Is, or can be, the condition rating affected by the site or situation the tree grows in??

Thanks, James.

Reply to post by James Causton, on September 24, 2001 at 21:51:10:

The condition is intimately connected to the site. Since we compare to a supposedly ideal tree of 100 percent condition, we would also have to assume a 100 percent perfect site.

The important thing to keep in mind is that you don't count a factor twice. An example would be an oak planted in a low area where water collects at some times during the year. This will affect the condition of the tree. It could also be considered as poor placement. As the appraiser, you must try to separate out the various influences, and not count them twice. In this case, if drainage were improved, would the tree be in better health? Then count it as a condition factor, not as placement.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on September 24, 2001 at 21:51:10:

So a tall conifer tree with virtually no trunk taper would be rated low in condition, if it was standing alone and exposed, whereas the same tree in a small stand and protected could be rated higher?
What about a tree with a well compartmentalized column of decay which did not affect structural integrity or the vascular system, could it have a higher condition rating in a little used area of native vegetation than the same tree along a city street, could a column of decay be considered a plus because of the benefits (food and housing) provided by it, or would that be a consideration under contribution. Thanks, James

Reply to post by James Causton, on September 25, 2001 at 00:07:43:

These are excellent questions. Russ is right, the biggest issue is not to reflect the same depreciation adjustment under more than one factor.

You may find that the Guide condition tables are overly rigid. If the taperless tree is depreciated against a fixed scale it would not allow you reflect a lesser impact on value in a protected site. Of course it might also be true that as one of a group it would have less value than a solitary, feature tree.

The underly logic should guide you: depreciation should relate cost to value which is the present value of future benefits. You need to think about how the benefits stream is reduced by any characteristic of Species, Condition or Location. Don't double depreciate, as Russ advises, and use your judgment about which factors to use and explain those judgments.

Reply to post by James Causton, on September 25, 2001 at 00:07:43:

What Scott said!

The thing to pick up from Scott's note is that the system must be flexible. There may be cases where you attribute a factor to location, other cases where it may more accurately be attributed to tree condition. You must apply the most important aspect of appraisal- judgement.