THE PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS RISKS OF THAI REAL ESTATE PRACTITIONERS

Sukulpat Khumpaisal 1 Andrew Ross2 and Raymond Abdulai 3

Instructor, Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand
2 3

School of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF School of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF

ABSTRACT
This paper examines Thai real estate practitioners perception of risks caused by social, technological, environmental, economic and political (STEEP) factors and the current risk assessment techniques in the real estate industry. The quantitative research approach is adopted and specifically statistical techniques have been carried out. The paper is based on a pilot survey of 50 Thai real estate practitioners, which was conducted in mid 2009 with a response rate of 78% (39 out of 50). It was found that Thai practitioners are more concerned with the risks caused by economic and political factors than other sources of risk. The study also reveals that there is less evidence of the application of systematic risk assessment techniques that help to deal with potential risks. The findings of the study have underscored the need for an appropriate risk assessment model to be developed and implemented in the Thailand real estate industry. Keywords : Perception, real estate industry, risks, risks assessment techniques, STEEP factors, Thailand.

1. INTRODUCTION
The real estate development project is regularly affected by the consequences of risk, which are related to decision-making process for a new development. These affects cost the project management processes, with schedule delay, cost overrun and quality of products (Gehner, et al., 2006; Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Khallafalah, 2002). Blundell, et al., (2007) and Booth, et al., (2002) suggested that real estate risks can only be managed within an overall framework of risk management processes. The risk assessment techniques shall be equipped with a variety of complimentary approaches, which are grounded in a rigorous and preferably quantitative statistical framework, as well as several techniques such as stress testing and a rigorous analysis of subjective issues. The study focused on Thailand real estate sector, it was the starting point of global economic in 1997th (Hilbers, et al., 2001; Quigley, 2001; Warr, 2000 and Lauridsen, 1998 and). Moreover, in the recent years, the current global economic recession also impacts to this entirely Thailand business domain, and would cause the serious affect to overall national economic situations. However, Thai developers are still lacking o risk assessment techniques to deal with the changing of the business environment (Pornchokchai, 2007; Kritayanavaj, 2007).

1 2 3

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

This paper aims to investigate possible causes of risks embedded in Thailand real estate project, based on generic risk assessment criteria and their consequences, and to understand their perceptions of the risks caused by Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic and Political (STEEP) factors and their consequences to the real estate project, as well as to apprehend the current risk assessment techniques employed by Thai practitioners. Another objective of this paper is to explore the differences perceptions between Thai real estate practitioners and the westerners (the European and UK). In order to test the hypotheses that Thai real estate practitioners are distinguish from the European, in terms of the perceptions of risks and the current risk assessment practices. Achieving these aims, the researchers employed the questionnaires survey and distributed the Thai developers or the practitioners. The questionnaires were designed to recognise the practitioners perceptions of risks caused, and the current practice of risk assessment techniques. This paper starts with a description of real estate investment risks, the current risk assessment process, following by Thailand real estate development background. The research methodology and the data collection processes are then discussed, followed by the comparison of Thai and Westerns perceptions of risks. The results from the mentioned survey help the researchers to draw a comprehensive conclusion as well as suggest the risk assessment framework for the real estate industry.

2. THE RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

This section provides the general concept of risks and the impact of risk to real estate development projects, a brief reviewing of Thailand real estate business contexts. Finally, our literature review indicates the requirements of an idealistic risk assessment technique as well as provides the solutions for the field research instruments.

2.1 Risks classifications.

Risk is simplified as a concept denoting a potential negative impact to an asset, project or some characteristic of value that may arise from some present process or future event (Crossland, et al, 1992). Risks also classified by the total risk definition, Baum and Crosby (2008), Brown and Matysiak (2002), and Hargitay and Yu (1993), classified that total risk, is associated with several factors, and it is subdivided into 2 major categories as Total risk = Systematic risk + Unsystematic risk. Systematic risk (uncontrollable risk) is the risk caused by several external factors that affect to the project such as economic situation or government policy impact of property investment changes. Meanwhile, unsystematic or specific risk is limited controlled by investors or developers, and related directly to the company or projects performance and investment decision-making. Hargitay and Yu, (1993) summarised that the market risk, cyclical risk (variation of business cycle), inflation or purchasing power risk, and interest rate risk are the components of the systematic risks. On the other hands, risks could be classified by the perceptions of the developers or decision makers. The perceptions of risks are arguably stated as the multidimensional, with a particular meaning to different people and different things in different contexts (Crossland, et al., 1992). Pidgeon, et al., (1992) classified risk into the objective or statistical risk and the

subjective or perceived risk category. By this classification, objective risk is unique, substance, physically measurable and can be determined precisely by quantitative risk assessment method. However, Spaulding (2008) contrasted that subjective risk is what an individual perceives to be a possible unwanted event. The degree of subjective risk is depending on the people experience on their history and their expected possibility of its occurrence. Subjective risk also involved with subject probability or the perception of decision maker about the likelihood and the consequence of the event. However, this paper determines the definition of risks in real estate development projects as these are associated with the consequences of Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic and Political (STEEP) factors (Morrison, 2007) , these factors shall be concerned by the developers during the project feasibility analysis stage (Thompson, 2005; Matson, 2000; Millington, 2000). In fact that, the STEEP factors has been used widely in the business context, but in different names as PEST, TESP, and STEP (Chapman, 2009). The classification of risks in STEEP formation is pragmatic as well as it is simply and clearly understood by all project participants (Nezhad and Kathawala,1990). In the real estate business, Baum and Crosby, (2008) extended the definition of risk in real estate business as risk shall cover on the uncertainties of the expected rate of return from an investment. While Hargitay and Yu, (1993) support that risk could be described as the unpredictability of the financial consequences of actions and decisions. In the real estate operational term, risk are referred to a set of unwanted and uncertain events, but in the analytical sense, risk is regarded as the description of the extent to which the actual outcome of an action or decision man diverge from the expected outcome (Huffman, 2002). Focus on the impact of risk to the real estate projects, risk affects to the project management processes, in regard to the schedule delay, cost overrun and quality of products (PMBOK,2002), they also strongly impact to the related progresses at all stages of the properties lifecycle. Findings from research conducted in the Dutch real estate sector in 2006 showed that most real estate developers consider project risks to be caused by several subjective factors such as policy change, social or community objections; such factors delay the project progress with many indirect consequences, which lead to delays in completion dates, the marketing process, and the project revenue in the following manner: decrease in rental/sale price, decrease in velocity of sales, cause a higher vacancy rate and lower investment value (Gehner et al, 2006). Although the real estate practitioners recognize risks and their consequences, however, they do not have appropriate risk assessment techniques. They almost rely on the non-systematic assessment methods such as panel discussion, or using their own background experiences (Gehner et al., 2006; Khumpaisal, 2009). In addition, the developers popularly employed Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) to assess risks in their projects, RAM describes the likelihood and consequence of each risk in a matrix format and generally accepted by several decision makers, due to its simplicity and its provides more understanding to every level (ioMosaic, 2002; Kindinger, 2002; Rafele et al, 2005; Younes et al., 2007). However, RAM also has some disadvantages such as data used in the calculation are gathered from personal opinions solely, not from the reliable sources with strong theoretical basis. RAM also only measures the likelihood and consequences of risk based on single criteria basis, which is not suit with the developers requirements to understand the correlation and the affects of each factors. To sum up, risks are defined in this paper as these caused by external or uncontrollable factors, and consist of subjective meanings. The STEEP factors are used as the key terms of sources of risks in the real estate projects as well as the boundary of risk assessment criteria.

As this research was mainly conducted in Thailand real estate sector, then, the background of the specific studied area including the reason of this research are discussed in the next section.

2.2 Thailand Real estate development background

The downfall of Thailands real estate development business sector in 1997 caused the vastly global economic crisis in 1997. Quigley (2001) and Lauridsen (1998) indicated that the particular key to this crisis were the financial institutions and the developers, who lacked monetary disciplines, neglected risks in real estate business as well as lack of practical risk assessment or the practical risk management techniques to resolve the consequences of risks. Vanichvatana (2007) and Kritayanavaj (2007) predicted that the future trend of Thailand real estate sector would be similar to the circumstances before the 1997 th crisis, because of the practical risks assessment are yet to be established. This prediction supported by the incidents of the current global recession (2008-2009) and US sub-prime crisis, which caused the significant impact to Thailand real estate sector due to the shortage of housing purchasing demand and less of funding injected into the housing and residential sub-sector, since the houses purchasers have to mortgage with the banks and financial institutions. Real estate sector itself will also directly affect by this downturn, because of it injects large amount of money into entire economic system, boost the whole economic system, and the related industries, as well as build many related jobs into the market. Despite the fact that Thai developers experienced the past crisis, and acknowledged the main reasons of that, however, they are still less concerning in risk and the consequences of risk affect to their projects. It was because of the lack of appropriate knowledge to assess, identify or understand of those risks, as well as they only require a maximum return from their investment (Pornchokchai, 2007, Kritayanavaj, 2007). The studied area of this research is cover on the Bangkok Metropolitan Area (BMA) and its vicinity (Please see figure 1). This is the heartland of Thailand economic and politic system, and filled with the highest density of housing projects (REIC, 2009; ONESDB, 2007). This area contained with the highest numbers of housing projects and developers, as it is approximately 250 real estate developers in any organisational type build the projects in this BMA area (APTU, 2008).

Pathumtani Nontaburi

Bangkok
Samutprakarnn

Figure 1: The studied area

2.3 Real estate risk assessment process

This paper also aims to understand the current practices of how Thai practitioners identify and analysis risk in their developed projects. Therefore, the typical risk assessment techniques are discussed in this section. Frodsham (2007) and Booth, et. al (2002) suggested that the idealistic risk assessment model that could analyse the impacts of risks and computed the results in a numerical format shall be introduced in real estate business. This model shall allow the synthesis of risk assessment criterion, the comparisons of each factor and also help the developers to structure the decision- making process. Generally speaking, the risk management processes are ongoing, iterative process, even each project is different and unique (Khallafalah, 2002). The purpose of risk management is to provide information to the project manager/decision maker to make a better decision at any time during project life cycle with the respect to project itself (Smith, 2002, pp.101). Risk assessment process is typically contained in the risk management basic major steps (Raftery, 1994), which are illustrated in figure 2

R k id n is e tifica n tio

R aa isk n lysis

R re o s isk sp n e

Source : Raftery, (1994)

Figure 2 : Risk Management process

Risk Identification and Initial assessment : the main purpose of this process is to define and categorise the risk associated within the project. For example, categories may include organisation risks, operational risks, project risks and system risks (V.T. Luu, 2008; Khallafalah, 2002). Moreover, Morrison, (2007) suggests that the regular risks occurred during any development process can be classified into categories such as Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental and Political (STEEP). The other

way to identify risks is to categorize in terms of risks external to the project and those that are internal. The next step after all risks being identified is initial assessment, the initial assessment is aim to assess all consequences for risks affect to the developed project, Tasmanian Government (2006) defines that risk consequences are generally results as: Project outcomes are delayed or reduced; Project output quality is reduced; Timeframes are extended; Costs are increased.

Smith (2002) states that the risk identification process shall combine with historical project, industrial checklists and workshop brainstorming sessions. He also recommended that the brainstorming sessions are the appropriated methods because of these provide the most updated information, which suited with the real project conditions, and these also exactly equivalent to value management approach. Raftery (1994) supports that in order to identify the project risk affectively by using these brainstorming techniques, the decision-makers shall work closely with the project team and deal with the internal risks by breaking the whole project into a parcel to facilitate the decision-making process, while the external risks shall be emanated from the business and physical environment. Moreover, the decisionmakers shall consider the client, the project, the project team and the quality of the documentation from the perspectives of the various contractors in anticipation of sources of claims. The outcomes of the identification process are generally the lists of potential sources of risks, which classified those risks based on the impact and likelihood of occurrences. This process also provide the serious risks (classified as high impact and high probability) that attracted the consideration of the decision-makers (Smith, 2002). Risk analysis MacDonal, et al., (2004) defines risk analysis or assessment as a systematic process for identifying potential hazards and the likelihood that those hazards will cause harm, this process is the important portion of the entire risk management process. Raftery (1994) supported that the project risks caused by internal and external factors requires the systematic, experienced and creative analyst to identify those. Then, it could be concluded that risk assessment is the controllable device that deal with the identified risks and assess their impacts. It is generally analyse the risks in terms of likelihood and consequence. The decision makers may develop the Risk Matrix to assist a determination of the level of likelihood and consequence, and the current risk level (ACT, 2004). On the other hand, Byrne (1996) identified that this analysis step is a combination of three aspects as - The measurement or assessment of probability; - The use of any indicator to measure the individual attitudes to risk; - Sensitivity and simulation Various tools and instruments had been invented to deal with this risk analysis step, both systematic and non-systematic, however those tools enable the decision-makers to use the information from many sources, such as secondary information or by the panel discussion (Khumpaisal, 2007 and Chadborn, 1999).

Response and Mitigation: It is really important to identify mitigation strategies very early in the project, due to the practical risk mitigation strategies reduce the chance that a risk will be realized and/or reduce the severity of a risk if it is realized (Byrne, 1996).

Thus, it could be concluded that risk assessment process, itself is a crucial step in a risk analysis process, which is a determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete situation and a recognized threat (or hazard). According to Wrona, (2009), risk assessment process is create to list and assess the probability (or likelihood), the impact (or consequence) and the traceability of each risk item or the consequence of each factor. Jutte (2009) supports that risk assessment step is affixed with the whole risk management process, and this process is a particular essential process for the decision makers to use the assessment results as information to support further decision making towards risks. He also stated that the earlier the decision makers can identify and assess risks that mean less time would be spent to respond to risks. This process would be followed by the considerations to judge the positive or negative impact of any risks to the project, as well as consider the opportunities and threats, which may be occurred during the project progress. However, the most important rules are to prioritise and analyse risks. That means the decision makers have to use the information from the risk identification process and the judgements of expertises to rank and level the degree of each project risks (ACT, 2004; Smith, 2002). The mentioned process also includes a setting of the highest impacted risk as the first priority to response or mitigates its consequence. This rule was constructed based on the principles of risk management standards, which describe overall risk management process as:

Source: Source: AS/NZS 4360: 2004 risk management standard (ACT 2004)
Figure 3 The completed risk management flowchart

The risk management flowchart above clarifies the components of risk assessment as the risk assessment process shall be commenced after the decision makers identify the risks. The decision makers have to analyse risks to determine the existing controls as well as determine the likelihoods and consequences of the risks that may occurred during the project development process (Byrne, 1996). Thus, it is necessary for decision makers to rank the level of risk based on consideration of their probability of occurring and their consequences to project. Then, the decision makers assess risks based on comparing risks against the established criteria, risk criteria are constructed based on the classification of risks of the decision makers. The categories of risks are varied in accordance with the perception of the decision makers or by the current project situation as well (Pidgeon, 1992). As mentioned above, this paper supposed the use of STEEP factors (Chapman, 2008 and Morrison, 2007) to be developed as the criteria to assess risks in real estate development project. In this regard, STEEP or PEST could be employed as risk assessment criteria, because of their coverage on risks that occurred in any form, whether systematic or unsystematic, subjective or subjective. The process that needed to be conducted simultaneously within this risk assessment process is prioritise all risks by ranking the priority of each risk in regard to the risks that has the highest impact and need to be responded firstly, until the less impact risk that is not urgently need to be solved. Risk prioritise shall be conducted in order to provide more options for the risk mitigation process. The aforementioned problems in Thailand real estate sector inspired an investigation of the Thai practitioners perceptions of risk and how to assess risks. The next discussion is regard to a design of research instruments and the data collection processes.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
The quantitative research method was adopted as this paper research approach, due to the nature of this research that needs to investigate the Thai real estate practitioners perceptions of risks. This research was associated with the limitation of time and resources including the informants accessibility also be considered, in regard the feasibility to complete the research (Fellow and Liu, 2007; Ross, 2005 and Kumar, 2002). The findings were therefore relied solely on the results gathered by the questionnaire survey approach. The small-scale questionnaire survey had been conducted in the studied area (please see figure 1), the questionnaires were distributed to the selected participants, in order to investigate the practitioners perceptions of risks, and their satisfactions towards the current risk assessment techniques. The questionnaire was designed in accordance with the researchers experiences in Thailand real estate business domain, and the reliability of these had been verified by the experts opinions. It was found that the questionnaires set could cover all key aspects of the research questions and enable the respondents to express their own opinions of the aforementioned aims of research. Fifty (50) sets of questionnaires were randomly distributed to the samples in the studied area. This process started at 20 June, 2009 and completed at 10 July, 2009. Thirty nine (78%) were return, and those data were analysed by using the SPSS package. The questionnaire set consists of 29 questions divided into 4 sections, as summarised in the table below.
Table 1 the questionnaire design

Section 1. Participants details 2. Project Details 3. Project risks and the assessment 4. Project risk management

Questions No. 1-10 11 22 23-27 28-29

Descriptions Position, educational, experience, the decision maker roles, satisfaction toward risk assessment model Project information, any particular impact to project The perception of the participants towards likelihood and consequences of STEEP To verify that whether the risk /contingency plan being established in participants project.

The data retained from the survey had been analysed with an aid of SPSS package. Therefore, this research employed the appropriated statistical tests based on the level of the measurement, then it employed following tests such as descriptive statistics, reliability of the instruments test (Cronbachs alpha). Moreover, the parametric statatistical techniques such as Independent T-Test, ANOVA and Rank Correlation analysis, (Field, 2000; Kahn, 2001) were also employed to test the differences and correlation of the mean value amongst the group of respondents.

4. FINDINGS
4.1. The Attributions of respondents
The response rate of the questionnaires distribution was 78% (39 out of 50). The first section of the questionnaire designed to categorise the respondents characteristics and the real estate projects that they participated. The survey data revealed that the respondents occupy various positions in real estate companies, such as 36% (14 out of 39) were quantity surveyors or estimators, project managers/directors (25% or 9 out of 39) and engineer/architect (25%). 56% (22 out of 39) are the decision makers towards risks but only 43% (17 out of 39) have the risk assessment experience in real estate projects and 15% (6 out of 39) have ever used risk assessment models. Only 10% (4 out of 39) acknowledged the application of AHP or ANP. Most of them (56%) have undergraduate education and their working experiences range from 0 to 5 working years (43%). Most respondents (61% or 24 out of 39) are involved in low rise /housing residential projects whilst others are involved in hotel projects (15%), 10% (4 out of 39) are in high-rise residential projects, and retail projects (2.6% or 1 out of 39). Twenty-five per cent of projects are located outside of Bangkok Metropolitan Area (BMA) and the same percentage of projects is located within Bangkok Metropolitan Area (BMA)

4.2. The satisfactions of the current risk assessment techniques

In addition, this section also investigated the practitioners satisfaction towards risk assessment techniques. There was a low response rate to a question that bordered on practitioners satisfaction with the current risk assessment techniques as only six (6) respondents or 15.40 % answered that question. After the descriptive analysis and frequency test were employed, it indicated the mean value of 3 (using the Likert scale, 1 is very

dissatisfied, 3 is neutral and 5 is very satisfied) amongst these respondents. Thus, it was implied that the respondents neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the current risk assessment techniques. To verify these results, the independent T-test was conducted to test the equality of the mean of this set of respondents. Results derived by T-Test shown that the significance level is 1.0, meaning that there is no significant difference between Means.
Table 2 The group statistics of satisfaction towards the current risk assessment models

Satisfaction in model usage Satisfaction in model' s effectiveness

Experience in risk assessment Yes No Yes No

N 6 1 6 1

Mean 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Std. Deviation 0.6325 . 0.6325

Std. Error Mean 0.2582 . 0.2582 .

The independence T-Test was then conducted, in order to verify the differences between the mean of this group of respondents. However, the value derived by this test shown that the

significance level is equal to 1.00, which means there was no significant between these variables, and no difference between each mean. Therefore, it is recommend to re-design this question and the beside logic linkage between the question in order to gain more response rate in the further large-scale survey.
Table 3 The T-test value of satisfaction towards the current risk assessment models

t-test for Equality of Means Sig. (2tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Df.

Lower Satisfaction in Equal variances model using assumed Equal variances not assumed Satisfaction in Equal variances model' s assumed effectiveness Equal variances not assumed 0.00 . 0.00 . 5 . 5 . 1.00 . 1.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.6831 . .06831 -1.7560 . -1.7560

Upper 1.7560 . 1.7560

There were only 10 respondents replied to the question of risk assessment techniques currently using in their projects. It was found that the panel discussion is the most popular technique (70% or 7 out of 10 of the decision maker), following by employing the secondary information from the reliable sources (20% , or 2 out of 10) and using background experience was only 10%. The results indicated that Thai practitioners still relying on the non-systematic risk assessment techniques, which would not provide the precise information enough to make a decision toward risk in the real business case (Chen and Khumpaisal, 2008).

4.3. The practitioners perceptions of STEEP factor risks Several statistical packages such as descriptive frequency and correlation test were employed to validate the perceptions (consequences and likelihood) of risks caused by STEEP factors. In this regard, the percentage of their opinions are summarised in the following matrix.
Table 4. Perceptions of STEEP factors consequences (%)
Very High (%) High (%) Neither high nor low (%) Low (%) Very Low (%) Not responded (%)

Social Technological Environmental Economical Political

15.4 10.3 2.6 46.2 23.1

17.9 12.8 30.8 20.5 30.8

30.8 33.3 28.2 5.1 10.3

17.9 17.9 17.9 2.6 10.3

5.1 12.8 7.7 12.8 10.3

12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 15.4

The results indicated that Thai practitioners prioritised risks caused by economic and political as they have the strong impact to their project progress. While the social and technological risks were less consideration. In terms of the STEEP risks likelihood, the results indicated that the likelihood of economic risk is the highest amongst the others, following by political, social, technological, respectively. The environmental issues showing the least impact to real estate project both in terms of consequences and likelihood.
Table 5. Perceptions towards the likelihood of STEEP (%)
Very High (%) High (%) Neither high nor low (%) Low (%) Very Low (%) Not responded (%)

Social Technological Environmental Economical Political

15.4 10.3 2.6 46.2 23.1

17.9 12.8 30.8 20.5 30.8

30.8 33.3 28.2 5.1 10.3

17.9 17.9 17.9 2.6 10.3

5.1 12.8 7.7 12.8 10.3

12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 15.4

The correlation tests were then employed to see whether the correlation between each STEEP factors and the perception of the practitioners. (Please see table 6 below).

Table 6. The correlation of STEEP factors Political risk impact to project .037 .851 29 -.274 .159 28 -.450(*) .016 28 -.328 .088 28 .324 .086 32 .324 .086 29 29 29 1

Position Position Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N Ranking the affect of Social risk to project Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N Ranking the affect of Technological risk to project Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N Ranking the affect of Environmental risk to project Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N Ranking the affect of Economic risk to project Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N Ranking the affect of Political risk to project Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N 39 .362 .058 28 -.034 .860 29 -.414(*) .029 28 .374(*) .035 32 .037 .851 29 1

Social risk Technological impact to risk impact to project project .362 .058 28 1 -.034 .860 29 -.209 .286 28 -.209 .286 28 -.154 .432 28 -.402(*) .034 28 -.274 .159 28 29 -.169 .389 28 -.370 .053 28 -.450(*) .016 28 28 1

Environmental risk impact to project -.414(*) .029 28 -.154 .432 28 -.169 .389 28 1

Economic risk impact to project .374(*) .035 32 -.402(*) .034 28 -.370 .053 28 -.261 .180

28 -.261 .180 28 -.328 .088 28

28 1

The results indicate that there are 8 variable were strongly correlated, (p < 0.05), while the rest do not show the significant correlation. This is insisted that the Thai practitioners given much concerns in risks caused by economic and political rather the other sources of risk.

Then, the comparisons between Thai and western real estate practitioners had been conducted in order to see whether the differences between their perceptions of STEEP risks and how they assess risks in the projects. Their perceptions of STEEP risks are then compared and ranked in the table 7 below;
Table 7 Comparison of the practitioners perceptions towards STEEP risk Ra nk 1 2 3 4 Thais Economic (32%) Political (26%) Social (16%) Environmental (16%) Technological (11%) Khumpaisal (2009) Westerners (Dutch) Political (34%) Technological (31%) Economic (15%) Environmental (13%) Social (7%) Gehner, et al (2006) British Economic (35%) Technological (22%) Social (20%) Environmental (13%) Political (9%) Khumpaisal and Chen, (2009)

5
Re fer en ce s

In term of the currently used risk assessment techniques, Gehner et al, (2006) indicate that nearly a half (42%) of the Dutch practitioners employ the systematic risk assessment methods such as sensitivity analysis, assessment checklists, or risk premium. While most of Thai practitioners use the non-systematic assessment methods (80%), particularly, the panel discussion techniques, which will not provide much precise details to deal with risks in the real case (Chen and Khumpaisal, 2008).
Table 8 Comparison of the risk assessment techniques Risk assessment techniques Western, UK Thailand 80%

Non systematic techniques (i.e. work 58% experience/intuition, probabilistic) Systematic / pragmatic techniques (i.e. 42% sensitivity analysis, matrix, model, Monte Carlo, reliable 2nd sources) References Gehner et al., 2006

20%

Khumpaisal, (2009)

The results of these surveys are varied in according to the definition of risk by their experience, as well as the environment surrounding their developed projects. In addition, the measurement criteria used in each study is deviated due to the number of respondents, limitation of time and resources, the number of assessment criteria and especially the different of real estate business environment including the psychological perception towards risks of the practitioners.

This finding revealed the significant ratio of Thai practitioners who less of the systematic risk assessment techniques, it has interested the research to investigate deep into Thailand business context, as well as to introduce the proper risk assessment techniques and criteria to this sector, in order to assist Thai practitioners dealing with the potential risks in their projects.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Generally speaking, this paper contributes the value of originality to Thailand real estate sector, since the academic research, which emphasised on risks and the risk assessment techniques are yet to be implemented in Thailand real estate business sector. This paper also reveals that Thai developers are lack of the practical risk assessment techniques, as well as they concerned especially on risks caused by economic and political issues, but neglected the other STEEP factors risks. Several missing points were additionally found during the research, for example, the inconsistent logical linkage between the questions, these result that a high number of the unacceptable missing rate was found in the necessary questions designed to recognise the practitioners risk perceptions. Other limitation of using this questionnaire was when all questions being translated into Thais some questions were repeated and inconsistency. As well as the limitation of time and resources availability, we were able to conduct only a small scale of questionnaires survey. It is strongly recommended that the further research shall consider on the number of survey respondents, in order to gain more precise and reliable data from the samples of studying. In order to response to the missing points of this research, the data collection process and the instruments shall be modified to suit with each particular business context, and some useful suggestions of the experts shall help the researcher to strengthen the risk assessment criteria as well as the fruitful data collection processes. It is finally conclude that the innovative risk assessment techniques, which suitable for Thailand real estate sector shall be introduced. This technique shall be flexible and equipped with a proper assessment criteria and also shall facilitate the users to estimate the subjective risks, and interpret them into mathematical format.

6. REFERENCES
ACT Insurance Authority (2004), Guide to risk management: AS/NZS 4360: 2004 risk management standard, Australian Capital Territory Insurance Authority APTU, (2008), Residential Project Feasibility study; New Bangkok International Airport area, submitted to National Housing Authority (Thailand), Faculty of Architectural and Planning Thammasat University, Thailand AREA, (2008), Housing Yellow Page, Agency for Real Estate Affair, Veeruch Printing Co., Ltd, Bangkok, ISBN 1905-3797 ASA Thailand (2008), Bangkok Metropolitan Land usage Plan, Association of Siamese Architects Under Royal Patronage Website, Thailand, (26 Apr. 08) http://www.asa.or.th/download/03media/04law/cpa/mr49-bma-landuse.jpg Baum, A., and Crosby, N., (2008), Principles of Investment Analysis, in Property Investment Appraisal, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, UK Booth, P., Matysiak, G., Ormerod, P. (2002), Risk Measurement and Management for Real Estate Portfolios, Report for the IPF, Investment Property Forum (IPF), London. Brown, R.G. and Matysiak, A., G. (2000), Risk, return and diversification, in Real Estate Investment: A Capital Market Approach, Essex, Financial Times: Prentice Hall Byrne, P. (1996), Risk Uncertainty and Decision-making in Property Development, 2nd edition, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp.3 Chapman, A. (2008), PEST analysis method and examples with free PEST template, www.businessballs.com, http://www.businessballs.com/pestanalysisfreetemplate.htm, accessed on 23rd March, 2009 Chen, Z., and Khumpaisal, S. (2008) An Analytic Network Process for Risks Assessment in Commercial Real Estate Development. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 27, No.3, pp.238-258 Clarke, J.,C. and Varma, S. (1999) Strategic Risk Management: the New Competitive Edge. International Journal of Strategic Management, Vol. 32, No.4, 1999, pp. 414-424 <http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/s0024630199000527> (30 Dec.07) Crossland, B., et.al (1992), Estimating engineering risk, in Royal Society, London, UK Field, A, (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, SAGE Publications Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N and Rothengatter, W. (2003), Megaprojects and risk : An Anatomy of ambition, Cambridge University Press, Frodsham, M. (2007) Risk Management in UK Property Portfolios: A Survey of Current Practice, Investment Property Forum, London. UK <http://www.ipf.org.uk/resources/pdf/research/research_reports/Risk_Management_ Summary.pdf > (30 Dec. 07). Gehner E., Halman J.I.M. and de Jonge H.(2006) Risk Management in the Dutch Real Estate Development Sector: A Survey, 6th International Postgraduate Research Conference, 6- 7 April 2006, University of Salford. pp. 541-552 Hargitay, S. and Yu, S.,M., (1993), Decision criteria return and risk, Property Investment Decisions: A quantitative Approach, E&FN Spon, London, UK Hilbers, P. , Lei, Q. And Zacho, L. (2001), Real Estate Market Developments and Financial Sector Soundness, IMF working paper, WP/01/129, International Monetary Fund ioMosaic (2002) Designing and Effective Risk Matrix: An ioMosaic Corporation Whitepaper, ioMosaic Corporation, Houston, TX 77057, USA. <http://archives1.iomosaic.com/whitepapers/risk-ranking.pdf> (30 Dec. 07).

Jutte, B., (2009), 10 Golden Rules of Project Risk Management, www.projectsmart.co.uk, URL: http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/10-golden-rules-of-project-risk-management.html, accessed on 30th March, 2009 Kahn, J. (2001), Reporting Statistics in APA Style, Illinois State University, USA. <http:// http://my.ilstu.edu/~jhkahn/apastats.html> Khalafallah, A. M. G. E. I. (2002), Estimating cost contingencies of residential buildings projects using belief networks, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Khumpaisal, S. (2008), Risks in construction project procurement process and risks mitigation methods Journal of Architectural /Planning Research and Studies, Vol. 6, 2007, Faculty of Architecture and Planning Thammasat University, Thailand Khumpaisal, S. , and Chen Z. (2009), Application of Analytic Network Process to Assess Risks In Urban Regeneration Projects Proceeding paper SUE-MOT Conference,, 22-24 April 2009, Henry Ford College, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. Kritayanavaj, B. (2007) Housing Bubble. Government Housing Bank Journal, Volume 1 No. 1, JulyDecember 2007, pp. 70-76 Kumar, R. (2002), Research Methodology : A step by step guide for beginners, Second Edition, Sage Publications, London, UK. Lauridsen, S., L. (1998) The Financial Crisis in Thailand: Causes, Conduct and Consequences?. Journal of World Development, Vol.26, No.8, pp. 1575-1591. Macdonald, J., Knopman, D, Lockwood, J.R., Cecchine, G. and Willis, H. (2004), Unexploded Ordnance: A Critical Review of Risk Assessment Methods, RAND Corporation, United States Army, USA Matson, J. (2000), Cooperative Feasibility Study Guide, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Business Cooperative Service, website http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sr58.pdf, accessed on 24th October, 2009. Morrison, L., J., (2007) The STEEP Factors, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Learning Resources Website, USA <http:// horizon.unc.edu/onramp/> (30 Jan. 08). Millington, A.F., (2000), Risk and Uncertainty, and Risk control, in Property Development, EG Books, London. Nezhad, G., H., and Kathawala, Y., (1990), Risk Assessment for International Investment, Management Research News, Vol. 13, Number 1 Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board: NESDB, (2007) Thailand in Brief : 2006, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, Bangkok, Thailand <http://www.nesdb.go.th/Default.aspx?tabid=136> (30 Dec. 07). Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. and Gibson, R. (1992), Risk Perception, Royal Society, London, UK Pornchokchai, S. (2007) Rethinking the Real Estate Cycle, Government Housing Bank Journal, Volume 1 Number 1, July- December 2007, pp. 48-59 Project Management Institute, (2002). A Guide to the Project Management : Body of Knowledge, Automated Graphic Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A. Quigley, M., J., (2001) Real Estate and the Asian Crisis. Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 129-161 Rafele, C., Hillson. D. & Grimalai, S. (2005), "Understanding Project Risk Exposure Using the TwoDimensional Risk Breakdown Matrix", Proceeding papers of 2005 Project Management Institution Global Congress, Edinburgh, Scotland. <http://www.risk-doctor.com/pdf-files/pmie-rbmpaper.pdf> (30 Dec. 07). Raftery, J. (1994), Risk Analysis in project management, E & FN Spon, London REIC, (2009), Summary of Thailand Real Estate Condition, Real Estate Information Centre, Thailand, http://www.reic.or.th/SummaryRealEstate/SummaryRealEstate_index.asp Ross, D., A., (2005), A Model of Contingency Factors Affecting Contractors Economic Organisation of Projects, PhD. Thesis, School of Construction and Property, University of Salford, Salford, UK

Smith, J.N. (2002), Managing risk in construction projects, a chapter in Best Value in Construction, edited by Kelly, J., Morledge, R. and Wilkinson, S., Blackwell Smith, J. N. , Merna, T. and Jobling, P. (2006), Managing risk in construction projects, Blackwell Publishing, second edition. Spaulding, W.C. (2008), Risk, http://thismatter.com/money/insurance/risk.htm, accessed on 20th March, 2009 Tasmanian Government (2006), MBT Step 7 Risk Management : Developing a risk management plan, http://www.projectmanagement.tas.gov.au/ - Risk Management Plan (fsv1.0), accessed on 20th October, 2009. Thompson, A. (2005), Business Feasibility Study Outline, Enterpreneurship and business innovation : The art of successful business start- ups and business planning, Vanichvatana, S. (2007)Thailand Real Estate Market Cycles: Case Study of 1997 Economic Crisis., Government Housing Bank Journal, Volume 1 Number 1, July- December 2007, pp. 38-47 V.T. Luu, Soo-Yong, K., N.V. Tuan & Ogunlana, S.O. (2008), Quantifying schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian Belief Networks, International Project Management, doi:10.1016/j.iproman.2008.1003.1003. (in progress) Warr, G., P. (2000), What Happened to Thailand?, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK. Journal of

Wrona, V., (2009), Your Risk Management Process: A Practical and Effective Approach, www.projectsmart.co.uk, URL: http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/your-risk-management-process-apractical-and-effective-approach.html accessed on 30th March, 2009 Younes, E., Kett, R. (2007)Hotel investment risk: what are the chances?. Journal of Retail Leisure Property, Vol.6, No.1, pp. 69-78.