Howdy Russ,

Interesting Site. Thought I might post a question to all the valuable contributors to your list.

If we assume (and I emphasize assume) that all tree value is of anthropocentric origin, does the value of the plant reside in the individual entity or is it a function of the value of the real estate? During my excessive indentured servitude at Russ's previous employer I ran into this problem repeatedly and I still have not received a satisfactory explanation from those who would fix a dollar value to a tree. The ISA eighth edition guide describes a number of methodologies for arriving at the "value" of large landscape plants but then puts a disclaimer on the value by saying it should be "reasonable" in relation to the property value.

So lets do a thought experiment: what if we have two identical white oaks of 56 inch DBH. They are equal in all their physiological and structural conditions. They are both situated in the center of the front yard of their respective properties. Oak number one however, sits in front of a $350,000 home north of the railroad tracks while oak number 2 sits in front of a $25,000 shack to the south of the tracks. Which oak is of greater value?

If we insist on tying the value of the plant to the real estate than we run into a number of problems such as environmental justice. Why should my oak be devalued relative to a similar plant up the way just because I happened to pursue a career as an arborist and not a cardiologist? What if I saved all of my earnings over ten years by eating dog food and then bought a Lexus. I park my new Lexus in the driveway. Is my car now worth less than the Lexus of my upscale neighbor? If we counter that large trees are rooted and thus "part of the parcel" than we are presented with an artificial valuation that is more a function of tree transplanting technology than the actual benefits which a homeowner receives from the plant.

My analysis? Well, I think I will wait to consider what the experts say.

Dr Leary

Reply to post by Tim Leary, on February 13, 1998 at 22:11:28:

Tim,

You just gave my urban forestry management students one heck of an assignment for some extra credit. I have often wondered about this myself, especially when you work on a tree for someone who has little except a great appreciation for the tree in the front yard. I am afraid I don't have the answer, but it is a logical assumption to make that the tree and the car would be parked side by side and the car is less permanent!!
Good thought
Bob

Reply to post by Tim Leary, on February 13, 1998 at 22:11:28:

>>If we insist on tying the value of the plant to the real estate than we run into a number of
problems such as environmental justice. Why should my oak be devalued relative to a
similar plant up the way just because I happened to pursue a career as an arborist and not a
cardiologist?

Take this scenario one step further- Now the guy who owns that big house up the street buys up our cheap little parcel south of the tracks, and decides to build a high-value business center. Does that mean the value of the tree has just gone up? The guide allows the value to be at the "highest and best use", but doesn't say if that is the current, intended, or the possible uses.

The value of anything, as you suggest, is only what a willing seller can reasonably expect to receive from an equally willing buyer. Trees obviously have great value beyond the monetary figures we can apply, but not in a sense that we can decipher. ASk the bird who nests there, or the borer who lives inside how much worth the tree has, and the terms won't be in dollars. But we are still assigned the task of figuring out the monetary worth of the tree, in human terms. And more importantly, we have to translate what we feel to be the value to those with less appreciation of the complexities of the tree system, and perhaps the environment as a whole.

My feeling is that trying to tie value stricktly to land value is simply wrong. Some consideration may be given but the value itself should not hinge on the selling price of a few square feet.

Russ Carlson

Reply to post by Bob Underwood, on February 13, 1998 at 22:11:28:

>>but it is a logical assumption to make that the tree and the car would be
parked side by side and the car is less permanent!!

Especially if the tree is in less than great condition!

Your students could certainly benefit from this exercise, since there is not really a "right" answer, and it points out some of the flaws in the current system. The solution they come up with should be interesting. I'd like to hear about some of the results. (Assignment B: Post your results on this board...)

Russ Carlson

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 13, 1998 at 22:11:28:

Russ,
When we talk about the value to the bird and borer,
we do have another option in evaluation. There is an
article in the Journal of Arboriculture 14(10) October
1988 page 255, entitled "A formula for assessing the ecological
value of trees" by Edwin C. Franks and John W. Reeves.
I knew Dr. Reeves quite well at the time and I have
used this formula on two occassions to appraise
a shelterbelt and woodland here in North Dakota
where no house was nearby and the uses were for
wind control and the "outdoor experience". It is
another interesting option!

Bob

Reply to post by Russ, on February 14, 1998 at 14:19:38:

Youse gys are bringing up some good stuff, and the new guide will be more responsive to the problem. HOWEVER, we are dealing with appraising an item that cannot be restored, manufactured, or replaced. The appraisal process is not a science, but an art, and it is up to the appraiser to decide the methods used. In my opinion, a tree can have a different value depending on the site and the position and contribution to that site. This is only one factor in the appraisal, and maybe not the most important factor. Let's keep the discussions moving, but we will probably never have a definitive answer to the tree value question. Remember, the guide is a guide is a guide is a guide.
Very treely,
Lew

Reply to post by Tim Leary, on February 13, 1998 at 22:11:28:

Too bad I am not a Lawyer, not only would my Mom have been proud but I would have a field day if presented with a tree appraisal in court. The question of whether the "value" of a tree is a function of the benefits it provides (ex- micro-climatic modification, stormwater control, air filtration, etc), or merely it's contribution to the "resale" value of the real estate parcel is fundamental to the justification of the appraisal process. Until this issue is resolved any numbers thrown out as representing the "value" of a mature tree are suspect.

A harsh judgement? Perhaps, but then, as you may have surmised from my nom de plume, my brain chemistry deviates from the norm.

Lets add more fuel to the fire. While a drone at Bartlett I observed the following relationship: individual tree value was inversely proportional to stand density. Marks (excuse me, I mean clients) were much more receptive to tree care intervention when they had a low density of large trees on their property. Some of the most difficult neighborhoods to penetrate where those with lots built in the woods. (Note - exclude removal services). Individual tree value was tied to scarcity, as micro-economic theory would predict. Obviously it was no accident that Arbor Day originated in a historic grassland ecosystem as opposed to New England. If we insist on tying plant value to the artificial constraints of property boundries than, in theory, a landowner could increase the value of an individual tree by clearcutting the rest of the vegetation on his landscape. While his overall landscape value might plumet, the remaining tree would consitute a larger percentage of his landscape value.

The point in all this sillyness? If we keep falling back on the tired research concerning the comparison between property values on "treed vs. untreed" lots we will undermine any efforts to quantify the true benefits received by tree cover.

Of course, I have other reservations concerning the appropriateness of applying market values to biotic systems but I wouldn't want to have Russ shut down his page just yet.

Reply to post by Bob Underwood, on February 16, 1998 at 10:07:01:

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I suppose that means now I have to go look up that article and read it...

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 16, 1998 at 12:45:49:

Interesting topic! I have a couple of friends that are real estate appraisers. The way they look at property is thus:
If there are five identical lots, with identical houses on them. None of the lots have any landscaping except one. They are all valued the same! The only difference is that the lot with the beutiful landscaping will sell first, before the others.
The problem is futhered by the fact that the lending agencies and banks agree. Oy, what a mess!
Jim

Reply to post by Jim Pappas, on February 19, 1998 at 00:53:34:

Russ, Where's the spell-checker?
Jim

Reply to post by Lew bloch, on February 16, 1998 at 10:11:03:


OK. What if you have two identicle houses on both sides of the track? Isn't the one on the north side worth more than the one on the south side because of the neighborhood it is in? Remember the real estate phase, location, location, location! And that is the most subjective part of the appraisal process.

Reply to post by Jim Pappas, on February 20, 1998 at 20:05:47:

>>Russ, Where's the spell-checker?
Jim <<

Spel-cheker? What do we nead that four?