants,
the homes were built thirty years ago and needed renovation due to physical deterioration as
they have long aged. But the land use where these older homes are located requires building
heights to be more than two stories. This plan prohibits renovation more than 50% of existing
property’s body that are non-conforming to new zoning. Therefore, as the key informants
depicted that the building height restriction has caused for these residential properties to
continue as non-conforming use and structure.
Generally, the responses obtained from the six key informant interviews indicated that 100%
of the existing properties were didn’t able to meet the restrictions imposed by the land use
plans like building height restriction, construction material restriction and land use restriction
and has become non-conforming use for their current land use. In addition, these existing
properties have become non-conforming structure in terms of the construction material they
made from and numbers of floors they have. According to studies, the sale and rental price of
existing properties are determined by their conforming status with the land use they located
(Emmanuel et al., 2019). Moreover, in terms of structure and use non-conforming existing
properties are subjected to direct restrictions like expansions, renovation and remodeling, and

43
their value expected to decrease as they take these restrictions into account (Fillipova, 2018).
Therefore, we can conclude that the land use plan restrictions like building heght restrictions,
construction materials and land use restriction are the primary reasons for existing property
being non-conforming to the land they located, and this leads existing property value in the
study area become decrease. Because of the existing property under this land use restriction
prohibit renovation and remodeling of old houses.

4.5.1 Building height restrictions (BHR) in three Land use plans periods
To guide the vertical physical growth of the town and in terms of wisely use of the land, a
minimum building height restriction, which is two floors is being implemented. According to
2000’s land use plan report obtained from municipality; four categories of building height
restriction have been adopted. Those were G+0(exempted from restriction), G+1, G+2, and
G+3.These restrictions are specifically placed following the main arterial road and the main
feeder roads and covers 12.88 hectares (see Figure 3). Sample respondents were asked “was
your property built before or after 2000?’ Of the total 236, about 203 (86.02%) respondents
said that their properties built before 2000. Out of the 203 existing properties, 86(42.36%)
have been imposed BHR and 58(67.44%) of them did not meet the minimum permitted
building height. The rest 28(32.56%) existing properties were required minimum permitted
building height. Therefore, 58 of the existing properties were non-conforming structures due
to the fact that they fail to meet minimum building height requirements.

44
 Figure 2:Building height restriction in three land use planning period

Source: From Finoteselam land use zoning maps

After revised the first land use plan in 2010 prepared the second structural plan which
contain pure and mixed commercial land use. According to this 2010’s land use plan report
obtained from municipality, to lead the vertical physical growth of the town and in terms of
wisely use of the land, a minimum building height restriction has been implemented. These
restrictions were specifically placed following the main arterial road and the main feeder
roads as continued from the first restriction covers 22.33 hectares (figure 3) depicted. Sample
respondents were asked “was your property built before or after 2010?’ 26 (11.02%) of the
236 respondents said that their properties built before 2010. From those 20(76.92%) have
been imposed BHR and did not meet the minimum permitted building height. Rests of
6(23.08) existing properties were fulfill the minimum building height requirement.
Therefore, 20 existing properties were non-conforming structures due to the fact that fail to
meet minimum height requirements in this planning period. Also this plan keeps 86 restricted
properties that adopted by the previous plan.

According to the 2020’s textual land use plan report, after 10 years the second land use plan
expired and the third land use plan of the town was prepared in 2020. This plan adopted
building height restriction on more existing properties , and keeps restrictions applied in the
previous two planning periods. This restrictions cover 16.61 hectares. According to sample

45
respondents’ response 36 (15.25%) of the 236 respondents said that their properties built
before 2020. Among those 32(88.89%) have been imposed BHR. Also, all 32 existing
properties were single story and do not meet the imposed minimum building height.
Therefore, 36(15.25%) existing properties were non-conforming structures in this planning
period. Also this plan keeps restrictions that adopted by the previous plan.

Generally, as depicted in (Table 10) below, among 236 sample size 148(62.71%) existing
properties were under building height restrictions by the consecutive three land use plans.
Among those 110(46.61%) did not meet permitted minimum building height restrictions and
they are being non-conforming structure due to number of floors which they have.

Table 10: Conforming status of existing properties

BHR in 1st Land use plan BHR in 2st Land use plan BHR in 3st Land use Total Exem
plan non- pted
Non- conforming Non- conformin Non- conformi confor Conformi from
conformin structure conformin g structure conformin ng ming ng restrict
g structure g structure g structure structure structur structure ion
e
Frequenc 58 28 20 6 32 4 110 38 88
y
percent 40.28 18.44 13.51 4.05 21.622 2.700 46.61 16. 37.29

CMR in 1st Land use plan CMR in 2st Land use plan CMR in 3st Land use Numbe Total
plan r of sampl
Non- conforming Non- conformin Non- conformi Total Propertie ez
conformin structure conformin g structure conformin ng propert s not size
g structure g structure g structure structure ies included
under in CMR
CMR
Frequenc 60 33 80 25 58 11 69 167 236
y
percent 64.52 35.48 76.2 23.81 84.06 15.94 29.24 70.76 100

Source: Own survey (2022)

4.5.2 Construction material restriction (CMR) in three land use planning periods
Sample respondents were asked “was your property built before or after 2000??’ 203
(86.02%) of the 236 respondents said that their properties built before 2000 G.C. As depicted
46
above in (Table 10) among those 93 (45.81%) were under the restriction of construction
material. From 93 existing properties 60 (64.52%) were not fulfilled the requirements of
CMR because they were built traditionally by wood and mud. So, they were non-conforming
structure for the land use they located. The remaining 33 (35.48%) existing properties were
fulfilling the requirements and they were conforming structure. From 203 existing properties
110(54.19%) did not under the restriction of construction material.

In addition as shown in (Table 10), this land use plan imposes on construction material
restrictions in terms of the beauty and value that the town needs to have for its physical and
economic development by the second land use plan in 2010. This plan imposed on 12
existing properties in addition to the first land use plan. Therefore, CMR imposed on
105(44.5%) existing properties of which 80(76.2%) did not meet the minimum construction
material requirements just traditionally built of wood and mud before the imposition of this
land use plan. And the remaining 25(23.81%) existing properties meet the construction
material requirement.

Restrictions on existing properties continued in the third land use plan prepared in 2020,
following the expiration of the second land use plan. In this plan construction material
restriction (CMR) is reduced compared to the second land use plan. That is, in the second
land use plan, 105 existing properties were subjected to CMR, but in the third plan this
restriction was reduced to 69(29.24%) existing properties. The reason is that 36 existing
properties have been adopted CMR in the second Land use plan and BHR in the third land
use plan. In general, As depicted in (Table 10) in this third land use plan CMR has been
imposed on 69 existing properties, 58(84.06%) of them did not meet the minimum
requirement and are made of wood and mud. So, they are non-conforming structures and
11(15.94%) were made of cement blocks and are conforming structures for their land use
they located.

In general, 58(24.58%) of 236 sample existing properties have become non-conforming

structure for the land use due to the restrictions on construction raw materials and the
minimum requarments of cement block in the third land use plan.

47
4.5.3 Land use restriction in three land use planning periods
As evidenced by the three land use plans (2000s’, 2010s’, and 2020s’) obtained from
Finoteselam town municipality, land use restrictions have been implemented since 2000. As
(Figure 3) below shows that 2000s’ land use plan have been converted the residential
neighborhoods to commercial land use. This change cover 36.7 hectares. This plan were
implemented in neighborhoods where existing houses built for residential purposes were
converted to commercial land use. As a result, the houses that were built for residential
purpose have become nonconforming use for commercial land use.

Figure 3:Changed properties by 2000s’ land use plan

Source: 2000’s land use zoning map

As mentioned in section 4.4.1, the village where 203 existing houses were located was
included in the commercial land use in 2000s’ land use plan. The question asked, “was your
property built for commercial or residential purpose?” and property owners confirmed that
the village where 167 (82.27%) properties located converted to commercial land under this
plan were built for residential purpose. This means that compared to 236 samples taken for
the study, 167(70.76%) of the existing properties were classified as non-conforming use due
their architectural design not conforming to changed land use. As depicted in (Table 11)

48
below the remaining 16 (6.78%) existing properties are included under mixed land use and
20 (8.47%) were included under pure commercial land use and they were designed for
commercial purpose.

Table 11:Properties under changed land use

Properties under land use conversion in first land use plan (2000-2009)
Commercial Residential to Residential to Total Properties Total
properties under pure commercial mixed use Properties not sample
commercial land under this included size
use plan in this
Land use
plan
Frequency 20 167 16 203 33 236
Percent 8.47 70.77 6.78 86.02 13.98 100
(%)
Properties under land use conversion in second land use plan (2010-2019)
Commercial Residential to Residential to Total Properties Total
properties under pure commercial mixed use Properties not sample
commercial land under this included size
use plan in this
Land use
plan
Frequency 27 2 21 217 19 236
Percent 11.44 0.85 6.9 86.02 13.98 100
(%)
Properties under land use conversion in third land use plan (2020-2029 E.C it is on operation)
Commercial properties under Residential to pure Residential Total sample
commercial land use commercial to mixed size
use
Frequency 36 6 25 236
Percent 15.25 2.54 10.59 100
(%)
Source: own computation (2023)

Following the expiration of the first land use plan, a second land use plan were prepared and
implemented in 2010. This plan would have converted residential houses to commercial use.

49
As Figure 4 below shows, this plan has changed 2.1 hectares residential and mixed land use
villages to pure commercial land use in addition to the first land use plan. That means by this
plan(18) residential blocks have been converted to pure commercial land use.

Figure 4: Changed properties by the 2010's land use plan

Source: 2010’s land use zoning map

In this plan 167 existing properties that were changed from residential to commercial use in
the first land use plan were continued by this plan. In addition to this, property owner’s
confirmed that 2 (0.85%) houses were built for residential purpose when asked “was your
property built for residential or commercial purpose?” additionally, as shown (Table 8) above
including properties in the first land use plan conversion 21 (8.9%) existing homes were
included in the mixed land use. And 27 (11.4%) existing properties were designed for
commercial purpose included in pure commercial land use. Overall, this plan resulted in 169
(71.61%) houses being built for residential purpose out of 236 existing properties taken for
this study and located in commercial land use.

Next the completion of the second land use plan working period in 2019, the third land use
plan was prepared and being implementing in 2020 and will be valid for the next eight years.
As shown in Figure 5 below, this plan preserves the neighborhoods that were converted to
pure commercial and mixed use in the previous plans, also this plan changed 11.7 hectares of
50
other residential and mixed neighborhood to pure commercial land use. generally, this plan
covers 50.5 hectares commercial and 15.86 hectares mixed land use.

Figure 5:Changed properties by the 2020's land use plan

Source: 2020’s land use zoning map

In this plan 6 (2.54%) existing properties were built for residential use and were included in
the commercial land use in this planning period. Also, in addition to the second land use plan
4 (1.69%) existing houses built for residential purpose were included in this plan under
mixed land use. In total, as depicted in (Table 8) 25 (10.59%) existing properties were
included in mixed land use and 175 (74.15%) existing properties were included in pure
commercial land use in this land use plan. Similarly, in this land use plan the remaining 36
existing properties were built for the purpose of commercial and they were included in pure
commercial land use.

The three land use plans found in this section have resulted in the restrictive land use plan
that the existing properties are not compatible with the land use where they are located. As
depicted in (Table 8) above, land use plan have changed the residential land to pure
commercial use and forced 175 (74.15%) existing houses built for residential purpose to be
non-conforming use to the land use in terms of their architectural design.

51
In general, as (Table 12) showed 110 (46.611%) existing residential houses could not meet
the permitted minimum building height restriction adopted by the three land use plans, which
became the primary reason for those existing houses being non-conforming structure for the
land use where they located in. In the same way, 58 (24.58%) existing properties did not
meet the construction material restriction (CMR) which stipulated during the working period
of three land use plans, and they are being classified as non-conforming structure for the land
use they located in terms of the material they made.

Table 12: Non-conforming structures in terms of material and numbers of floors

Existing properties conforming status to their land use
Non-conforming structure in terms of Non-conforming Conforming Total
building height restriction structure in terms of properties to sample
construction material their land use size
restriction
Frequency 110 58 68 236
Percent (%) 46.61 24.58 28.81 100
Source: own computation

As summary, from key informants interviews we understand that land use plan restrictions
cause for creating non-conforming properties. And, as 2020s’ land use plan shows that
commercial land covered 50.5 hectares and mixed land use covered the remaining 15.86
hectares. Under this plan, restrictions like building height restrictions (BHR), construction
material restriction (CMR) and land use restrictions (LUR) making 168 (71.19 %) existing
houses changed to non-conforming structure to the land they located. Also, 175 (74.15%)
existing residential properties become nonconforming use for the commercial land use where
they located. According to previous studies, the value of existing properties determined by
their conforming status with the land use they located (Emmanuel et al., 2019). Moreover, in
terms of structure and use, non-conforming existing properties are subjected to direct
restrictions of land use plan like expansions, renovation and remodeling, and their value are
expected to decrease as they take these restrictions into account (Fillipova, 2018 and Wilson,
2011). Therefore, land use plans in Finoteselam town could cause for decreeing existing
property value.

52
4.6. Land use plan and their effect on the physical conditions of existing
properties in the three-land use plan period

4.6.1 Existing properties physical condition

As discussed above in (section 4.5), the three land use plans of Finoteselam town have
implemented restrictive land use plan which made existing properties incompatible with the
land they located. More detail, 175(%) existing properties have become nonconforming use
because of they are not suitable for commercial use in terms of architectural design. Also,
among 236 sample size 217 (91.95%) existing properties are forced to be a non-conforming
structure for the land use they located in terms of the raw material they made of and the
numbers of floors they have. The remaining 19 (8.05%) existing properties were included in
mixed land use. According to the written reports of land use plans (2000-2009 G.C) and the
municipal building permit and inspection authority prohibited property owners from
renovations of existing properties that are non-conforming to the land use. This means that,
217 (91.95%) existing houses/buildings are prohibited from more than 50% renovation,
expansion and remodeling or reconstruction though building height restriction, construction
material restriction and land use restriction. First, to study the impact of these restrictions on
the physical conditions of existing homes, 8 “yes” or “no” questions were presented to
property owners based on Millers et al. (2018) physical rating criteria and their responses are
presented in (Table 13) below. Based on the response rate, the researcher categorize whether
the existing properties are in “good” or “Poor” physical conditions.

Table 13:Miller's criteria for properties physical conditions

No Criteria for rating physical conditions of existing statistics Yes No

properties
1 Dose the roofing cover looks serious rusty? Frequency 181 57
Percent 76.69 23.31
2 Dose the celling structure needs renovation? Frequency 163 73
Percent 69.07 30.93
2 Dose external wall paint scraped? Frequency 196 40
Percent 83.05 16.95
3 Dose Wall material fulfills minimum requirements of Frequency 30 206
construction code? Percent 12.71 87.29
4 Dose wall material crumbled/crack? Frequency 174 62

53
 Percent 73.73 26.27
5 Is door material smashed/rusty/crumbled/scraped? Frequency 165 71
Percent 69.93 30.07
6 Is window material smashed/rusty/crumbled/cracked? Frequency 138 98
Percent 58.47 41.53
7 Dose interior wall paint scraped or looks outdated? Frequency 149 87
Percent 63.14 36.86
8 Dose floor finish scratched and need serious Frequency 134 102
renovation? Percent 56.78 43.22
Total Frequency 166 70
Percent 70 30
Source: Miller (2018)

Remark: ‘Yes’ represent “poor Physical condition and ‘No’ represent “Good physical
condition

As scrutinized above questions in Table 13, in this section the researcher tried to address the
physical conditions of existing properties based on the property owner’s response. As a
result, the majority of respondent rates 76.69% yes, the result of this response rate shows that
the roofs of existing houses are exposed to serious rusty. And more than half of the response
rate that 60% of respondents replied ‘yes’, this conveys the physical condition of the ceiling
of the existing houses is old and in need of renovation. Also 87.29% of existing properties do
not meet the minimum construction codes and 192(81.4%) their wall were made of wood and
mud which were locally available as the researcher gathered the general information of
properties (see Appendix 2, Table 32). Regarding wall condition, 174(73.73%) of
respondents testified that the walls of their existing houses were cracked and crumbled. And
regarding doors condition, 69.93% of the existing property’s door has unpleasant look and
has a sign of oldness. Similarly 138(58.47%) respondents confirmed that windows materials
are smashed/ scratched and have a sign of oldness. Regarding interior conditions,
149(63.14%) confirmed that the existing property’s interiors physical conditions being poor
in terms of wall finish and its paint. Last, 134(56.78%) respondents confirmed that the floor
finishes of existing properties being scratched and need some renovation. Therefore, the
physical conditions of interior floors being poor.

In general, the physical conditions of 70% existing properties is under “poor” condition and
the remaining 30% of existing properties being under “good” condition. This result is used as

54
a dichotomous predicted variable to determine the contributions of land use plans by its
restriction like building height restriction, construction material restriction and land use
restriction to the physical conditions of existing properties.

4.6.2. Inferential analysis

Inferential statistics is a method for data analysis that tests hypothesis and draw conclusions
about the populations (Korkmaz et al., 2012). Therefore, from inferential statistics
approaches, this study was employed a binary logistic regression model for investigating the
impact of restrictive land use plan on physical condition and to address the research
hypothesis based on the data generated in section 4.6.1.

4.6.1.1 Binary Logistic Regression Analysis

A binomial or binary logistic regression predicts the probability that an observation falls into
one of two categories of a dichotomous dependent variable based on one or more
independent variables that can be either continuous or categorical (Raaid et.al, 2018).
Therefore, for this study binary logistic regression was employed. Generally, the intention
here is to predict whether the physical conditions of existing properties can be predicted by
"building height restriction (BHR)", "land use restriction (LUR)", and "construction material
restriction (CMR)" (i.e. where BHR, CMR and LUR refers to land use plan’s restrictions that
are being implemented currently by the town is used for this study. To this end, a binomial
logistic regression run to determine whether the physical condition could be predicted from
their BHR, CMR and LUR. This would help to analyze the effect of land use plans on
existing property value in terms of physical conditions.

Under this logistic regression analysis, the parameters ought to be considered; Assumptions
of logistic regression, categorical variables codes, Category prediction, model summary, R-
square, goodness of-fit of a model, parameter estimates of odds ratios, and variables in the
equation.

55
4.6.1.2 Assumptions of logistic regression

Logistic regression is a systematic way that we can use to fit a regression model when the
predicted variable in dichotomous. Before fitting the model to a data set, logistic regression
must perform some assumptions (Korkmaz et.al, 2012):

✓ The response variable should binary: logistic regression assumes that the
predicted variable must be in the form of two possible outcomes or two possible
probabilities. For this determining the probability of existing properties physical
conditions with respect to land use restriction i.e. the response variable is physical
conditions of existing properties and categorized in to ‘poor’ and ‘good’.
✓ There should have one or more independent variable: for this study, there are
three predictors variable are BHR, CMR and LUR. All are categorical and dummy
coded.
✓ There is no Multicollinearity among predictor variable: to test the model whether
it is unbiased or not, multicollinearity checked by the VIF (variance inflation factor)
and tolerance. This assumption is relevant for a binary regression; it refers to when
the predictor variables are correlated with each other (charendah, 2004). The value
of tolerance for this study is above 0.01 for all predictor variables. So, there is no
serious multicollinearity between the independent variable. Also the VIF values to
be below 10, and best case would be if the value has to be below 4. Hence, to this
study each value is under 4 indicating that there is no multicollinearity problem
(Table 14 below).

Table 14: Multicollinearity diagnosis and descriptive statistics for extreme outliers

Model Collinearity Statistics

Tolerance VIF
(Constant)
Land use restriction .424 2.360
Building height restrictions .390 2.566
construction material restriction .351 2.851
Predictor variables Descriptive Statistic
Land use restriction Mean .9025
5% Trimmed Mean .9473

56
 Difference 0.0448
Building height restrictions Mean 1.8136
5% Trimmed Mean 1.8484
Difference 0.0348
Construction material restriction Mean .8305
5% Trimmed Mean .8672
Difference .0367

Source: SPSS 22 output

✓ There are no extreme outliers: This assumes that there are no extreme influential
observations in the dataset. If there is the large difference between the mean and %5
trim mean of predictor variables, the possibility found huge outlier in the data set
(Math et al., 2014). As shown Table 11, the difference between the %5 trim mean
and means are in the range of 0.0348-0.0448. This means almost tends to zero and
there is no extreme outlier in the dataset.

4.6.1.3 Case processing summary

From the Table 15 shown below, the number of respondents in this study who gave the
information for the sample of the research 236 and there is no missing data.

Table 15: Case processing summary

Case Processing Summary

Unweighted Casesa N Percen
t
Selected Included in 236 100
Cases Analysis
Missing Cases 0 0
Total 236 100.0
Unselected Cases 0 .0
Total 236 100.0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the
total number of cases.
Source: SPSS output (2022)
Source: SPSS 22 output

57
4.6.3 Interpreting the regression results

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

This test is used to check the predictive ability of the model. Null hypothesis (H0) for this
test is adding the predictor variable building height restriction (BHR), construction material
restriction (CMR) and land use restriction (LUR) to the model has not significantly increase
our ability to predict the physical conditions of existing properties under land use plans. But,
as shown below the Table 16, the model is significant since p < 0.05. Therefore, the full
model has a significance prediction performance at (X2= 194.720; df =5; p< 0.05 we reject
the null hypothesis.

Table 16: Prediction ability of the model

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi- df Sig.
square
Step 1 Step 194.720 5 .000
Block 194.720 5 .000
Model 194.720 5 .000
Source: SPSS 22 output (2022)
Goodness-Of-Fit Model

The goodness of fit measures large observed significance levels. To test whether the
observed data are consistent or inconsistent with the employed model, chi-square, degree of
freedom (df) and p value (sig) are important statistics. Hypothesis for goodness fit model
considered; H0: The model adequately fits the data. As shown the Table 17 below, the p-
value (sig) is 0.810 or 81%. Therefore, the model has adequately fit since Hosmer and
Lemeshow test could not reject the hypothesis of model appropriateness as Chi-square value
is 1.856 and p=.810

Table 17: Testing of the model fitting

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 1.856 3 .810

58
Variance explained
To understand how much variation in the dependent variable can be explained by the model
and this is equivalent of R2 in multiple regressions. As shown blow Table 18, the two models
are presented.

Table 18: Model summary

Model Summary
Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R Square
Square
1 113.552a .436 .930
Source: SPSS 22 output (2022)
This Table contains the Cox & Snell R Square and Nagelkerke R Square values, which are
both methods of calculating the explained variation (Math et al., 2014). Therefore, the
explained variation in the dependent variable based on this model ranges from 43.6% to
93.0% on the reference of Cox & Snell R2 and Nagelkerke R2 methods, respectively. The left
over 7% of the variance was affected or explained by other variables not involved in this
model. Nagelkerke R2 is a modification of Cox & Snell R2, the latter of which cannot
achieve a value of 1 (Math et al., 2014). For this reason, it is desirable to report the
Nagelkerke R2 value in this study.

Category prediction

The classification table expresses how good the model fit is for prediction purposes. This has
two models with and without predictor variables. As shown from Table 19 below, the
performance of null or without predictor variable model about 41% of the observed physical
conditions were correctly predicted by the model.

Table 19: classification table without independent variable

Classification Table
Step Observed Predicted
0 Physical condition of existing Percentage
properties Correct
Poor Good
Physical Poor 184 0 .0
condition Good 52 0 100.0

59
 of existing
properties
Overall Percentage 41.0
Classification Table
Step Observed Predicted
1 Existing properties Percentage
physical conditions Correct
Poor Good
Existing properties Poor 174 10 94.6
physical conditions Good 0 52 100.0

Overall Percentage 95.8

a. The cut value is .500
Source: SPSS 22 output (2022)
Whereas the model with predictor variable as shown from Table 18 in step 2. After adding
the independent variable to the model, the prediction performance of the model was increase.
Therefore, the performance of full model or with predictor variable model about 95.8% of the
observed physical conditions of existing properties was correctly predicted by the model. So,
the model with predictor variables is more efficient than the model without the independent
variables for predicting the existing properties which is not renovated.

Variables in the equation

In the parameter estimates Table 20 below, see the beta coefficients, p-values (sig), and odds
ratios (Exp (B) included in the equation. P values (sig column) show the influence of the
Land use plan(predictor variable) on the property physical condition (dependent variable).
Hence, the result in the table below shows that all of the explanatory variables Beta
Coefficients have positive and p-values are less than 0.05. This reveals all land use plan are a
significant negative effect on physical conditions of existing properties since predicted
probability membership lay under “poor physical conditions” (see appendix 3, Figure 11).
Table 20:variables in the model

variables in the equation B df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 1a BHR 3 0.041

BHR ≥G+1 3.46 1 0.032 31.810

60
 BHR ≥G+2 3.17 1 0.050 23.762
BHR ≥G+3 0.74 1 0.028 2.09
CMR(1) 2.53 1 0.039 12.610
LUR(1) 1.98 1 0.049 7.210
Constant 21.203 1 .043 .000
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: BHR, LUR and CMR
Source: SPSS 22 output (2022)
As shown the Table 20 above, the statistical significance of the test is found in the "Sig"
column. From these results shown that BHR ≥G+0 (p =0.041); BHR ≥G+1 (β1=3.46, p =
0.032), BHR ≥G+2 (β2=3.17, (p =0.050); BHR ≥G+3 (β3=0.74, (p = 0.028); CMR (1)
(β4=2.53, (p = 0.039) and LUR (1) (β5=1.98, p =0.049) added significantly to the
model/prediction. By applying all coefficients to the logistic regression model, the predicted
full model obtained from five (5) predictor variables.

Ln [Pᵢ/1-Pᵢ] = EPPC= β₀ + β₁ (BHR ≥G+1) + β₂ (BHR ≥G+2) + β3 (BHR ≥G+3) +β4 (CMR1)
+ β5 (LUR (1)) +Ɛᵢ

Ln [Pᵢ/1-Pᵢ] = EPPC= 21 + 3.46 (BHR ≥G+1) + 3.17 (BHR ≥G+2) + 0.74 (BHR ≥G+3)
+2.53 (CMR (1)) + 1.98 (LUR (1)) +Ɛᵢ

Where, EPPC = Existing properties physical condition, Pi= is probability of outcome, β₀=
intercept beta coefficient, BHR G+0=No building height restriction (reference category),
BHR ≥G+1 = building height restricted under two floors, BHR ≥G+2 = building height
restricted under three floors, BHR ≥G+3 = building height restricted under four floors, LUR
(1) = land use restriction, CMR= construction material restriction and Ɛᵢ=error term

4.6.2 Testing the research hypothesis and interpretation of regression result

To attain the objectives of the study and to test hypotheses the binary logistic regression
model computed in above (Table 20) were proved by parameter estimates the level of
significance (sig-value) and odd ratio (Exp(B)) attained by each of the predictor variables.
The hypotheses required to test a negative significance effect of land use plan (Building
height restriction BHR, construction material restriction CMR and land use restriction LUR)
on the on the physical conditions of existing properties. The regression result shows that all

61
the explanatory variables have positive coefficient then the probability of poor physical
condition on aged existing properties is higher for response category (properties under land
use plan restrictions) compared to the reference category (properties under partial restrictions
or exempted from land use plan restrictions). Odds ratio used to interpret the regressed result.
As Raaid et.al, (2018) if the odds ratio Exp (B) >1, the likelihood of an event occurring is
more likely for the response category than the reference category of explanatory variables.
Below there are detail interpretations and discussions on each five explanatory variables
(restrictive land use plans) based on the “variable in the equation” which is the regression
result as depicted in Table 20.

4.6.2.1 Testing hypothesis on building height restriction (BHR)

Under this category we have three response variables as shown Table 20 (BHR ≥G+1, BHR
≥G+2, BHR ≥G+3) and the reference category is BHR G+0 which is exempted from building
height restriction. For this study alternative hypothesis were generated for all these three
predictor variables as: building height restrictions has significance negative effects on
physical conditions of existing properties.

Based on the regression analysis of the “variable in equation” Table 20, the building height
restrictions has described as follows; to test the significance of alternative hypotheses are
given by:

H1: β ≠ 0, Test statistic for all three explanatory variables (BHR ≥G+1, BHR ≥G+2, BHR
≥G+3): p value (sig) = 0 .032, 0.050 and 0.028< 0.05 respectively. Therefore, the decision is
accepting the alternative variable (H1) or rejects the null hypothesis. Therefore, the
conclusion is all building height restrictions are significant at a 5% level of significance.
Hereafter, the result reveal that the building height restrictions (BHR) has a negative
significant effect on physical condition of existing properties though prohibited renovations
and remodeling on old existing properties in the study area. Let’s interpret in detail each
building height restrictions.

As (Table 20) shows the odds of having poor physical condition on existing properties is
31.81 times greater for BHR ≥G+1(building height restricted construction under two floors)

62
as opposed to BHR G+0 or as Muller et al., (2014) the probability that odds of event being
happning can be calculated as:

p=odd/1+odd, so odds of BHR ≥G+1 is 31.81

=p=31.81/1+31.81=0.969=97%

Therefore, we can conclude existing properties that are subjected to BHR ≥G+1 are 97%
likely to be poor physical condition than existing properties that are exempted from building
height restriction or under G+0.

The second predictor variable under building height category is BHR ≥G+2. The odd of
having poor physical condition is 23.762 times greater for BHR ≥G+2 as compared to BHR
G+0. In other words the probability that existing properties under BHR ≥G+2 being
physically poor by 96% than the properties that are under BHR G+0.

Under building height rstriction category, the third independent variable is BHR ≥G+3. The
odd of existing properties having poor physical condition under this plan is 2.09 times greater
for BHR ≥G+3 as compared to BHR G+0. And the probability that existing properties under
BHR≥G+3 having poor physical condition by 67.6% than the properties that are under the
area building height restrictions is exempted (BHR G+3).

Generally, average probability that existing properties under in building height restrictions
may physically poor by 86.9% than the properties which located in the area that building
height restriction is exempted. Therefore, outdated physical condition is created by the
restrictive building height restrictions in the study area. These reveal that existing properties
in the area being physically depreciated and diminished its value. This fact was confirmed by
studies that assert the selling and rental price of existing properties primarily determined by
their physical conditions (Miller, 2018 and Fillipova, 2014).

4.6.2.2 Testing hypothesis on Construction material restriction (CMR)

Under this independent variable there are two categories. The response category coded as ‘1’
for the category ‘fully restricted’ and the reference category coded as ‘0’ for ‘partially

63
restricted’ under construction material restriction (CMR). For this study alternative
hypothesis generated for this predictor variable as:

H2: Constriction material restriction has significance negative effects on physical conditions
of existing properties.

Based on the regression analysis of the “variable in equation” Table 22, the Construction
material plan has described as follows; to test the significance of alternative hypotheses are
given by:

H2: β ≠ 0, Test statistic for this explanatory variables Construction material plan: p value
(sig) = 0.039< 0.05. So, the decision is accepting the alternative variable (H2) or rejects the
null hypothesis. Therefore, the conclusion is Construction material plan is significant at a 5%
level of significance. After this, the result reveal that the Construction material plan (CMR)
has a negative significant effect on property value in terms of physical condition though
prohibited renovations on old existing properties in the study area. Let’s interpret in detail:

The response category ‘fully restricted’ compared to that of reference category ‘partially
restricted’. Then, as the predictor variable depicted above in (Table 22) shows that
construction material fully restricted are more likely to make existing properties physically
poor by a factor of 12.61when compared to the plan that construction material partially
restricted. In other way, the probability that existing properties under ‘construction material
fully restricted’ being poor physical condition by 92.7% than the properties those is under
‘construction material partially restricted’. This implies aged existing properties that are not
conforming to land use plan in the study area become physically outdated due to CMR
prohibited renovation and remodeling.

4.6.2.3 Testing hypothesis on land use restriction (LUR)

In this predictor variable there are two categories. The response category coded as ‘1’ for the
category ‘Pure commercial land use’ and the reference category coded as ‘0’ for ‘Mixed land
use’ under Land use restriction (LUR). For this study alternative hypothesis were generated
for predictor variable as:

64
H2: land use restriction has significance negative effects on existing property physical
condition.
Based on the regression analysis of the “variable in equation” Table 22, the land use
restriction (LUR) has described as follows; to test the significance of alternative hypotheses
are given by:
H3: β ≠ 0, to test statistic for this explanatory variable land use restriction (LUR): p value
(sig column) =0.049< 0.05. So, the decision is accepting the alternative variable (H3).
Therefore, the conclusion is land use restriction (LUR) significant at a 5% level of
significance. After this, the result reveal that the land use restriction (LUR) has a negative
significant effect on physical condition of existing properties though prohibited renovations
and remodeling on non-conforming aged existing properties in the study area. Let’s interpret
in detail using based on the regressed output:
The Response category ‘Pure commercial land use’ compared to the reference category
‘Mixed land use’. Formerly, as portrayed above in Table 19, the odds of having poor physical
condition on existing properties is 7.21 times greater for ‘Pure commercial land use’ as
opposing to ‘Mixed land use’. We can say that the probability that existing properties under
‘Pure commercial use’ category being physically poor by 87.8% than the properties those are
under ‘Mixed use’. This implies old existing properties that are not conforming LUR in the
study area become physically poor due to the prohibition of renovation.

4.6.2.4 Regression report

A logistic regression was performed to determine the effects of BHR, CMR, and LUR on the
likelihood that existing properties have poor physical conditions. The logistic regression
model was statistically significant with (X2= 194.720; df =5; p< 0.05. And 93% (Nagelkerke
R2) of the variance in poor physical conditions is explained by building height restriction,
construction material restriction and land use restriction and correctly classified 95.8% of
cases. The physical situations of existing properties proven this fact in the study area as
Figure 10 showed below.

65
 Figure 6: Existing properties physical looks
Source: Taken from the study area
As summary, odds ratio and coefficients of BHR, CMR and LUR gain from logistic
regression reveals that existing properties being have poor physical condition. In average,
existing properties under building height restrictions is 19.22 more likely to become poor
physical condition than the area exempted from building height restriction. Properties under
fully restricted by Constriction material restriction (CMR) were 12.61 times more likely to be
physically poor than the properties under partially restricted zone. Existing properties under
pure commercial land use zone is 7.21 more likely to be poor physical conditions than the
properties under mixed land use zone. Studies proven this fact that restrictions like building
height restriction, construction material restriction and land use restriction imposed by land
use planning on non-conforming property owners, and this prevent their right of renovation
and reconstruction. And they confirmed that this had a negative impact on the physical
conditions of the existing property (Miller, 2018; Fillipova, 2014). Studies have proven that
the poor physical conditions of existing properties are the primary reasons for the decrease in
value (Tamarazyan et al., 2020; Francis et al., 2020).

4.7. Restrictive land use plan and their impact on the rental price of
existing properties in the case area

Descriptive statistics and inferential analysis were carried out to examine the data and to
analyze the relationships of restrictions which were adopted by land use plan and the rental
price of existing properties. Multiple linear regressions were intended to tests and conclude
whether the variables are significant to determine the rental value of the existing properties
under two districts specifically in pure and mixed land use. The statistical analysis has been

66
considered potentially convenient tool to accomplish this intention. The following data
analyses were employed with field survey data. Descriptive statistics for continuous types of
dependent variables was employed. As shown from Table 21 below, the rental price of 236
houses is described in square meter.

Table 21: Statistical information’s of rental prices

Statistics
Rental prices/M2
N Valid 236
Missing 0
Mean 124.38
Mode 81.00
Std. Deviation 70.602
Minimum 41.00
Maximum 400.00
Source: SPSS 22 output (2022)

As Table 201 showed that mean tells the average rental price of the properties per square
meter is 124.38 Ethiopian birr. And the mode shows the highest frequency of rental price is
81 birr. The standard deviation shows that the total rental value of the property differ more
between properties. Also the information in the above table reveals that no missing data
which proves the completeness of the data. Finally, the variation of the rental price between
properties is 359 birr as depicted in the table by the minimum and maximum rental price.
4.7.1. Regression Analysis

Linear regression assumptions

Linearity test: the data have linear relationship between the predictor variable and predicted
variable (dependent) (Mooi, 2014). But in this study, all predictor variables are dummy (all
building height plans, construction material restriction and land use restriction) no need of
check linearity test because of there is no non-linear relationship for single variable with two
values (0 and 1). Because, dummy variables create two data point and two points define
straight line David (2019).

67
Multi-Collinearity test: to test the model whether it is unbiased or not multicollinearity
checked by the VIF (variance inflation factor) and tolerance. This assumption is relevant for
a multiple regression; it refers to when the predictor variables are highly correlated with each
other (charendah, 2004). The value of tolerance for this study is above 0.01 for all predictor
variables. So, there is no serious multicollinearity between the independent variable. Also the
VIF values to be below 10, and best case would be if the value has to be below 4 (Charendah,
2004). Hence, in this study each value is below 4 indicating that there is no serious
multicollinearity problem as depicted above in (Table 22).
Table 22: Multicollinearity test

Model Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant)
LUR .304 3.287
CMR .269 3.715
BHRG+0 (reference)
BHRG+1 .513 1.917
BHRG+2 .752 1.330
BHRG+3 .574 1.742

Source: SPSS 22 output

Normality test: in order to make

valid conclusion by this model, the
regression residuals should be
normally distributed. As
suggestion, the rent price per
square meter can be checked by
two formal test (Kolmogorov-
shirnov and Shapiro-Wilk) and
normal predicted probability (P_P
plot) (Mooi, 2014 and Maxwill,
Figure 7: Normality check by P-P plot
2003).

68
As the same test is shown in (Figure 8), the data normally distributed because of circle are
continually follows the normal line.
And also (Table 23) depicted that Kolmogorov and Shapiro test. Both tests has non-
significant value (P-value greeter than 0.05). So, the data came from the normal distribution.
Table 23: Normality testing for dependent variable

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statisti Df Sig.

c

Rental price .056 164 .890 .993 164 .666

per square
meter

Source: Field survey, computed by Spss

Homoscedasticity: Multiple linear regressions consider the residual should have constant
variance at every point in the linear model. This assumption is to create a plot of standardized
residual versus predicted value as (Figure 13) depicted below i.e. the dots should be
distributed evenly below and above the x-axis and also the same at y- axis to right and left.

Figure 8: Homoscedastic test

69
Autocorrelation: in this test, observations in the dataset are independent. This is tested by the
Durbin-Watson test whether or not the residuals show autocorrelation. As depicted (Table
24) below, the result is 1.895 which is close to 2. This is an acceptable value no or less
autocorrelation since between1.5 and 2.5.

Regression model significant test

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) provides information about level of variability with in

regression model and form a basis for tests of significance (Charendah, 2004). The null
hypothesis rejected that this model states the parameters of predictor variables are zero i.e.
β1= β2= β3…..= βp=0 since the distribution at F (5, 230), sig (P) =0.001).That means, as
depicted (Table 24), the mean square of regression divided by the mean square of residual
gives the variation F i.e. 19232.756/100.635=191.114. This large value of F is providing
evidence against the null hypothesis and the model is significant enough to determine the
effects of land use plan on rental value of existing properties in the two districts.

Table 24: significance test of model

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 96,163.78 5 19232.756 191.11 .001
4
Residual 23,146.12 230 100.635
Total 119309.90 235
0
a. Dependent Variable: Rental price per sq.m
b. Predictors: (Constant),BHR+1, BHR+2, BHR+3, LUR and CMR
Source: computed by SPSS 22

Use the Regression Model

As the regression model satisfies the assumption of regression analysis and significance test,
now it is time to use the regression model. The purpose of the regression model is predicting
and concluding the effect of the dependent variable on the predicted variable. After all, to

70
quantify the effect or contribution of predictors to the price of rental value hedonic price
model used as (Rotimi, 2017):
P=f (x1,x2…xn), where P is the market price of the house and x1, x2……..xn are housing
characteristic in hedonic price model that market price depend on it. For this study:
RP=f (BHRG+1i, BHRG+2i, BHRG+3i, CMRi,
LURi,)…………………………..………………. (2)
Where;
RP=dependent variable (rental price for existing property)
BHRG+1i = vector or dimension of building height plan (building height plan restrict
construction under two floor and prohibit renovation structural part and over 50% of the
existing content of existing property which is non-conforming structure)
BHRG+2i = vector or dimension of building height plan (building height plan restrict
construction under three floor and prohibit renovation structural part and over 50% of the
existing content of existing property which is non-conforming structure)
BHRG+3i = vector or dimension of building height plan (building height plan restrict
construction under four floor and prohibit renovation of structural part and over 50% of old
content of existing property which is non-conforming structure)
CMRi = vector or dimension of construction material restriction
LURi= vector or dimension of land use restriction
Thus, the multiple regression models adapted to this study as follows:
Y= β0+∑ni=1 β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + βiXi + µ...…………………….………..…. (3)
RP= β0+β1*(BHRG+1)1+ β2*(BHRG+2)2+ β3*(BHRG+3)3+ β4*CMR4+ β5*LUR5
+µ….……………………………………………………………………………………….. (4)
Where, Y represents predicted variable (rent price), the beta (β0) is expected mean value of
PR and when the other predictor constant, the beta (β0) become the rental value. But, for this
study, the predictor (explanatory variable) are not constant and α is the intercept of the graph,
whereas, β is the coefficient of explanatory variable or the slope to indicate the degree of
impact of land use plans on the rental value of existing properties. µ is the error or residuals
which is the difference between the true value in observation and estimated value. The
observations denoted by (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). (BHRG+1), (BHRG+2), (BHRG+3), CMR and
LUR represents the independent variables in the model.

71
From the (Table 25) below, coefficient of determination (adjusted𝑅 2 ) demonstrate the extent
to which the linear model explains the observed variation in the predicted variable (rental
price of existing properties). This value shows 79.6% of the variance the dependent variable
is explained by the independent variable i.e. rental value of existing property depends on
independent variables (BHR, CMR and LUR). The rest, 21.4% of the rental value of existing
property value in the area not explained by those Land use plans.
Table 25: Model summary

Model Summary for rental value of existing property

Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-

Square Square Estimate Watson

1 .870 .806 .796 7.85581 1.895

Predictors: (Constant), BHR+1, BHR+2, BHR+3, LUR, and CMR

Dependent variable: rental price per square meter

Source: computed by SPSS 22

Coefficients of determination

As (Table 26) showed in sig column, all independent variable has significant effect on the
dependent variable (rental price of the existing property) since p-value (sig column) less than
0.05. So, the hypothesis for this study “land use plan has negative significant effect on
existing property value” is true since the independent variables which were adopted by the
land use plan are significant (see sig column) and the relationship of Land use plan with
rental value of existing properties are negative (see B column).
Table 26: Coefficients of determination

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Sig.

B Std. Error
1 (Constant) 121.25 5.136 .000
LUR(1) -2.449 1.425 .039
CMR(1) -21.994 5.899 .047
BHRG+1 -34.632 4.495 .002
BHRG+2 -11.105 3.447 .015
BHRG+3 -6.069 3.359 .021
Source: Feld survey, computed by Spss 22

72
As depicted above table, the regression intercept (constant) is 121.25. This implies the other
predictor variable coefficients become zero; the rental price of existing property per meter
square is 121.25. The regression coefficient (B) associated with land use restriction (LUR) is
(-2.449) i.e. the rental prices of existing properties located in pure commercial land use
(coded as LUR (1)) decreased by 2.449 Ethiopian birr per meter square compared to the
properties located in mixed land use (coded as opposed to reference category LUR (0)). The
association between rental value of existing property and land use restriction is also
statistically significance (p=0.039) and the null hypothesis rejected.
And also the regression coefficient associated with construction material fully restricted
(CMR (1)) is (-21.994) i.e. The rental prices of existing properties located under construction
material fully restricted (CMR (1)) zone decreased by 21.994 Ethiopian birr per meter square
compared to the properties located in the construction material partially restricted zone
(coded as reference category CMR (0)) and CMR(1) is also statistically significance at
p=0.047 and the null hypothesis is rejected.
The regression coefficient associated with building height plan restrict construction under
two floors (BHRG+1) is (-34.632) i.e. the rental prices of existing properties located under
zonings that building height plan prohibit constructions under two floors (BHR+1 (1))
decreased by 34.632 Ethiopian birr per meter square compared to the properties located
under zonings that building height plan is exempted (coded as reference category( BHR+ 0)
and the association of rental price with BHR+1 is also statistically significance at p=0.002
and the null hypothesis is rejected.

The regression coefficient associated with building height plan restrict construction under
three floors (BHRG+2) is (-11.105) i.e. the rental prices of existing properties located under
zonings that building height plan prohibit constructions under two floors (BHR+2 (1))
decreased by 11.105 Ethiopian birr per meter square compared to the properties located
under zonings that building height plan is exempted (coded as reference category( BHR+ 0)
and the association of rental price with BHR+1 is also statistically significance at p=0.015.
Finally, regression coefficient associated with building height plan restrict construction under
three floors (BHRG+3) is (-6.069) i.e. the rental prices of existing properties located under
zonings that building height plan prohibit constructions under two floors (BHR+2 (1))
decreased by 6.069 Ethiopian birr per meter square compared to the properties located under

73
zonings that building height plan is exempted (coded as reference category( BHR+ 0) and
the association of rental price with BHR+1 is also statistically significance at p=0.021 and
the null hypothesis is rejected.

Generally, the regression intercept (constant) is 121.25. This implies the other predictor
variable coefficients become zero; the rental price of existing property per meter square is
121.25 Ethiopian birr. But, all coefficients of predictor variables (B) are less than zero. This
means that rental price of existing properties or the regression intercept will decrees
according to the coefficients of predictor variables (land use restrictions). That means, due to
the restrictive land use restrictions which were adopted by the town land use plan, the rental
price of existing properties under two districts in the town being decreased and this is
conclude based on equation (4):

RP= β0+β1*(BHRG+1)1+ β2*(BHRG+2)2+ β3*(BHRG+3)3+ β4*CMR4+ β5*LUR5 +µ.

RP=121.25 +(-34.632*(BHR+1)) +(-11.105*(BHR+2))+( -6.069*(BHR+3)) -2.449*LUR(1)

+(-21.994*CMR(1)) ……………………………………………..…… (5)

Finally, as equation (5) showed that the coefficients of land use plan restrictions, which are a
significant variable for this study, all are negatively related to rental price of existing
properties in the study area. Although in developed countries, studies reinforce this fact. As
Ding (2013) and Helsley et al. (2008) confirmed in their study that land use planning has a
negative impact on the rental prices of existing properties (building and houses) due to the
restriction on existing property. This reveal that the three land use plans that were planned to
bring physical development to the town of Finoteselam, specifically in the two districts under
commercial land use, had negative impact on the rental price of existing properties.

4.8 Appropriate urban planning approach and framework for existing

property value

In Ethiopia, comprehensive land use planning approach has been implementing in all
towns/cities since FDRE urban planning proclamation No.574/2002 stipulated to achieve a
visionary towns and cities, balanced and coordinated national, regional, and local
development. As Sandercock (1998), this type of planning approach more focus on the future

74
physical urban development. But In 23 years since 2000 that these land use plans have been
implemented, the desired physical transformation of the town has not been achieved. Instead,
the three objectives of this study have shown that the land use restrictions issued to achieve
the comprehensive land use plan have a negative impact on the value of an existing property.
The result of this study in Objective One is that land use planning restrictions are the primary
reason for 91.95% of existing properties being legal non-conforming to the land they located.
And as shown in objective two, 70% of existing properties are in poor physical condition
directly related to land use planning restrictions (BHR, CMR, and LUR). In addition,
according to the results of the study obtained for the third objective, the rental price of the
houses where the building height restriction prohibits building below two floors is lower by
34.63 Ethiopian birr per square meter compared to the houses where the building height
restriction is exempted. The rental price of a house in a height-restricted area below 3 floors
is 11.105 birr less compared to a height-exempt area. Also, the rental price of a house in an
area where building heights below 4 floors are prohibited is 6.01 Ethiopian birr less than in
an area where there is no prohibition. The rental price of a house in a pure commercial land
use area is 2.449 birr less compared to a house that is located in a mixed land use area.
Finally, the rental price of a house in an area where construction materials are restricted is
21.99 birr less per square meter than a house in a non-restricted area.

And as we learned from the literature the nature of the comprehensive planning approach
measure and criticized by some scholars based on general conceptual framework, goals and
planning process, participation of stakeholders and the capability of the town to carry on the
plan (Sandercock, 1998), Ghadami et al.(2015); Hall (1994); Friedmann and Hudson (1979),
Lindblom (1959) and Friedmann (1973).

1. General conceptual frame works of land use plans.

✓ The conceptual frameworks of comprehensive approach point out problems arising
from land use planning in a general approach, so detail problems are more likely to
be overlook in the operational phase of planning (Sandercock, 1998).
✓ If this approach adopted once as a blueprint for one city, it is hard to change some
adopted restrictions and not flexible even it is important for the community.

75
 ✓ Economic goal is not concern for comprehensive approach rather focus on physical
goal.
✓ Land use map concluded as final document. This is imposing the community to
perceive the document is dogmatic.
2. Goals and planning process of land use plan
✓ The objective is producing the physical outcome (a land-use map).
✓ Atop-down hierarchical, unilateral planning and implementation process
✓ Has fixed forecasting for future decision-making how to use land. It is not
considering problems that will appear in the future.
✓ Objectives and processes are not transparent and clear for the community.
✓ Decision-making process is separated from the community and the possibility of the
implementations of political objective is wide.
3. Participations of stakeholders during preparation and implementation of land use plan
✓ No consideration is given to people and social institutions participating in the
process of making land use. As this does not consider the needs and resource of the
people, it is especially damaging property value (Ghadami et al., 2015).
✓ This approach has long hierarchical planning authority. This authority imposes
planning and design decision.
✓ Since this approach is on the hand of government, politicians may involve in
whatever political goals they want.
4. Capability of cities/towns to implement land use plan.
✓ Sets imaginary goals without considering the ability of cities to implement land use
planning. To attain this goals, some restrictive regulations adopted without
considering the economic status and resource of the communities.

Generally, numerous theoretical criticisms of the comprehensive model include it is rigid and
stagnant plan; disregard for public input, dependance on model frameworks for its plans,
level the land-use map to the status of a final document, idealism, and lack of engagement
with the real changing world and attention to great detail. Also, it is disregard for the relative
ability of the town to implement the plan and land use restrictions that do not focus on
existing conditions of the community since public participation ignored.

76
Empirical results gained from this research objectives and theoretical concepts learned from
the existing literature regarding comprehensive urban land use planning approach implies
that the need for new urban land use planning approaches in Ethiopia, particularly in
Finoteselam town. In recent years, developing countries have abandoned the comprehensive
land use planning approaches and used other efficient land use planning approaches. For
example, India, Brazil, and Argentina have been successful in using a combinations of
advocacy and strategic land use planning approach instead comprehensive approach. It has
also comprehensive approach replaced by the strategic approach in Asia (Singapore and
South Coria) and Africa (Nigeria, Ghana, and Egypt). But, Ethiopia still used rigid and
stagnant land use planning approach (comprehensive) which is most of developed and
developing countries abandoned before thirty years ago (Ghadami et al.,2015). In this regard,
including comprehensive land use planning approach a comparative study based on the
principles of land use planning is presented in Table 27.

Table 27:Comparative analysis of land use planning approaches

Concerned Comprehensive planning Strategic planning Advocacy planning

field
Conceptual Emphasis on knowing detail Knowing problems of the Group of advocators show land
framework problems in the city’s land use city in specifically and use planning problems based on
& related issue detail regarding land use research on specific problems for
and related issue the community they represent
If adopted as blueprint, hard Flexible planning approach It is flexible and depend on
and inflexible to change land and well-informed for current problems that must be
use and other restriction urban land use changes solved
Lacks concern for economic Focus on promoting Focus on any issue regarding
goals regarding land use economic goals economic and social goals
planing
Study on problems Selective and targeted Conduct deep research on each
comprehensively in the city studies on specific land use problems in the cities
problems and input for planning authorities
The land-use map is regarded A preference for plans that A preference for plans that are
as the final document are useful and realistic. useful and realistic for society.

77
Goals and The objective of producing the Combining the economic Defend the planning authority
planning physical outcome (a land-use and social aims with the based on research to prepare land
prosses map) physical ones use map which is appropriate for
social and economic aspects
A top-down, unilateral A bottom-up and top-down Ongoing discussion with
planning and implementation consultative planning and planning authority on planned
process implementation method development
Fixed forecasting and future Ongoing, methodical Research based decision making
decision-making decision-making process process regarding the future land
regarding the future land use plan
use plan
Objectives and processes are Clarity of the goal and Clear and create awareness what
not transparent and clear for objectives for achieving it objectives and process for the
community community they represent and
defend the planning authority to
do so
separate the decision-making Mutual connections during Decision made after debating
procedure the decision-making and discoursed between planning
process authority and advocacy planning
group who represented by the
community
Participation No consideration is given to The people and stakeholder Advocators participate in
of people and social institutions organizations’ efficient preparation of land use planning
stakeholders participating participation on the basis of community’s
need and researched problems
Imposes planning and design Designing and planning Designing and planning with
from above; with stakeholders' advocators research and
perspectives in mind information got from
communities
Relies on a technical approach Considers participation to Considers participation to
with little faith in creativity produce creative solutions produce solutions for existing
and innovation for existing problems in problems and creating
the land use plan innovation in land use plan

78
 Since it is on the hand of Even if it is on the hand of Advocators discuses, defend and
government, politicians may the government, variety of participate in every stage of
involve in whatever political experts evolved in the planning with planning authority
goals they want process for the community they represent
Implementati The organizations tasked with Considering the Advocacy group considering the
on implementation don't take implementation implementation organization’s
capabilities their weaknesses and strengths organization’s assessment assessment of their strengths and
into account of their strengths and weaknesses
weaknesses
Exclusion of local authorities Local authorities are given The advocacy planning groups
from the planning process and extensive authority to involved in planning process and
plan approval choose managers and a approval on behalf of
strategy plan communities
A lack of implementation Ongoing supervision and Advocators supervise how
oversight control implementation is going on
based on their information they
give for planning authorities
Based on imaginary situation Based recognition of the Based on community’s
city's actual capabilities capabilities
Source: Summarized from Ghadami et al.(2015), Hall (1994), Friedmann and Hudson
(1979), Lindblom (1959) and Friedmann (1973)

As is revealed in the above table, many of the weaknesses of Comprehensive planning could
be solved by strategic and advocacy planning approach. So the use of these strategic and
advocacy urban planning models are necessary. As Ghadami et al.(2015) and Hall (1994) all
comprehensive land use planning approach’s gap can fill though the system of strategic
planning approach since cities’ stakeholders evolving in the preparation of the land use plan
process. It is also creating convenient system for making necessary and problem-solver land
use change, even if it is still being implemented. Also Strategic Planning approach has a
better preparation and operational system than comprehensive planning approach. However,
there are concerns as it operates under government supervision and budget. Governments,
especially in poor and developing countries, use this planning approach for political purposes
(Ghadami et al. 2015). If this planning approach is used in Finoteselam town, still the

79
community does not understand about land use and related restrictions. In this situation if the
government uses it for political purposes, the property owners do not demand their rights.
Therefore, the gaps may filed by the advocacy planning approach. The ways how this
approach can solve problems include:

✓ Advocates on behalf of the people, especially low-income communities, to ensure

that the land use plan dose not have a negative impact on their property value
✓ Create awareness about the land use plan and related restrictions to the community
✓ Main goal is to work on prerequisite for the preparation of a land use plan by
excluding restrictions that are beneficial to the community and have a negative impact
on property
✓ To insure that the community has an understanding of the land use plan and
participate in its preparation and implementation to prevent negative effects on the
property value
✓ It is argued that the ability of the community to carry out the implementation of the
land use plan should be taken into consideration so that when the property use
restrictions (building height restriction, building material restriction and land use
restriction) are implemented, there will not have a negative impact on the property
value.

Generally, this analysis depicted that land use planning in comprehensive planning approach
has poor framework, fantasy goals and processes, poor participation of stakeholders during
pre-planning and operational phase and do not consider social and economic aspects of the
community. All this issue could solve by the strategic planning approach. But this approach
lead under the government from pre planning to operational phase. Therefore, to advance the
understanding of the community what land use planning is, prevent land use restrictions
proactively and to increase the accountability of government it is better to adopt strategic-
advocacy planning approach which is the mixing of strategic planning approach and
advocacy planning approach. To measure this mixed approach through four principles of
land use planning:

80
1. Goals: Make pluralistic and flexible land use plan which restriction dose not exclude
minority groups or poor in the community from using their property as their economic
status and as they pleased to use.
2. Participation of stakeholders: Stakeholders participate in pre-planning phase, planning
phase and operational phase to be proactive for the negative effects of land use
planning restriction. So, this dual planning approach can prevent the problem that we
found in this study like non-conforming of the existing properties by use and structure;
poor physical conditions of existing properties due to the restriction of building height
restriction, building material restriction and land use restrictions; and decreased rental
value due to restrictions.
3. Capability of the community to carry out: The restrictions that land use plan adopt on
properties will be determined by the communities current and future capability to
implement. This is also important to prevent the restrictions that are cause for non-
conforming, poor physical condition and decreased rental value of existing properties.
4. Conceptual frameworks: land use planning is developed based on the needs of the
community and urban economic and social development, with the agreement of the
advocacy planers representing the people, community and strategic planers representing
government planning authority as shown by the general farmwork below in Figure 10.
This is important to consider the communities wellbeing in all directions during land
use planning process.

81
Figure 9: General conceptual framework of strategic-advocacy land use planning approach

Finally, we conclude that this mixed land use planning approach (Strategic-Advocacy land
use planning approach) can solve the problems (non-conforming existing properties, poor
physical conditions of existing properties and decreasing rental price of properties) that arise
from comprehensive land use planning approach in particular Finoteselam in the case study
area and in general in Ethiopia.

82
 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. CONCLUSION

The main objective of this study were to analyze the impact of land use plan on existing
properties in Finoteselam town. This study examined the restrictions of land use planning on
the conforming status, physical conditions and on the rental price of existing properties. Also
comparative urban planning theory analysis conducted for appropriate land use plan
approach regarding existing property value.
Hence, the study established at a 5% level of significance, there is a strong significant
relationship between the predicted variables (conforming status, physical condition and rental
prices of existing properties) and the predictor variables (building height restriction,
construction material restriction and land use restriction). Furthermore, the study also
established that building height restriction (BHR) has a strong significant effect among the
other variables on the conforming status, physical conditions and rental prices of existing
properties.
Since 2000, 78% (185) of the existing houses in the case area are built for residential
purpose, but they are being non-conforming to the new land use in terms of structure
(numbers of floors) and use (architectural design) according to land use plans. 81.4% (192)
of the total existing properties taken for the study are made of mud and wood are 30.2 years
old on average. These existing properties do not conform with land use plan applicable to the
newly adopted BHR, CMR and LUR.
The study hypothetically discovered that building height restriction (BHR), construction
material restriction (CMR) and land use restriction (LUR) are the determinant factors that
affect property value in the study area. Finally, the researcher concludes that the building
height restriction (BHR) is the most significant factor amongst the variables that affect the
existing property value in the case area. Also the comparative theory assessment showed that
the comprehensive land use planning is exclusive, rigid, inflexible for change and
unappropriated for existing property value especially in poor community.
The purpose of city’s or urban land use plan is to prepare and design the urban environment
to meet the needs of the communities in relation to physical and economic development
rather not to crate blight neighborhood feature and properties that has diminished property

83
value. Therefore, this study is vital to improve the problems provoked in Finoteselam town
by demonstrating the new urban planning approach which is inclusive and appropriate for
existing property value.

5.2. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the results of the study obtained from findings and conclusions, this paper is going
to suggest possible recommendations to advance physically poor existing properties in the
study area and regarding adoption of land use plan. Therefore, based on these research
findings and conclusions this recommendation is forwarded for three stakeholders:
For existing property owners
➢ As seen in this study, despite the implementation of land use plan for 23 years,
contrary to the planned physical and economic growth, it has led to physical aging of
existing properties and the creation of unpleasant neighborhoods. Therefore, property
owners should understand that land use plan are not dogmatic or religious book words;
but it is a growth control tools that applied to the welfare of society and that you can
be ask to improve those rigid restrictions adopted by land use plan on existing
properties. This can achieve though appointing the advocacy planning group who
advocate regarding all planning issue on behalf of you.
For town municipality
➢ According to this study, mor than half existing properties were built before the
implementation of the town’s land use plans. Among them this existing houses are not
compatible or non-conforming in terms of use and structure with the changed land use
and forcing them to continue with their content unchanged for several years.
Therefore, in order to reduce the physical negative impacts on existing properties, the
town council should conduct a professional assessment on land use and the plan
should be flexible according to town’s and property owners economic situation.
➢ Existing homes are on average 30.2 years old and are too old and require structural
renovation or remodeling. However, as this study found that structural renovation and
remodeling were prohibited due to restrictive land use plan imposed on property
owners. The town council takes a serious look at the negative impact of this
prohibition on the physical conditions of existing properties.

84
 ➢ As this study comparative theory analysis the comprehensive urban planning approach
is inappropriate regarding principles like general framework, participation of stake
holders, goals and objective and capability of the community to carry on for existing
property value. Therefore, instead of this the integration of advocacy and strategic
urban planning approach is appropriate based on four principles mentioned above.
This approach may inclusive and solve problems that arise from comprehensive
approach.
For future researchers
➢ This study is limited at the effects of land use plan on the physical conditions of
existing properties, rental prices and the conforming state of existing properties to their
land use in relation to restrictive land use plans. Therefore, it is recommended that
researchers work on the relationship between sales prices of existing properties with
restrictive land use plans.

85
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Abufayed et al., 2005. Urban planning and Architecture of the historic city of Ghadames,
Libiya:Lessens from the past for cities of the future. Jornal of urban planning theores, 83(8),
pp. 1-12.

Abera et al., 2017. Review on measuring land use and land value changes in. Journal of
Entrepreneurship & Organization Management, 3(4), p. 6:221.

Adebayo et al., 2009. Determinants and effects of change in use on property rental value a
sase. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And, II(7), pp. 114-116.

Alemu Tesfay, 2015. Urban land use dynamics, the nexus between land use pattern and its.
Land use policy, 45(6), pp. 1-22.

Alhassan et al., 2019. An analysis of the impact of zoning policy onresidencial property
value. Jornal of civil engineering and architecture, 13(12), pp. 528-589.

Amhara town planning and institute, 2002. Finoteselam town's structure plan report, Bahir
Dar: ANRS UPI.

Anthony Bellotti & Zhe Lim, 2021. Normalized nonconformity measures for automated
valuation model. 8 ed. Ningbo: univesity og Nottingham.

Anwar et al., 2016. Validity and reliability analysis of assesment for customer satisfaction at
university of Muhhamadiyah Gresek. Didakita, 22(12), pp. 141-163.

Asami et al., 2006. Evaluating Land-Use Restrictions concerning the Floor Area Ratio of
Lots. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy, 24(8), pp. 515-532.

Ashraf et al., 2009. Land use and land cover change in Greater Dhaka,. Using remote sensing
to promote sustainable urbanization, I(2), pp. 391-400.

Bantihun et al., 2017. Review on measuring land use and land value change in Etheopia.
Jornal of Interprenureship & organization Managment, 6(13), pp. 1-6.

Bassett, E. M., 1949. planning advisor service, chicago: American socity of plannig officials.

Bellotti, 2021. Normalized nonconformity measures for automated valuation model. Seventh
ed. Ningbo: univesity og Nottingham.

Berger, L., 2014. Conflicts between Zoning Ordinances and and Restrictive Covenants: A
Problem in Land Use policy. Nebraska Law Review, 43(3/2), pp. 449-470.

Berket, 2006. Urban land use planning. 5th ed. Chikago: University of Illinois Press.

86
Brayman, A., 1988. Quantiti and quality in social research. 1st ed. newyork: Unwin hyman
ltd.

Brueckner, J. K., 2003. Analyzing Building-Height Restrictions: Predicted Impacts, Welfare

Costs,and a Case Study of Bangalore, India, Bangalore: University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.

Buitelaar, E., 2014. Zoning, more than just a tool: Explaining Huston's regulatory practice.
Europian planing studies, 17(7), pp. 1046-1065.

charendah, K., 2004. Reserch methodology. Second revised Edition ed. New Delhi: New age
Internationa publisher.

Chich-Ping et.al, 2020. The urban blight. MDPI, 1(1), pp. 1-16.

Cook, J. R., 2021. legal non-conforming use orevent municipality from inforcing by-lawe.
Gardiner Roberts, 7(12), pp. 51-65.

Creswell, J. W., 2014. Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. 4 ed. California: SAGA publication.

Dadi, D., 2016. Urban sprawl and its impacts on land use change in Central Ethiopia. Urban
forestry and urban greening, Volume 16, pp. 132-141.

Danile, T., 1999. When country and city collide.. New York, Island Press.

David Dodman, G. M. a. B. D., 2013. Integrating the invironment in urban planing and
managment. 3 ed. Nirobi: International institute for invironment and development.

David, e. a., 2013. Integrating the invironment in urban planing and managment. 3 ed.
Nirobi: International institute for invironment and development.

Davis, M., 2001. Does city governance matter for the urban poor?. International Planning
Studies, Volume 6(4), pp. 393-408.

Degualem, 2018. The effect of land use change on property value in the case of Bole sub city,
Addis Ababa: s.n.

Ding et al., 2013. Building height restrictions, land development and economic cost. Land
use policy, 29:1(t https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271616416), pp. 485-495.

Diriba, 2016. Urban sprawl and its impacts on land use change in Central Ethiopia. Urban
forestry and urban greening, 1(9), pp. 132-141.

Dodman, 2013. Integrating the invironment in urban planing and managment. 3 ed. Nirobi:
International institute for invironment and development.

87
Dowall, David E, 1984. The Suburban Squeeze: Land Conversion and Regulation. 3 ed.
California: Berkley.

Emanuel S. & Wanzhari W.Y, 2016. The impact of urban land use change on residencial
property rental value in Kaduna metropolis, Nigeria. Midwaell jornal, 3(1), pp. 97-106.

Emanuel S. et al., 2016. The impact of urban land use change on residencial property rental
value in Kaduna metropolis, Nigeria. Midwaell jornal, 41(4), pp. 97-106.

Emmanuel et al., 2019. Review of the impact of obsolescence on residential property values.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 6(8), pp. 92-99.

Emmanuelet et al., 2015. Determinantes of land use and property value. jornal of
computational and theoretical nanoscience, 21(1), pp. 135-162.

Filippova, O., 2015. The Influence of Vintage on House Value. Pacific Rim Property
Research Journal, 12(7), pp. 233-253.

Fischel, W. A., 2004. An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects.
Sage, Volume 42(2), pp. 317-340.

Forys et al., 2015. The influnce of planing decition regarding land evaluation basedon a
selected local real estate market. UPI, 42(7), pp. 62-72.

Francis et al., 2020. Assessing the Effect of Building Obsolescence on. Jornal of real estate
development, 10(1), pp. 21-26.

Francis, O., 2020. Assessing the Effect of Building Obsolescence on Property Values in Uyo,
Nigeria. Architecture Research, Volume 10(1), pp. 21-26.

Fredrick, O.-O., 2011. Evolution of Town Planning Ideas, Plans and their, Stockholm:
CEDAT Makerere University.

Ghadami et al., 2015. A Critique of the Prevailing Comprehensive UrbanPlanning Paradigm

in Iran: the Need for Strategic. Planning Theory, 2(8), pp. 335-361.

Green, 1991. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?. 6 ed. Origon:
Upper Saddle River.

Hildegard, 2018. The history of urban planing, Hannover: Leibnize association.

Ibrahim et al., 2018. Building material price and the rental value of residencial properties in
Eden, Nigeria. jornal view project, pp. 213-231.

Jaeger, 2006. The effects of land use regulation on property value. Origon state university,
36(10), pp. 105-130.

88
Jaeger, W. K., 2006. The effect of land use regulation on property value. invironmental law,
Volume 36:105, pp. 103-130.

John M. et al., 2005. The effect of land use regulation on the price Housing: What do we
know? what can we learn?. US Department of housing and urban development, 8(3), pp. 69-
137.

K.Jaeger et al., 2007. How land use regulation affected property value in oregon?. Jornal of
land managment, 7(3), pp. 1-9.

Kedall, R., 2018. The Effect of Zoning on housing price, Melbourne : CATO Institute.

Keegan., 2009. Practitioner perspective: “emergent inquiry”; a practitioner’s reflections on

the. An International Journal, 12(3), pp. 234-248.

Kenneth, H., 2012. Determinant of residencial property price In Hongkong: Acontegration

analysis. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 96(6), pp. 1450-2887.

Kentaro et al., 2021. Estimating the Impact of Land Use Regulation on Land Price:At the
Kink Point of Building Height Limits in Fukuoka. The research institiute of economy, trade
and industry, 3(12), pp. 1-16.

Kjaeger, W., 2015. The effect of land use regulation on property value. Environmental law,
Volume 36:105, pp. 107-130.

Korkmaz et al., 2012. The importance of logistic regression. 16(1), pp. 25-36.

Korkmaz et al., 2012. The importance of logistic regression implementations in the Turkish
livestock sector and logistic regression implementations/fields. J.Agric. Fac. HR.U, 16(7),
pp. 25-36.

Landis, J. D., 1992. Do growth control work?. Journal of the, Volume 58, pp. 489-508.

LeBreton, J. a., 2004. History and use of relative importance indices in organizational
research. organizational research method, 3(relativ importance), pp. 238-257.

Longhui, 2021. The influnce and thinkink of urban planning on real estate development.
shandong, EDP Sciences.

Lyndsey Rolheisera, D. v. D. A. v. d. M., 2018. Does Housing Vintage Matter? Exploring

the Historic City Center of. Amsterdam: MIT Center for Real Estate.

Lyndsey Rolheisera, D. v. D. A. v. d. M., 2018. Does Housing Vintage Matter? Exploring

the Historic City Center of, Amsterdam: MIT Center for Real Estate.

89
Lyndsey Rolheiser, D. v. D. a. A. v. d. M., 2018. Does Housing Vintage Matter?, Toronto:
De Nederlanddsche eurosystem.

Malhotra, N., 2010. Marketing research: an applied orientation. 6th ed. New Jersey :
Prentice Hall Inc.

Math et al., 2014. Introduction to SPSS. JOUR, 1(7), pp. 1-14.

Maxwill, K., 2003. Obtaining regression. 8 ed. New York: LTSU.

Mccarthy, C. A. P. a. C., 2010. Amortization of legal land use nonconformites as regulatory

takings. Volume 35:37, p. 37:44.

Mekuriyaw, D., 2018. THE impact of Urban Land Use Changes On Residencial properties
The Case of Bole Sub City, Addis Ababa. Jornal of Land economics, 1(31), pp. 1-17.

Mohammad et al., 2019. Impact of Land use change on land value: A case of Jhangiwala,
Bahawalpur city, Pakistan. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 14(7), pp.
152-160.

Mohammad Mohsin, m. M. D. F. J., 2019. Impact of Land use change on land value: A case
of Jhangiwala, Bahawalpur city, Pakistan. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental
Sciences, Volume 14, pp. 152-160.

Mooi, E., 2014. Regression Analysis, Melborne: University of Melborne.

Muller et al, 2014. Estimating predictedprobability from logistic regression: diffrent methods
corospond to diffrent targate population. International jornal of epidimology, 40(3), pp. 962-
970.

Nadia, 2014. Spatial planning in Uk 1990-2013. Europ planning studies, 1(5), pp. 189-214.

Nakajima et al., 2021. Estimating the Impact of Land Use Regulation on Land Price:At the
Kink Point of Building Height Limits in Fukuoka. The research institiute of economy, trade
and industry, 21(12), pp. 1-16.

Nancy et al., 2014. The Use of Tringulation in Qualitative research. Oncology nursing forum,
41(9), pp. 545-547.

Nils, 2014. land use regulation and the value of land and housing: an intra metropolitan
analysis. ELSEVIER, 1(7), pp. 136-148.

Obabori et al., 2007. Development controle an important regulatory of settlement Growth:a

case study of Kkoma, Nigeria. Jornal of human ecology, 21(7), pp. 321-345.

90
Okey Francis et al., 2020. Assessing the Effect of Building Obsolescence on Property Values
in Uyo, Nigeria. Real estat development, 3(1), pp. 235-241.

Owusu, A., 2018. A REVIEW OF HEDONIC PRICING MODELS IN HOUSING

RESEARCH. Journal of International Real Estate and Construction Studies, 1(3), pp. 20-34.

Pallant, J., 2010. a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill
Education.

Patel et al., 2019. Exploring research methodology: Review Article. International jornal of
research & review, 6(3), pp. 48-54.

Raaid et al., 2018. use of logestic regression to study the most important factor affecting the
incidence of tuberclosis. Journal of AL-Qadisiyah for computer science and mathematics,
10(5), pp. 1-9.

Raaid et al., 2018. Use of logistic regression to study the most important factors affecting the
incidence of tuberculosis. Journal of AL-Qadisiyah for computer science and mathematics,
10(11), pp. 1 - 9.

Raaid et.al, 2018. Use of logistic regression to study the most important. factors affecting the
incidence of tuberculosis, 10 (10), pp. 1-9.

Raja Rafidah, M. R., 2018. Relative Importance Index of Sustainable Design and
Construction Activities Criteria for Green Highway. AIDIC, 63(5), pp. 117-126.

Ratcliff, D., 2008. Qualitative data analysis and the transforming moment. Paternoster
periodicals, Volume 2, pp. 116-133.

Rolheiser et al., 2018. Does Housing Vintage Matter?. Jornal of Real estate, 4(2), pp. 1-9.

Rotimi, A., 2017. Critical review of hedonic price model aplication in property price
appraisal:a case of Nigeria. International Jornal of sustenable built environment,
6(10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.02.007), pp. 250-259.

Sunday et al., 2019. Review of the impact of obsolescence on residential property values.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 6(8), pp. 92-99.

Tamarazyan et al., 2020. The degree of physical depreciation of buildings and structures.
Jornal of physics conference series, 1(7), p. 17.

Tesfay, A., 2015. Urban land use dynamics, the nexus between land use pattern and its
chalenge. Land use policy, 45(DOI;10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.022), pp. 160-175.

United Nation, 2005. Housing, land and property right in post conflict societies, Geneva:
united nation.

91
V.Gail et al., 2009. Zoning Practice. American planning association, 3(11), pp. 1-8.

Vue, K., 2022. understanding radical planning through the lens of reflective plnaning. 1st
ed. California, Pomona: California state politechnic university.

Watson, 2009. The planned city sweeps the poor away. cape Town: Rondebosch.

Watson, V., 2013. ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away....' Urban planning and 21st
century urbanisation. ELSEVIR, 72(doi:10.1016/j.progress.2009.06.002), pp. 151-193.

Wilson Rede, 2011. Non-conformity In comdemnation:Damage, grandfathering and varince.

Jornal of Land Economics, 6(2), pp. 21-35.

Wilson, R. C., 2011. Non-conformity in condemnation: Damage, Grandfathering and

Varince, Austin: CLE International.

Yamane, 1967. stastics: An introductory analysis. 6 ed. New York: harper and row.

Yasushi et al., 2006. Evaluating Land-Use Restrictions concerning the Floor Area Ratio of
Lots. Environment and Planning C Government and Policy, 24(6), pp. 515-532.

Yousof A., 2015. Efectivness form and content of local plan as atool for quality of life in
urban area. 5 ed. Jakarta: AMER International Conference on Quality of Life.

Zahari et al., 2015. Determinantes of land use and property value. Jornal of computational
and theoretical nanoscience, 21(7), pp. 135-162.

Zenebe, 2002. Finoteselan structure plan report, Addis Abeba: Zenebe Firew.

Zenebe, 2010. The structural plan reporte for Finoteselam town, Addis Abeba: Zenebe
Firew.

Zhari et al., 2017. The impact of urban land use change detection and monitoring. Jornal of
remote sensing and GIS, 11(7), pp. 7097-7106.

92
 APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: questionnaires

This survey is being conducted for the purpose of researching “The impact of structural plan
on existing property value in relation to real estate obsolescence: the case of Finoteselam
town, Amhara, Ethiopia” from Bahirdar university institute of land administration and
management.
In this regard, you are considered to be an important respondent and I would like to have
your opinion to meet the objective of this study. Please be assured that your privacy is of
greatest importance and that your response to the survey will remain confidential. The
answers you fill will provide valuable information for this study. I am thankful for your time
and patience and highly value your opinion. If you are interested in the result of the study, I
will happy to share with you. I would like to forward my gratitude in advance and would
appreciate very much your prompt responses to the following questions.
Berhanu Abawa, Bahirdar, Ethiopia 2014

I. Questionnaires for key informants

1. What service was your home designed to serve?
2. How old is your house since built?
3. Has the municipality imposed legal restrictions on your existing home?
4. What were the legal restrictions on your existing property?
5. Do you believe that the restrictions have had a negative impact on your existing home?
6. Do believe that the negative impact of legal restrictions is related to physical outdated appearance
and long aged?
7. Do you believe that municipal legal restrictions force your existing home to continue with non-
conforming state for the current land use? If so, how?
8. Do you believe that municipal restrictions do not take in to account your economic situation? If
so, Why?
II. Questionnaires to be filled by sample household heads. Please fill in the answer in the blank
space or mark in the box

1. Age: ___________.
Sex: (A) Male (B) Female

93
2. Level of education: (A) Read and write (B) Primary (1-8)
(C) Secondary (9-10) (D) Preparatory (11-12) (E) Higher education
F.(college/university)
3. Occupation: (A) Student (B) Gov.t employee (C) Private employee
(D) Self-employed (E) NGO (F) other (specify)________________.
4. Monthly revenue A. ≤1000 B. 1000-4000 C.4000-10,000 D. ≥10,000
I, LAND USE CHANGES IN STRUCTURE PLAN AT THE STUDY AREA TO ACHIEVE
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE ONE
1. When have you been started to live in this locality?
A. before 1992 B. before 2002 C. before2012
1. When you built your property?
A. before 1992 B. before 2002 C. before2012
2. What was your reason to start living in this neighborhood?
A. For living purpose B. For commercial purpose

3. When the building height restriction adopted on your property?

A. In 1992
B. In 2002
C. In 2012
4. When did the construction material restriction adopted on your property?
A. In 1992
B. In 2002
C. In 2012
II, RESTRICTION IN THE STRUCTURE PLAN THAT CAN AFFECT PROPERTY VALUE (to achieve
the second objective)
1. Do you think that the structure plan imposed some restrictions on your property?

A. Yes B. No

2. If your answer “yes” in question one, what are the restrictions which can affect your
property value?(possible multiple answers)
a. Building height restrictions(BHR)
b. Construction material restrictions(CMR)

94
 c. Use restriction (UR)
d. Set back restrictions(SBR)
e. Built up area ratio (BAR)
3. How restrictions affect your existing property value?
a) Prevent you not to build over one floor
b) Prevent you not to build under two floors
c) Prevent you not to build under three floors
d) Prevent you not to build under four floors
e) Prevent you not to build under five floors
f) Prevent you not to renovate your existing property
g) Prohibited to build house by your own raw material preference
4. Can you Built commercial House on your plot land as the Land use plan permitted?
a) Yes
b) No
5. Show your agreement by marking “X” in the box on the questions included in the table
below

No Questions on building height restriction strongly agree neutral disagree strongly

(BHR) agree dis agree

1 Do you agree BHR prevent you to renovate

your existing old house or building?
2 Do you agree BHR prohibited you to
remodel your existing old house or building?
3 Do you agree BHR cause for your existing
property being physically crumbled?
4 Do you agree BHR cause for your existing
property to be non-conforming structure for
land use?
5 Do you believe BHR did not consider your
economic status?
No Questions on land use restriction (LUR) strongly agree neutral disagree strongly

95
 agree dis agree

1 Do you agree LUR prevent you to renovate

your existing old house or building?
2 Do you agree LUR prohibited you to
remodel your existing old house or building?
3 Do you agree LUR cause for your existing
property to be non-conforming use for land
use and forced to continue with its old
physical state?
No Questions on construction material strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
restriction (CMR) agree dis agree

1 Do you agree CMR prevent you to renovate

your existing old house or building?
2 Do you agree CMR prohibited you to
remodel your existing old house or building?
3 Do you agree CMR cause for your existing
property being physically crumbled?
4 Do you agree CMR cause for your existing
property to be non-conforming structure for
land use and forced to continue with its old
physical state?

6. What are the restriction effects on your existing property?

a. Physical deteriorations
b. Architectural design and functional spaces are outdated
c. The existing property become inappropriate for new change
7. When your house/building was built?
a. Before 1985 E.C
b. Before 1992 E.C
c. Before 2002 E.C
d. Before 2012 E.C

96
8. Have you ever wanted to renovate your home/building and the structural plan has
prevented you from doing so?
A.Yes B. No
9. If your answer at 9 is ‘yes’, which structural plan/s restrict you to renewed your
house/building?(multiple choice possible)
a. Structure plan from 1992-2002
b. Structure plan from 2002-2012
c. Structure plan from 2012-2022
10. How the structure plans prevent you to renewed your home/building?(multiple choice
possible)
a. Building height restrictions(BHR)
b. Construction material restrictions(CMR)
c. Use restriction (UR)
11. Do you believe those restrictions at Q11 has negative effects on your property’s value?
a. Yes
b. No
12. Have you ever wanted to rebuild your home/building and the structural plan has
prevented you from doing so?
A.Yes B. No
13. If your answer at Q13 is ‘yes’, which structural plan/s restrict you to renovate your
house/building? (multiple choice possible)
d. Structure plan from 1992-2002
e. Structure plan from 2002-2012
f. Structure plan from 2012-2022
14. How the structure plans prevent you to rebuilt your home/building?(multiple choice
possible)
d. By Building height restrictions(BHR)
e. By Construction material restrictions(CMR)
f. By Use restriction (UR)
15. Do you believe those restrictions at Q15 has negative effects on your property’s value
and physical conditions?

97
 a. Yes
b. No

Appendix 2: Existing properties general information

Table 1: Existing properties construction material status

Construction material Frequency Valid Percent
Mud and wood 192 81.4
Brick 44 18.6
Total 236 100.0
Source: Own computed by Spss

Table 2; Age of existing building/houses

Age by category Frequency Valid Percent

under 30 years 58 25.3
over 30 years 178 74.7
Total 236 100.0
Source: by own, computed by Spss

Table 3: Purposes of existing building/houses in the case study area

Existing properties Architectural design purpose Frequency Valid Percent

For living purpose 200 84.75
For commercial purpose 36 15.25
Total 236 100.0
Source: by own, computed by Spss

Table 4: Purposes of existing building/houses in the case study area

Average years of existing properties with BHR Frequency Valid

Percent
23.5 16 9.21
13 18 10.34
8.6 10 5.75
30.2 130 74.7
Total 174 100.0
Source: by own, computed by Spss

98
Table 5: Existing properties built years

built years Frequency Valid Percent

Before the first land use plan 2000 G.C 216 91.53
After the first land use plan 2000 G.C 20 8.47
Total 236 100.0
Source: by own, computed by Spss (2022)

Appendix 3: Regression results

Table 1: Case Processing Summary

Unweighted Casesa N Percent

Selected Cases Included in Analysis 236 100
Missing Cases 0 0
Total 236 100.0
Unselected Cases 0 .0
Total 236 100.0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number of
cases.
Source: computed by Spss (2022)

Table 2: Pearson correlation of Land use plans

Land use Building height Construction material

restriction restrictions restriction
Land use restriction Pearson 1 .690** .727**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 236 236 236
Building height restrictions Pearson .690** 1 .753**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 236 236 236
Construction material Pearson .727** .753** 1
restriction Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 236 236 236

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**

Source: computed by Spss (2022)

99
 Table 3: Testing reliability of questionnaires on building height restriction

Reliability Statistics
Crombach’s Alpha N of Items
.977 4
Source: computed by Spss (2022)

Table 5: Testing reliability of questionnaires on construction material restriction

Reliability Statistics
Crombach’s Alpha N of Items
.953 3
Source: computed by Spss (2022)

Table 6: Testing reliability of questionnaires on land use restriction

Reliability Statistics
Crombach’s Alpha N of Items
.962 4
Source: computed by Spss (2022)

The figure below depicted the whole binary regression analysis Predicted probability
membership is poor. This implies the land use plan has negative impact on the existing
properties in terms of their physical conditions.

100
 Figure 1: Predicted probability

Appendix 4: rental prices per meter square price of existing properties in

kebeles 01 and 02

Table 1: Rental prices of existing properties

Rental price(M2) of existing properties

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 41.00 1 .2 .4 .4
45.00 1 .2 .4 .8
51.00 3 .6 1.3 2.1
51.15 1 .2 .4 2.5
51.50 1 .2 .4 3.0
52.00 1 .2 .4 3.4
52.43 1 .2 .4 3.8
53.00 1 .2 .4 4.2
53.53 1 .2 .4 4.7
54.00 1 .2 .4 5.1
55.00 1 .2 .4 5.5
56.00 1 .2 .4 5.9

101
57.59 1 .2 .4 6.4
58.00 1 .2 .4 6.8
58.67 1 .2 .4 7.2
59.43 1 .2 .4 7.6
61.00 2 .4 .8 8.5
61.35 1 .2 .4 8.9
61.50 1 .2 .4 9.3
61.77 1 .2 .4 9.7
61.80 1 .2 .4 10.2
61.80 1 .2 .4 10.6
63.00 1 .2 .4 11.0
63.68 1 .2 .4 11.4
64.00 2 .4 .8 12.3
64.69 1 .2 .4 12.7
65.00 4 .9 1.7 14.4
65.76 1 .2 .4 14.8
66.19 1 .2 .4 15.3
67.00 1 .2 .4 15.7
67.35 1 .2 .4 16.1
68.35 1 .2 .4 16.5
69.00 1 .2 .4 16.9
71.00 1 .2 .4 17.4
71.50 1 .2 .4 17.8
72.00 1 .2 .4 18.2
72.30 1 .2 .4 18.6
73.00 1 .2 .4 19.1
73.70 1 .2 .4 19.5
74.00 1 .2 .4 19.9
74.90 1 .2 .4 20.3
75.00 2 .4 .8 21.2
75.90 1 .2 .4 21.6
76.00 2 .4 .8 22.5
76.30 1 .2 .4 22.9
77.00 2 .4 .8 23.7
78.00 4 .9 1.7 25.4
78.80 2 .4 .8 26.3
78.90 2 .4 .8 27.1
79.00 3 .6 1.3 28.4
79.30 2 .4 .8 29.2

102
80.00 2 .4 .8 30.1
80.60 2 .4 .8 30.9
81.00 5 1.1 2.1 33.1
81.10 2 .4 .8 33.9
82.00 4 .9 1.7 35.6
82.70 2 .4 .8 36.4
83.00 4 .9 1.7 38.1
83.60 1 .2 .4 38.6
84.00 2 .4 .8 39.4
84.20 1 .2 .4 39.8
84.70 1 .2 .4 40.3
85.00 2 .4 .8 41.1
85.60 2 .4 .8 41.9
86.00 2 .4 .8 42.8
86.12 1 .2 .4 43.2
86.60 1 .2 .4 43.6
87.00 2 .4 .8 44.5
88.00 1 .2 .4 44.9
88.40 1 .2 .4 45.3
89.00 3 .6 1.3 46.6
89.50 1 .2 .4 47.0
89.64 1 .2 .4 47.5
90.00 3 .6 1.3 48.7
90.60 1 .2 .4 49.2
91.00 2 .4 .8 50.0
91.50 1 .2 .4 50.4
91.59 1 .2 .4 50.8
92.00 1 .2 .4 51.3
92.50 1 .2 .4 51.7
92.51 1 .2 .4 52.1
92.60 1 .2 .4 52.5
93.00 1 .2 .4 53.0
93.60 1 .2 .4 53.4
94.00 2 .4 .8 54.2
95.00 1 .2 .4 54.7
95.50 1 .2 .4 55.1
96.00 1 .2 .4 55.5
96.60 1 .2 .4 55.9
97.00 2 .4 .8 56.8

103
98.00 1 .2 .4 57.2
99.00 1 .2 .4 57.6
99.20 1 .2 .4 58.1
103.00 1 .2 .4 58.5
103.39 1 .2 .4 58.9
107.00 1 .2 .4 59.3
107.12 1 .2 .4 59.7
109.00 1 .2 .4 60.2
112.00 1 .2 .4 60.6
113.00 1 .2 .4 61.0
115.00 1 .2 .4 61.4
117.00 1 .2 .4 61.9
118.00 1 .2 .4 62.3
119.00 2 .4 .8 63.1
120.00 1 .2 .4 63.6
121.00 1 .2 .4 64.0
123.00 1 .2 .4 64.4
124.00 1 .2 .4 64.8
125.00 2 .4 .8 65.7
132.00 1 .2 .4 66.1
134.00 2 .4 .8 66.9
135.00 3 .6 1.3 68.2
136.00 4 .9 1.7 69.9
137.00 1 .2 .4 70.3
142.00 1 .2 .4 70.8
145.00 1 .2 .4 71.2
146.00 1 .2 .4 71.6
149.00 1 .2 .4 72.0
151.00 1 .2 .4 72.5
152.00 2 .4 .8 73.3
153.00 1 .2 .4 73.7
154.00 1 .2 .4 74.2
156.00 1 .2 .4 74.6
157.00 2 .4 .8 75.4
159.00 2 .4 .8 76.3
163.00 1 .2 .4 76.7
167.00 1 .2 .4 77.1
168.00 3 .6 1.3 78.4
169.00 1 .2 .4 78.8

104
 172.00 1 .2 .4 79.2
178.00 1 .2 .4 79.7
179.00 1 .2 .4 80.1
180.00 1 .2 .4 80.5
183.00 1 .2 .4 80.9
184.00 1 .2 .4 81.4
189.00 1 .2 .4 81.8
197.00 2 .4 .8 82.6
198.00 2 .4 .8 83.5
200.00 2 .4 .8 84.3
206.00 1 .2 .4 84.7
214.00 2 .4 .8 85.6
216.00 1 .2 .4 86.0
217.00 1 .2 .4 86.4
221.00 2 .4 .8 87.3
230.00 1 .2 .4 87.7
235.00 1 .2 .4 88.1
236.00 3 .6 1.3 89.4
241.00 2 .4 .8 90.3
243.00 1 .2 .4 90.7
245.00 1 .2 .4 91.1
248.00 1 .2 .4 91.5
250.00 1 .2 .4 91.9
251.00 1 .2 .4 92.4
256.00 4 .9 1.7 94.1
263.00 1 .2 .4 94.5
265.00 2 .4 .8 95.3
267.00 1 .2 .4 95.8
284.00 1 .2 .4 96.2
290.00 1 .2 .4 96.6
293.00 1 .2 .4 97.0
300.00 2 .4 .8 97.9
301.00 1 .2 .4 98.3
305.00 1 .2 .4 98.7
321.00 1 .2 .4 99.2
380.00 1 .2 .4 99.6
400.00 1 .2 .4 100.0
Total 236 100 100.0
Missing System 0 0

105
Total 236 100.0

106