Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 07, 2000 at 17:54:30:

Predicting the value of a tree ten years from now differs from making a prognosis of how the tree will react over a period of ten years to having had 50% of its circumference stripped of bark by an automobile. The latter is, imho, intimately involved in placing a value on the tree. What if the top of a tree got removed by a woodchuck with a chainsaw... wouldn't the value be reduced? It would, because we arborists know how the tree will react and what problems will be the result of such malfeasance. We would ignore the opinion of the nitwit homeowner who hired the woodchuck, thinking a topping job would make the tree bushy and round, and thus pretty and more valuable.

Reply to post by Ed Milhous, on June 07, 2000 at 20:33:23:

Ed, you needn't be humble, nor is it simply your opinion. It is well established in theory and accepted as fact that value today is dependent on future performance (benefits).

Judgements about future performance are inherent in estimating value today and that is indeed a different exercise than esitmating future value..... though the nature of the assumptions necessary to estimate future value is not so different. If a tree is a) young and rapidly growing, b) likely to contribute more because the trees around it are in decline, or c)going to see a change in land use, then it will deliver more benefits x years in the future. Conversely a well established landscape specimen may have a fairly level future benefits stream. If we use a cost approach we may have to apply some inflation estimate to future costs. If we use a market approach we may have to consider market trends. We may have to consider the time value of money. It all depends on the nature of the assignment. There are assumptions to be sure, but if the assignment calls for an estimate of future value and the assumptions are clearly identified it is doable and is not improper. (There may have been an earlier thread that gave some situations in which FV might be required).

Getting back to value today (PV) how far in the future we consider performance depends on the assignment and beneficiary (and to some extent assumptions like discount rate). Most typically we would be looking at the tree's lifespan. But we might be given an arbitrarily short life to consider..... say the developer and town agree a feature tree will be preserved for x years as a "curb appeal" feature for the development and as a demonstration of respopnsible regulation, but both agree that after that the tree which has been infected with the dreaded peanut butter and jelly wilt disease is likely to decline rapidly and might as well be removed so the sewer can be moved back from the receding shoreline (documented to be moving inland at y feet per year). THey are all just facts that go into the analysis.

Reply to post by Ed Milhous, on June 07, 2000 at 20:33:23:

I know you Ed, and your opinions are never humble

However, IMVHO, the severely topped tree you talked about,(Iguess it was severely topped) would be damaged severe enough for me to appraise it as a total loss....100%!

Very,

lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on June 07, 2000 at 21:36:18:

Well this is all very interesting and amazing!
Is it possible to do a pre accident and a post
accident evaluation and express the loss based on
the difference in the two values? Then factor in
cost of repair and give the property owner the
value of the total. I don't think TF as a % is
valid because how can you say the % of damage is
equal to the value of the % the loss?

Reply to post by Scott Diffenderfer, on June 08, 2000 at 18:11:53:

Taking a % loss for partial damage is really no different than a before and after valuation. The TF consideres the condition last. Say you hafve a tree that rated 80% Condition before and 40% after damage. The result is the same as the Before Value x 50%. It's just the math. If you understand the process that way, you can effectively use the % loss ratio and apply it the Before Value.

The one advantage to doing a complete before and after is in documenting the Condition factors, and being able to show how you arrived at the difference in value. Just sent out a report today on a case like that. Actually, I had to do two Before Value assessments- The trees were damaged by a sewer line 4 years ago, and now will be lost completely to road widening.