Putting a value on trees—ctla guidance and methods

Arboricultural Journal

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 21-43

  Cullen, Scott ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Amenity; Amenity Value; Appraisal; CTLA; Valuation; Value

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; TREE;

EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 34547652627     PISSN: 03071375     EISSN: 21681074     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03071375.2007.9747475     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Ackerman, F., and Heinzerling, L., 2004. ‘Priceless:On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing.’ 277New York and London:The New Press.
2. Adams, J. G.U., 1989. ‘London's Green Spaces:What are They Worth?’ Paper for London Wildlife Trust and Friends of the Earth
3. Aird, J., 2006. ‘The growing business of tree and plant appraisal.’. Tree Care Industry, XVII (8):50–54. (August).
4. Alvarez, L. H.R., and Koskela, E., 2003. ‘A general approach to the stochastic rotation problem with amenity valuation.’ CESIFO Working Paper No. 857 http://www.cesifo.de/DocCIDL/857.pdf (accessed 3 Sept., 2006).
5. Anon. 1976. ‘Editorial:amenity woodlands.’ Arboricultural Journal 3(1), 1
6. Anon. 2005. ‘Arborists eye U.S. valuation system, UK tree officers seek replacement for standard Helliwell System.’. Horticulture Week, October 28:41
7. Anon. 2006. ‘ANLA and PLANET announce end of merger talks.’. Tree Care Industry, XVII (8):75
8. Antipin, J., 2006. ‘Arborists can play a key role in preventing spread of emerald ash borer.’. Tree Care Industry, XVII (11):58–64.
9. Anthon, S., Thorsen, B. J., and Helles, F., 2005. ‘Urban-fringe afforestation projects and taxable hedonic values.’. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 3:79–91.
10. APPRAISAL FOUNDATION. 2006. ‘Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).’ Appraisal Foundation DC:Washington.
11. APPRAISAL INSTITUTE. 1992. ‘The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th Ed. 768 Appraisal Institute, Chicago, IL.
12. APPRAISAL INSTITUTE. 1993. ‘The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 3rd Ed. 527 Appraisal Institute, Chicago, IL.
13. Armstrong, N., 1947. ‘Shade tree evaluation formulas and their use,’ pp 38–48 in Proceedings of the 23rd National Shade Tree Conference, 18–22 August 1947, Cleveland, OH
14. Azjen, I., and Peterson, G. L., 1988. ‘Contingent value measurement:the price of everything and the value of nothing,’ 65–76. in Peterson, G.L.
15. Driver, B. L., and Gregory, R., eds. 260 Amenity Resource Valuation, Venture Publishing, State Collge, PA.
16. Barrell, J., 1993. ‘Pre-planning tree surveys:SULE is the natural progression.’ Arboricultural Journal 17 33–46.
17. Barrell, J., 1996. ‘Pre-development tree assessment,’ 143–155. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Trees & Building Sites. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Illinois, USA.
18. Barry, G., and Murray, T. C., 1982. A monetary evaluation of trees in Ireland., 1 (5):5–16. Irish Landscape Journal
19. Bell, S., 2005. ‘Nature for people:the importance of green spaces to communities in the East Midlands of England,’ Edited by:Kowarik, I., and Köorner, S., 81–94. in Wild Urban Woodlands:New Perspectives for Urban Forestry. Springer, Berlin.299
20. Boyce, S. G., 1995. ‘Landscape Forestry.’ 239New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21. Cameron, C., 2006. Value and integrity in cultural and natural heritage:from Parks Canada to World Heritage Edited by:Clark, K., 71–78. in (2006) Capturing the Public Value of Heritage, The Proceedings Of The London Conference, 25–26 January 2006. English Heritage, Swindon, UK.106
22. CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL. 2005. ‘Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims.’ Civil Justice Council 22London
23. Clark, K., ed. 2006. Capturing the Public Value of Heritage, The Proceedings Of The London Conference, 25–26 January 2006. English Heritage, Swindon, UK 106 http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Public-Value.pdf (accessed 20 October, 2006).
24. Coder, K. D., 2004. ‘Amenity Trees:Defining Concepts In Use.’ Publication SFR04–4, Warnell School of Forest Resources, University Of Georgia
25. Common, M., 2003. ‘Monetary valuation.’ Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. International Society for Ecological Economics http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc.htm (accessed 13 September, 2006).
26. COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY. 2002. ‘Landscape Character Assessment:Guidance for England and Scotland.’ Publication CAX 84F 20London:The Countryside Agency.
27. CTLA. 2000. ‘Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition 143Champaign, IL:International Society of Arboriculture.
28. CTLA. 1992. ‘Guide for Plant Appraisal, 8th Edition 103Savoy, IL.:International Society of Arboriculture.
29. CTLA. 1986. ‘Manual for Plant Appraisers 57 1st Ed.’ Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Washington, DC.
30. Cullen, S., 1997. ‘Tree appraisal:what is the trunk formula method.’. Arboricultural Consultant, 30 (5) 3ff (September-October).
31. Cullen, S., 2000. ‘Tree appraisal:what is the trunk formula method (9th ed.).’. Arboricultural Consultant, Summer:7–8. Also at http://www.tree-tech.com/reports/index.xhtml (accessed 12 Sept., 2006).
32. Cullen, S., 2005. ‘Tree appraisal:chronology of North American industry guidance.’. Journal of Arboriculture, 31 (4):157–162. (July).
33. Cullen, S., Flannigan, J., Heuch, J., and Hollis, A., 2006. ‘Tree valuation:U.S. tree valuation system under scrutiny.’ The Chartered Forester, Summer 18–19.
34. DCA (Department for Constitutional Affairs). 2005. Rule 35.2 in Civil Procedure Rules. Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs London www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/index.htm (accessed 5/16/05).
35. DCLG (The Department for Communities and Local Government). 2006. ‘An overview on trees.’ World Wide Web page http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1 127779 (accessed 3 September, 2006).
36. DCLG (THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT). 2000. ‘Tree Preservation Orders:A Guide To The Law And Good Practice (The Blue Book).’ DCLG Publications, Wetherby LS23 7NB
37. DEFRA (DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS). 2001. ‘Countryside Research Programme 2001/2002, Project 2.22 Valuation of Amenity Trees
38. De groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., and Boumans, R. M.J., 2002. ‘A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services.’. Ecological Economics, 41 (3):393–408. (June).
39. De wael, J., 2003. ‘The value of trees:financial evaluation of street trees and trees in parks and gardens.’ National Symposium on Parks & Grounds, Stratford, Ontario, 24–26 September, 2003
40. Eckley, M., and Egan, A., 2005. ‘Harvesting where the people are:aesthetic preferences for logging-in-progress.’ Journal of Forestry 103(8) 401–406. (December).
41. Eden, N., 2005. ‘Up front:what's a tree worth?’ Arboricultural Association Newsletter September
42. Eden, N., 2006. Personal communication, November, 2006
43. Edlin, H. L., 1963. ‘Amenity values in British forestry.’. Forestry, 36 (1):65–89.
44. ENGLISH HERITAGE. 2006. Conservation Principles, Polices and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage, London 44
45. Faiers, A., and Bailey, A., 2005. ‘Evaluating canal-side hedgerows to determine future interventions.’. Journal of Environmental Management, 74 (1):71–78. (January).
46. Farber, S., Costanza, R., and Wilson, M., 2002. ‘Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services.’. Ecological Economics, 41:375–392.
47. Felt, E. P., 1930. ‘How a tree may be valued.’. The American City., March:102
48. Flook, R., 1996. ‘A Standard Method For Tree Evaluation—STEM.’ Ron FLOOK 75NZ:Nelson.
49. Forbes-laird, J., 2005. ‘Guidance Note for Users:Tree Evaluation Method For Preservation Orders—TEMPO.’ CBA Trees Hampshire:Twyford.
50. rd Western Chapter International Shade Tree Conference.
51. Garrod, G., and Willis, K., 1992. ‘The amenity value of woodland in Great Britain:a comparison of economic estimates.’. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2 (4):415–434.
52. Gibbons, J. E., 1982. ‘The appraiser—an economic generalist,’ 25–38. in Appraising in A Changing Economy:Collected Writings of James E. Gibbons. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Chicago.274
53. Haysom, K. A., and Murphy, S. T., 2003. ‘The Status Of Invasiveness Of Forest Tree Species Outside Their Natural Habitat:A Global Review And Discussion Paper.’ Forestry Department—Food and Agriculture Organization cf the United Nations (FAO) 76Italy:Rome.
54. Hein, L., Van koppen, K., De groot, R. S., and Van ierland, E. C., 2006. ‘Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services.’. Ecological Economics, 57 (2):209–228. (May).
55. Helliwell, D. R., 1967. ‘The amenity value of trees and woodlands.’. The Arboricultural Association Journal, 1:128–131.
56. Helliwell, D. R., 1996. ‘The nature of consultancy work.’. Arboricultural Journal, 20:179–183.
57. Helliwell, D. R., 2000. “ ‘Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands:The Helliwell System ”. In Guidance Note 4. The Arboricultural Association, 2nd Edition 40Hampshire, England:Romsey.
58. rd Edition, 2005 reprint.’ Guidance Note 4. The Arboricultural Association, Romsey, Hampshire, England.
59. Helliwell, D. R., 2006a. ‘Letters.’. The Chartered Forester, 1:18
60. Helliwell, D. R., 2006b. ‘Letters.’ Arboricultural Association Newsletter, September, 7
61. Helliwell, D. R., 2006c. ‘Tree valuation debate:A root and branch approach to value.’ The Chartered Forester, Winter 2006/2007 16–17.
62. th Annual Arboricultural Association Conference, University of York, October, 2006
63. Treasury, H. M., 2003. ‘Annex 3:Land And Buildings,’ in The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation In Central Government. The Stationery Office, London 114
64. Hodges, M. B., 1993. ‘Three approaches.’. Citing James E. Gibbons. The Appraisal Journal, Oct.:553–564.
65. Hollis, A., 2007. ‘UKI-RPAC Supplement No. 1 (Provisional) United Kingdom and Ireland-Regional Plant Appraisal Committee. In review.
66. Hooper, K., Kearins, K., and Green, R., 2005. ‘Knowing “the price of everything and the value of nothing:” Accounting for heritage assets.’. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18 (3):410–433.
67. Hoy, L., 2002. ‘The monetary value of trees when expropriation is eminent.’ Green Cities, Sustainable Cities, 40th Bi-Annual Congress of the Institute of Environment and Recreation Management (IERM), Midrand, South Africa, November 18–21 26 http://www.ierm.org.za/library/congress2002/monet ary%20value%20of%20trees.pdf (accessed 2/25/06).
68. ICF (INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED FORESTERS). 2005. ‘News:group to study tree valuation.’. The Chartered Forester, 3:16
69. I-TREE.ORG. 2006. ‘Why i-Tree?’ http://www.itreetools.org (accessed 1 May, 2007).
70. IVSC (INTERNATIONAL VALUATION STANDARDS COMMITTEE). 2005. ‘International Valuation Standards, Seventh Edition International Valuation Standards Committee, London.
71. IVSC (INTERNATIONAL VALUATION STANDARDS COMMITTEE). 2003. ‘International Valuation Standards, Sixth Edition International Valuation Standards Committee, London.
72. Jeffrey, D., 2002. ‘Natural and Semi-Natural Habitats in the City’ Edited by:Dunne, L., in Proceedings of Natura 2000, Biodiversity in the City. Environmental Institute, University College Dublin.
73. Jessop, R., 2002. ‘The Effectiveness of Tree Preservation Orders.’ Research Findings No. 151. Scottish Executive Social Research, Edinburgh
74. Jim, C. Y., 2006. ‘Formulaic expert method to integrate evaluation and valuation of heritage trees in compact city.’. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 116:53–80.
75. King, G. S., 1979. ‘Plant Material Evaluation.’ Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning Amherst:University of Massachusetts.
76. Ma.kinnard, W. M., 1971. ‘Income Property Valuation.’ D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA
77. Krieger, D. J., 2001. ‘The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services:A Review.’ The Wilderness Society 31DC:Washington.
78. Kuo, F. E., 2003. ‘The Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology.’. Journal of Arboriculture, 29 (3):148–155.
79. Laverne, R. J., and Winson-geideman, K., 2003. ‘The infuence of trees and landscaping on rental rates at office buildings.’. Journal of Arboriculture, 29 (5):281–290. (September).
80. Lewis, C. E., ed. 1970. ‘Shade Tree Evaluation, Revision II.’ International Shade Tree Conference, Urbana, IL, USA 44
81. Mathis, M., Fawcett, A. A., and Konda, L. S., 2003. ‘Valuing nature:a survey of the non-market valuation literature.’ Discussion Paper VNT-03–01 Houston, Texas:Houston Advanced Research Center.
82. Mcmillan, R. C., 1964. ‘The value of trees in the modem landscape.’ Trees 25(4) 6–9. 30; originally presented at the Institute of Park Administration Symposium on Landscaping Conservation and Recreation, Manchester,1964
83. th edition.’ Presented at the American Society of Consulting Arborists Conference, Portland, Maine, October 1993
84. Mcpherson, G., 2007. ‘Benefit-based tree appraisal.’. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 33 (1) in press.
85. Mcpherson, E. G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., and Rowntree, R. A., 1997. ‘Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value:the Chicago urban forest climate project.’ Urban Ecosystems. 1 49–61.
86. Mcpherson, G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., Maco, S., and Xiao, Q., 2005. ‘Municipal forest benefits and costs in five U.S. cities.’. Journal of Forestry, 103 (8):411–416. (December).
87. Murray, I., 1989. ‘Oscar Wilde:The Major Works.’ Oxford World Classics 638Oxford:TheOxford University Press.
88. Neely, D., ed. 1975. ‘A Guide to the Professional Evaluation of Landscape Trees, Specimen Shrubs, and Evergreens, Revision III.’ International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, IL, USA 18
89. Neely, D., ed. 1979. ‘Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants, Revision IV.’ International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, IL 42
90. Neely, D., ed. 1983. ‘Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants’, Sixth Edition 48Urbana, IL:International Society of Arboriculture.
91. Neely, D., ed. 1988. ‘Valuation of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and other Plants:A Guide to the Methods and Procedures for Appraising Amenity Plants, Seventh Edition.’ International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, IL, USA 50
92. th National Urban Forestry Conference, Carlisle.
93. Nilsson, K., Randrup, T. B., and Wandall, B. M., 2001. “ 13 ”. In ‘Trees in the Urban Environment’ Edited by:Evans, Julian. 402 Chapter in, The Forests Handbook, Volume 1 An Overview of Forest Science. Blackwell Science, London.
94. Nowak, D. J., Pasek, J. E., Sequeira, R. A., Crane, D. E., and Mastro, V. C., 2001. ‘Potential effect of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the United States.’. Journal of Economic Entomology., 94 (1):116–122.
95. NSTC/NAA (NATIONAL SHADE TREE CONFERENCE/NATIONAL ARBORIST ASSOCIATION). 1957. ‘Shade Tree Evaluation.’ National Shade Tree Conference, Columbus, OH, and National Arborist Association, Wooster, OH. Published at Wooster, OH 14
96. O'brien, E., 2005. ‘Publics* and woodlands in England:well-being, local identity, social learning, conflict and management.’. Forestry, 78 (4):321–336.
97. O'callaghan, D. P., 2000. ‘Valuation of amenity trees in Britain.’ Presented in the Arboriculture Programme, Meyerscough College
98. Pack, C. L., 1922. ‘Legal values of shade trees,’ Chapter XXI in Trees as Good Citizens Washington, DC:The American Tree Association.
99. Parker, G. A., 1915. ‘Valuation of shade trees.’. Arborea—Bulletin of the Massachusetts Tree Wardens and Foresters Association, 1 (4):62–63. (February).
100. Pemberton, L., 1967. ‘The amemity value of trees.’. The Arboricultural Association Journal, 1 (1):17–19.
101. Pitt, D. J., 1992. ‘The fast lane of urban fringe forest economics.’. Forestry, 65 (2):189–204.
102. PLANET (Professional Landcare Network). 2005. http://www.alca.org (accessed 4/14/05).
103. Poland, T. M., and Mccullough, D. G., 2006. ‘Emerald ash borer:invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America's ash resource.’. Journal of Forestry, 104 (3):118–124. (April/May).
104. Price, C., 1986. ‘Differential depreciation and the cost of forest operations.’ Scottish Forestry 40(4) 264–275.
105. Price, C., 1989. ‘The Theory and Application of Forest Economics.’ 402Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.
106. Price, C., 1993. ‘Time, Discounting and Value’ 393Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.
107. Price, C., 2003. ‘Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry.’. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2 (1):123–133.
108. th Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada, August 2004.
109. Raad, A., 1976. ‘Trees in towns and their evaluation.’. Arboricultural Journal, 3 (1):2–16.
110. RICS (ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS). 1996. ‘RICS Appraisal and Valuation Manual (The Red Book).’ RICS Books, Coventry
111. Røpke, I., 2004. ‘The early history of modern ecological economics.’. Ecological Economics, 50 (3–4):293–3. 14.
112. ørbpke, I., 2005. ‘Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s.’. Ecological Economics, 55 (2):262–290.
113. Scott, J. L., and Betters, D. R., 2000. ‘Economic analysis of urban tree replacement decisions.’. Journal of Arboriculture, 26 (2):69–77. (March).
114. Selman, P., and Powell, J., 2003. ‘Woodland Wealth Appraisal for the East of England. Report to the Forestry Commission. East of England Conservancy and East of England Development Agency.’ Countryside and Community Research Unit 146University of Gloucestershire.
115. Shigo, A., 1986. ‘A New Tree Biology.’ Shigo & Trees 594Durham, NH, USA:Associates.
116. Sinden, J. A., and Worrell, A., 1979. ‘Unpriced Values:Decisions Without Market Prices.’ John Wiley & Sons New York
117. Smith, H. C., and Belloit, J. D., 1987. ‘Real Estate Appraisal.’ Century VII Publishing Co 341OH, USA:Dayton.
118. Stone, G. E., 1916. ‘Valuation of shade trees,’ 255–258. in ‘Shade Trees:Characteristics, Adaptation, Diseases and Care.’ Bulletin No. 170, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Amherst, MA.
119. Tilford, P. E., ed. 1965. ‘Shade Tree Evaluation, Revision I.’ International Shade Tree Conference, Columbus, OH, USA 29
120. Tyrrväinle, L., and Miettinen, A., 2000. ‘Property prices and urban forest amenities.’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39 (2):205–223.
121. Watson, G., 2002. ‘Comparing formula methods of tree appraisal.’. Journal of Arboriculture, 28 (1):11–18.
122. Willis, G., and Garrod, D. G., 1993. ‘The contribution of trees and woodland to the value of property.’. Arboricultural Journal, 17:211–219.
123. Wolf, K. L., 2003. ‘Public response to the urban forest in Inner-city business districts.’. Journal of Arboriculture, 29 (3):117–126.
124. Wolf, K. L., 2005. ‘Business district streetscapes, trees and consumer response.’. Journal of Forestry, 103 (8):396–400.