Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41(6): November 2015 preserved trees, costs to the contractor or de- veloper who pays to remove trees, and, where preserved trees would have increased final sale price, lost revenue for the developer or home- builder (Anderson and Barrows-Broaddus 1989). Additional costs not mentioned in the tree pro- tection literature include: decreased home equity, loss of additional tax revenues that would have accrued due to increased property values of lots with mature trees, and costs to homeowners to remove trees not sufficiently protected. A survey of residential homebuilders in Amherst, Mas- sachusetts, and Athens, Georgia, U.S., revealed that the costs of removing trees on a heavily wooded lot during development averaged USD $3,844 ($1,000 in 1977$) in Amherst but only $707 ($250 in 1980$) in Athens (Siela and An- derson 1982). Costs of preserving trees on lots averaged $6,535 ($1700 in 1977$) in Amherst and only $792 ($280 in 1980$) in Athens (Seila and Anderson 1982). The authors reported that in both Amherst and Athens, builders recovered the higher cost of preservation in an increased final home price (Seila and Anderson 1982), although real estate data were not provided. Tree protection efforts can also take the form of establishing boundaries around wooded areas near residential yards to protect them from substantial human intrusion in the form of yard extension, waste disposal, forest clearing activities, or more (McWilliam et al. 2010). McWilliam et al. (2010) estimated that approximately 20%–50% of the first 20 m of the edges of municipal forests in Ontario, Canada, were disturbed due to human encroach- ment. Although encroachment could yield a sig- nificant loss in benefits provided by these forests, McWilliam et al. (2010) did not provide data about magnitude of lost benefits, nor the costs of enforce- ment that could curb encroachment activities. Other types of care and maintenance The costs of other types of tree care are even less certain than the types of maintenance costs pre- viously examined: nursery management (Tate 1984a); use of growth control chemicals (Carvell 1975; Olenick 1977; Domir 1978; Domir and Roberts 1983; Holewinski and Johnson 1983); topping (Carvell 1978; Karlovich et al. 2000); root pruning (Gilman 1990; Achinelli et al. 1997); 313 applying herbicides to control weeds (Smith 1975); general grass and turf management (Dawson et al. 2001); tree site (Berrang et al. 1985) or spe- cies (Miller and Miller 1991) selection; wrapping trees (intended to prevent frost crack, Hart and Dennis 1978; Hvass 1985); compaction and other soil remediation efforts (Day et al. 1995); manag- ing woodlots or patches of forest in urban areas (e.g., Tyrvainen et al. 2003); and inventorying or monitoring trees to determine maintenance needs (e.g., Tate 1985; Sreetheran et al. 2011). This lit- erature review did not find literature on the costs of not performing these types of maintenance. Tree Appraisal and Valuation Tree appraisal and valuation efforts are not a type of maintenance per se (although the de facto monitoring of trees that occurs during on-site ap- praisal is certainly connected to tree maintenance efforts in the most holistic of tree management situations). However, tree appraisal and valua- tion is intimately connected to assessing the costs of maintenance and the value lost or benefits forgone due to inadequate maintenance of If a lack of adequate maintenance results in the trees. complete loss of the tree, appraisal value is one measure of the cost of not maintaining the tree. Many authors have examined tree appraisal and valuation, or methods of attributing value to a land- scape tree. Methods include expert appraisal value (e.g., Mayne 1978; Chadwick 1980; Watson 2002; Ponce-Donoso et al. 2009), replacement cost (cost of replacing the tree with one of similar size and spe- cies, e.g., Felix 1978; Mayne 1978), amenity value (property value change due to addition or removal of the tree, e.g., Mayne 1978; Morales et al. 1983; Tyrvainen 1997; Ishikawa and Fukushige 2012), current value (value of the benefits produced annu- ally, e.g., Brown and Boogaerdt 2006), stated prefer- ence approach (willingness-to-pay for a preserved tree, e.g., Notaro and De Salvo 2010), and various accounting methods (that take into account dis- counting streams of benefits to their present value, e.g., McPherson 1992; Brown and Boogaerdt 2006; Peterson and Straka 2011), among other methods. Different methods of appraisal can attribute dra- matically different values to the same trees (Watson 2002; Price 2003; Ponce-Donoso et al. 2009), and all methods have at least some limitations (Price 2003). ©2015 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2015
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
