Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 42(1): January 2016 different life expectancies, but life expectancy is a blunt instrument to use because of the large variation even among individuals of the same species. In extreme cases, the difference between individuals can be more than 100 years. Tree age is therefore problematic to introduce into some type of economic depreciation, which is really only intended to comply with any other objective change that the courts are accustomed to value, such as material goods or similar, compara- tively short-lived objects. Tree age is important, of course, but in the LITA model it is instead reflected in the damage and vitality parameters. When a tree is reaching the end of its life, it is likely to have damage, or at least diminishing vitality, thus reducing its value. Conversely, if the tree does not have damage or loss of vitality, there is nothing to show that it is nearing the end of its life. For this reason, there is no estimate of tree age in the LITA model, and by omitting a spe- cific tree age factor, the model remains simple. Some models use soſt values (e.g., aesthetic, architectonic, and recreational values) that increase or decrease the value of the tree (Randrup 2005). Studies have also shown that citizens’ willingness- to-pay and their attachment to urban trees are con- nected with the aesthetic attributes of these trees (Zhang and Zheng 2011). It might therefore seem surprising that no adjustment is made for these soſt values in the LITA model. These values are important to take into consideration when a city council is choosing (e.g., which trees should be saved in a development context) and when pro- moting urban trees to the public. However, inclu- sion of aesthetic and architectural parameters in all economic models raises two questions that are difficult to answer, namely: 1) To whom is the tree aesthetically and architecturally beautiful? and 2) Who should judge whether this is the right opin- ion? These two questions are crucial in aesthetic and architectural valuation, which can cause problems. Courts can perceive these values differ- ently, even in the same case in different instances, as seen in court cases in Sweden [e.g., Bergin v Geisel (2009) and Bergin v Geisel (2010)], where the District Court and Court of Appeals reached different conclusions on the aesthetic values of the same trees). Sometimes the path chosen is to disregard these values because of the problems in 27 judging them neutrally [e.g., Pohland v Värnamo municipality (2012)], where the court chose to dis- regard the aesthetic value). However, the aesthetic, cultural, and location characteristics of a tree are important in the sense that the courts use these to demonstrate that the trees are not commercial forest and to determine the compensation to be paid [e.g., Pohland v Värnamo municipality (2012), where the aesthetic value was used to determine whether the trees were commercial forest or not]. Planting Costs When it comes to calculating the costs of plant- ing a tree, there are many factors to consider: • • the number of trees to be planted or managed the specific requirements of the planting site (e.g., the size of the planting bed, the number of layers in the structure, and the paving type, such as concrete or asphalt) • odd and difficult placements, which can radically affect, for example, the costs of con- struction and transportation to the site • the cost of caring for replacement trees dur- ing the initial years of their life The list of special conditions is almost lim- itless, but the general assumption was that it is not reasonable to create a model that calculates an exact cost for the planting and maintenance of replacement trees for every conceivable sce- nario. Obtaining a standard planting cost per cm2 for a tree requires a simplified model, which in turn leads to a classic dilemma—the model should reflect reality in a reasonable way, but should not be linked too precisely to tree replace- ment in the individual case. The LITA model is therefore a compromise that allows the planting costs to be included when calculating a replace- ment cost for urban trees. If a value is required for particularly demanding planting sites, or for sites regarded as more labor demanding, then a case-specific estimate must be made. For common planting conditions, the cost per tree increases step-wise (Figure 3). This is especially noticeable for large trees. Nonetheless, a linear func- tion captures most of the behavior in the costs for street planting and park planting (R2 = 0.804 and 0.810, respectively). These two cases are very similar, how- ever, so the combined mean is used in the LITA model. ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture
January 2016
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
