Несмотря на относительную простоту

Несмотря на относительную простоту и возможность широкого использования, затратный подход содержит в себе принципиальное противоречие с точки зрения оценки стоимости природного ресурса (объекта): чем лучше природный ресурс, тем меньшую оценку в соответствии с затратной концепцией он может получить. Так, лучшие черноземные почвы требуют меньше затрат на подготовку и использование в сельском хозяйстве, чем аналогичный участок, расположенный на подзолистых заболоченных почвах. То же и с месторождениями полезных ископаемых — чем меньше эксплуатационные затраты, тем дешевле объект оценки. Получается парадокс: чем выше качество природного объекта и меньше затраты на его эксплуатацию, тем меньше его стоимостная оценка, проведенная методом суммирования затрат на его освоение. В городах складывается обратная картина — чем дороже работы по созданию инженерной инфраструктуры (имеется в виду удорожание, связанное с горно-геологическим, топографическими особенностями или удаленностью от центральных объектов), тем ценнее участок. Именно это противоречие ограничивает применение затратного подхода к земле и природным объектам. К недостаткам затратного подхода также относится сложность в условиях инфляции точного расчета стоимости затрат на создание и воспроизводство даже небольшого объекта недвижимости.

Результаты (английский) 1:

Despite the relative simplicity and the possibility of wide use, cost approach contains a fundamental contradiction in terms of the valuation of the natural resource (object): the better natural resource, the smaller the evaluation in accordance with the concept of expensive it can get. So, the best black soil require less expenses on preparation and use in agriculture, than the same plot located on podzolic boggy soils. The same applies to mineral deposits - less operating costs, the cheaper the object of evaluation. It turns out a paradox: the higher the quality of the natural object and less than the cost of its operation, the less its value is carried out by the summation of its development costs. In the cities, quite the opposite picture - the more expensive the work on the creation of engineering infrastructure (meaning appreciation associated with the mining and geological, topographical features, or remotely from the central objects), the more valuable land. It is this contradiction restricts the use of the cost approach to land and natural sites. The disadvantages of the cost approach also applies to the complexity in terms of inflation precise calculation of costs of creation and reproduction of even a small property.

Результаты (английский) 2:

Despite the relative simplicity and the possibility of widespread use, the costly approach contains a fundamental contradiction in terms of estimating the cost of a natural resource (object): the better the natural resource, the lower the valuation in according to the costly concept it can get. For example, the best black soils require less training and use in agriculture than a similar site located on sub-solid wetlands. The same with mineral deposits - the lower the operating costs, the cheaper the object of valuation. It turns out a paradox: the higher the quality of a natural object and the lower the cost of its operation, the lower its valuation, carried out by the method of summing up the costs of its development. In cities, the opposite is emerging - the more expensive the work on the creation of engineering infrastructure (meaning the increase in price associated with mining, geological, topographical features or distance from central objects), the more valuable the site. It is this contradiction that limits the use of a costly approach to land and natural objects. The disadvantages of a costly approach also include the complexity of inflation to accurately calculate the cost of creating and reproducing even a small property.

Результаты (английский) 3:

Although relatively simple and widely used, There are fundamental contradictions in the evaluation of the value of natural resources in the cost method:) object: better than natural resources. According to the concept of cost, lower estimates can be obtained. Therefore, the cost of training and using the best black soil in agriculture is lower than that in similar areas located in the ash soil swamp. The lower the mining cost, the cheaper the evaluation object. Ironically, the higher the quality of natural objects, the lower the cost of using them, and the lower the value of adding development costs. In urban areas, on the contrary, the higher the cost of building engineering infrastructure.) refers to the price increase related to mine geology. This is a valuable area due to terrain features or distance from the center object. It is this contradiction that limits the cost-effective approach to land and natural objects. The disadvantages of cost method also include that it is difficult to accurately calculate the construction and reconstruction costs of even small real estate facilities under the condition of inflation.