As my Thanksgiving meal was digesting, I really was trying to get a nap under my belt, but couldn't stop thinking about the location rating system the CTLA method of plant appraisal uses. I percieve the consensus to be: that the location rating is a weak spot (achilles heel if you will) in the system.

I wonder if we can maybe bring forth some of the components that go into the location factor and talk about them a little bit. I think it may help to identify and clarify some of the key issues at stake.

Obviously one of the forebearing issues is the Site rating. I think some percieve the role of the plant appraiser includes an appraisal of the land. I don't think so. I do not believe that the plantsman is asked to look at the value of the land so much as to look at "quality of the site and intensity of use".

I think we need more than a half a page of guidelines to do that though.

Further, while considering the site, shouldn't we be looking at it in terms of "tree friendliness or hostility"? I'm thinking that a heavily used park may not be as ideal a site for the tree's health and wellfare as a remote park or one that provides limited access to foot traffic (and other compaction sources). Should we be looking at soil quality issues and irrigation (or lack thereof) more than how much money the occupant spent on the place? I think so.

I think the concerns expressed that realtors need to be involved may be mistaken in the perception of what tree appraisers are looking at when rating a site.

Any retorts?
Best Thanksgiving regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Kerry, on November 27, 1998 at 17:30:09:

Kerry, Webmaster and I are working on the file transfer of my 1997 Trunk Formula article which explains a lot about what the Location factor is and what it attempts to describe or reflect. In my opinion, that has to be the starting point for understanding how to apply it. I won't repeat a lot of the article's content here, unless there is a problem with posting it. For now:

Most basically, TF Method is a depreciated replacement cost approach to value. Location is one of the elements of depreciation. Recall the last several weeks' threads on Value: 'the present worth of future benefits.' Size, Species and Condition focus on the plant's ability to provide benefits. Location, by contrast, focuses more on the beneficiary(ies): the appreciation or experiencing or recognition of the benefits. That is why Location was added to the method in the 1975 Revision (Neely, Dan ed., 1975. A Guide to the Professional Evaluation of Landscape Trees, Specimen Shrubs, and Evergreens. Urbana, IL: ISA, p.5).

RE: your par. 1: if Location is a weak spot it is because, in my opinion, of a lack of understanding about the idea of received benefits. A part of the problem is that Location is a consideration which moves beyond the plant material into a social setting. This is outside the scope of training and experience of many plant appraisers.

RE: your par. 3 (SITE): What the tree appraiser considers in the Location factor has a lot to do with the definition of the appraisal problem (the assignment) and the definition of value. If the definition of value is 'contribution to the market value of the property,' then the appraiser must consider the total value of the property and put the plant in that context. This may indeed be outside the plant appraiser's competence and assistance from a qualified Real Estate appraiser may be needed. Alternatively, the plant appraiser may be able to rely on public record or other sources of property value.

Why there remains a role for the plant appraiser and the RE appraisers just don't do it all is another whole topic.

"Quality of the site and intensity of use" may be surrogates for explicit property value or may simply be more general indicators of the interaction of plant and beneficiary(ies).

RE: your par. 4: Guidance is certainly needed. In my opinion, it needs to be on explaining to the appraiser this concept of received benefits so that the appraiser can both undertake and explain the adjustment. Unless it is tied to an explicit amount like real estate value, this adjustment will remain imprecise and in many ways subjective (or at least tied to particular assumptions). The 'actual' Location adjusted value or reasonableness may well be (as pointed out in the recent 'why must it be reasonable?' thread) up to the court not the appraiser. The role of the appraiser is to help the court understand facts.

In my opinion, guidance should not take the form of expanded lists of uses and land types with assigned ratings which attempt to make the exercise appear precise. It isn't. Appraiser judgment and the ability to communicate it remain the key.

RE: your par. 5: There are 2 issues here. 1) The environment of a tree has much to do with its long term performance. That gets us back to the idea of future benefits. In my opinion, the appraiser must be considering (explicitly or implicitly) the life expectancy of the tree. Life expectancy was explicitly considered in earlier edition of the Guide (Neely, Dan ed., 1983. Guide for Establishing Vlaues of Trees and Other Plants. Urbana, IL: ISA, pp. 23, 26) but is not in the 8th edition. The issue is where to reflect it and not to depreciate more than once. E.g. if life expectancy for a short lived species is reflected in the Species rating, don't also deduct from Condition; if life expectancy is reflected in Condition (present or anticipated) don't also deduct from Location. 2) The problem with reflecting physical performance in Location is that it can mix up issues. While a busy site may present plant health problems a busy site also presents the most opportunity for experienced benefits, the greatest liklihood that a tree will be missed and replaced. So while decreasing Location for one issue and increasing it for the other might wind up arithmetically correct it may cloud the issues and confuse both the appraiser and the appraisal user. In my opinion, better to leave the Location factor to Economic or External factors (see the article).

RE: your par. 6: There is a core issue here which involves competence, professionalism and turf (no not that stuff on the golf course, that stuff the sharks and the jets were fighting over). This is an issue the whole plant appraisal community must consider.

It is ethical to restrict practice to the area of one's competence or expertise. It is admirable and ethical for a plant appraiser to say 'I have no competence in real estate, appraising it is not my job.'

It may not be so ethical to say to the world "we plant appraisers are the professionals and we know that we can estimate plant value in all instances based on our technical knowlege of plants, real estate has nothing to do with it so get those real estate appraisers out of here, they'll tell you themselves they don't know anything about plant material." Maybe that's just protecting turf and maybe it is not in the public interest.

If an assignment calls for estimation of the contribution of a plant to the market value of the real estate, then that is what must be considered. It's not up to the plant appraiser to say otherwise, to say that contribution to the value of the real estate doesn't matter or that it can be estimated without knowing the total property value. The only ethical course is for the appraiser to obtain all the competent input that is needed to complete the assignment.

An individual may decide that plants are the limit of his/her competence and say so and decline to work with individuals from other areas of competence (e.g. real estate). Those are ethical choices. But is that individual a professional plant appraiser (able to handle the range of all plant value assignments) or a more limited professional plant evaluator (able to report on plant condition and replacement cost) or maybe only a replacement cost technician (able to report on replacement cost only)?

Interesting decisions to be made.

scott

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 27, 1998 at 17:30:09:

I appreciated the opportunity to read your article. Thanks to both Scott and Russ for the effort it took to do that!

Wow, what a retort!

Par 2: OK, so the concern is double coverage site vs condition vs confusion, point well taken (mostly). :^) [That's a toungue in cheek]

Par 3: (RE my Par 1) I couldn't agree more! I've seen altogether too many tree appraisals cite everything but the kitchen sink as a benefit of the tree in question, most of which are of questionable merit. The tree on a given site, if it has amenity value, contributes in some substantial way to the property. Those contributions need to be recognized and well understood by the plant appraiser. They should be readily identified as a benefit derived from that particular tree. Some trees are ugly, but may contribute significantly as a barrier to noise, dust, or prying eyes. There shouldn't be a lot of clammer for aesthetic value on that ugly tree though.

I question to some degree the notion that the location factor in some way requires input from a social worker, or psychologist, or other. The plant appraiser must be familiar with the interaction between plants and people, no question about it. I don't buy the idea that there is some mystical ingredient that would place this element outside the scope of a competent arborist's expertise.

RE: your par 4 (re: my par 3) I think we need to clearly delineate between appraisal methods that we're talking about. Hopefully my comments have not been construed to suggest that all real estate appraisers are bums and should butt out. That is certainly not the case! What we're talking about here are basically methods of appraisal based on replacement plant purchase. (TF & replacement)

To throw in the idea of an assignment with the goal of determining a plant's "contribution to the market value of the property" is an entirely different context than that of replacement cost. The appraiser may choose to run through the TF or replacement excercise in order to get an idea of where that puts the value, but the ultimate answers to that assignment will be solely based on real estate issues. It's a whole 'nother' ball of wax. In that case, the tree appraiser will also need to know what the turf is worth. (pun intended)

Calculations of maintenance issues such as pruning or fertilization utilize yet another method of appraisal. A plant appraiser may utilize a variety of methods and tools, but should not confuse an aspect of one tool with another. I think you allude to this principle in your article [footnote v].

Re your last paragraph: I don't think ethics have anything to do with a persons scope of expertise. I'm certainly not going to rush out and get a real estate appraiser's credential just to stuff into my belt for my little tree appraisal practice. Certainly we all need to be as broad based in our knowledge as we can be, but there will always be limits to what we know, each of us. The ethical consideration is rooted in the decision we must all make when faced with a question we know just enough about to be dangerous, but haven't mastered. Do we bluff (and that's the nice way of putting it), or do we declare that our expertise is limited and defer to, or otherwise involve a person more qualified to render quality service to the client?

As time progresses, we will all recognize elements of appraisal jobs that exceed our limits of expertise. We may need to consult with a licensed landscape architect, or a turf specialist, or a pesticide expert, or a realtor, or a lawyer, a psychiatrist, a forester....... there really is no limit to what we don't know.

Soooooooo, in response to the suggestion that an individual plant appraiser should be "able to handle the range of all plant value assignments", I thumb my nose. Show me a person who claims to be able to do that without the assistance of outside specialists, and I'll show you a bluffer (and that's the nice word).

Best regards,
KWK