Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 43(2): March 2017 contexts (Dobbs et al. 2011; Roy et al. 2012; Haase et al. 2014; Escobedo et al. 2015). Likewise, avail- able formulas that allow for the monetary valua- tion of these urban forest ecosystem services are commonly used in methods and models such as i-Tree (i-Tree 2012) and CAVAT (Neilan 2010). However, these valuation formulas are based on different assumptions and approaches that vary by form, application, and in the final total monetary value of the tree (Randrup 2005). For example, some of these formulas are based on the cost of replacing a damaged or vandalized tree (i.e., replacement cost), and are adjusted accord- ing to commonly used factors, such as tree vitality, damage type, location, aesthetics, overall ameni- ties, age, and even provision of environmental services, which finally deliver a comparable mon- etary value (Moore and Arthur 1992; CTLA 2000; Helliwell 2008; Ponce-Donoso et al. 2013; Östberg and Sjögren 2016). Some of these formulas include the Trunk Formula Method from the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers of the United States (CTLA 2000), Burnley Method of Australia (Moore and Arthur 1992), Amenity of Trees and Woodland of the United Kingdom or Helliwell Method (Helliwell 2008), Norma Granada of Spanish Association of Parks and Public Gardens (AEPJP 2007), and the Standard Tree Evaluation Method (STEM) of New Zealand (Flook 1996). These various formulas will indeed have differ- ent levels of acceptance and validity even within their country of origin. The Helliwell Method, for example, is accepted and regularly used in the UK, as is the CTLA Method in the U.S. and Canada (Cullen 2005; Cullen 2007). But even within these countries their acceptance is not complete among all legal contexts and by individual tree appraisers because of the variability in the range of estimated values (Watson 2001; Watson 2002). Furthermore, since these formulas were developed for use in pri- marily temperate, industrialized, English-speaking countries, the factors used might not be relevant to different cultural, ecological, and socio-political contexts (i.e., tree forms and species from tropical environments, land-use definitions from emerging countries, culturally specific tree maintenance prac- tices, translation of English-language variables). Accordingly, several international studies have applied parametric and capitalization valuation 73 formulas in different contexts, such as Argentina (Contato-Carol et al. 2008), Brazil (Leal et al. 2008), Chile (Ponce-Donoso et al. 2012; Ponce-Donoso et al. 2013), Spain (Grande-Ortiz et al. 2012), the United States (Watson 2002), Finland (Tyrväinen 2001), Hungary (Hegedüs et al. 2011), as well as for applied extension education programs in these Eng- lish-speaking countries (Harris 2007; Sarajevs 2011). As such, these different formulas can be used for dif- ferent applications internationally, including dam- age assessments, legal claims or investment values, and replacement and damage costs, among others (Grande-Ortiz et al. 2012; Östberg and Sjögren 2016). However, the appraised values will be influenced by how, and the purposes for which the formulas are used. The STEM formula is commonly used in its existing form, while some formulas are derived from others—such as the CAVAT, which was derived from the Helliwell Method (Randrup 2005), and the French Method, which originates from the Swiss Method via an adaptation that accounts for main- tenance of ornamental species (Contato-Carol et al. 2008). Similarly, the CTLA Method has inspired the Danish Method (Randrup 2005). In South America, different appraisal methods are applied inconsis- tently, and as in other regions, their acceptance by local judges has been varied (Contato-Carol et al. 2008; Ponce-Donoso et al. 2009). As a result, there is a need to quantitatively evaluate these different valuation formulas and their parameters or vari- ables under different contexts for their use in urban forest management and legally related activities. Moreover, studies highlight the subjectivity of the appraisers when applying these formulas. The subjectivity of which results in high variability in values, in particular with the Helliwell Method, whereas with CTLA and Burnley Methods, values have been reported to be lower (Watson 2002). Ponce-Donoso et al. (2012) found high values for the STEM formula, average values for CTLA, and low values with the Burnley Method. Contato-Carol et al. (2008) noted that the Swiss and Finnish Meth- ods had higher values, while similar mid-range values were obtained with both the CTLA and French Methods, which are due to the inclusion of aesthetics and ornamental variables, as previ- ously mentioned; although, in larger specimens, the CTLA Method presented higher values than did the French Method. The commonly used CTLA ©2017 International Society of Arboriculture
March 2017
| 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
