Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 43(2): March 2017 Table 2 shows the results of the average val- ues for each of RESULTS the analyzed formulas. Ac- cording to the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis, the results show statistically signifi- cant differences between the median ranking in all sources of variation. In the formulas, the value was 1,235.23 (P ≤ 0.00); 4.30 was ob- tained between type of appraisers (P ≤ 0.04), and 14.97 between all appraisers (P ≤ 0.04). Researchers also identified distinct homo- geneous groups of formulas and appraisers 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 method method 160.9 214.5 243.4 196.0 106.1 176.2 167.7 340.3 205.8 351.8 163.5 316.1 French 184.9 204.5 361.4 233.6 51.0 157.3 183.5 977.4 80.4 381.0 271.9 635.1 1,011.9 210.1 86.9 367.7 206.6 501.6 123.0 101.9 311.2 531.7 120.8 389.9 363.0 444.4 189.4 128.8 281.9 59.1 2,503.4 68.2 98.7 1,095.2 229.9 1,449.5 30.9 40.1 622.6 1,190.9 80.0 802.1 777.0 1,656.3 313.4 295.3 530.0 160.8 CTLA 234.3 130.0 320.5 301.4 39.0 250.6 284.7 1,514.9 48.6 739.4 307.4 307.4 12,415.1 69.4 70.5 2,965.1 424.9 4,580.5 26.5 447.4 754.3 2,996.9 141.2 2,281.2 1,208.7 2,805.1 374.8 363.4 913.2 127.0 Swiss method method 266.4 481.8 644.4 503.8 90.9 389.9 430.9 1,168.3 219.0 985.1 382.9 1,046.9 4,643.6 206.0 172.5 1,097.7 580.5 2,294.5 65.5 525.6 795.2 3,102.6 220.1 1,068.6 1,154.8 2,693.8 740.8 661.4 919.0 170.1 479.9 479.9 639.9 319.9 479.9 799.9 1,199.7 144.0 559.9 383.9 399.9 1,775.6 111.9 399.9 959.9 447.9 1,599.6 191.9 511.9 959.9 719.9 719.9 1,151.8 639.9 1,279.7 559.9 320.0 1,039.7 400.0 Peñalolén 479.9 Italian method 445.7 558.6 777.9 579.5 141.3 506.1 515.6 77 as determined by the LSD test (Table 3). The formula conform nine groups overall, indi- cating heterogeneous and dispersed values according to the ranking, while there were two different groups for appraiser. When ana- lyzing according to appraiser, three distinct groups were found, confirming that experience is indeed a source of differentiation (Table 3). The median and the degree of dispersion of the ranking system for all formulas, experi- ence of appraisers, and according to individual appraiser, are shown in Figure 1. Trends are Table 2. Valuation results using 12 different urban tree appraisal formulas in central Chile (average in $USD). Tree Danish 1 COPIMA Norma 439.0 685.1 657.1 874.5 305.3 619.7 543.4 1,687.8 217.1 1,125.1 731.9 1,367.7 5,271.4 217.1 306.1 2,665.8 645.1 2,745.2 88.7 758.7 1,415.1 3,473.5 253.8 1,576.1 1,329.1 3,124.5 831.6 652.1 1,017.3 316.5 1,765.5 234.2 2,459.7 752.3 1,221.2 5,931.4 301.6 568.4 2,643.4 688.4 4,107.7 116.4 827.9 1,336.9 3,405.3 436.1 1,574.3 1,114.3 2,885.1 815.6 915.8 1,203.8 615.2 Granada method method 3,257.8 613.6 1,661.4 1,052.9 225.7 981.7 1,043.0 3,643.2 346.8 1,307.8 1,753.5 2,494.0 36,656.1 363.5 610.1 26,613.0 2,938.8 12,131.3 257.7 2,134.5 5,006.2 11,845.7 578.2 7,323.4 5,276.0 13,641.4 3,889.5 2,437.7 4,329.6 766.4 2,028.2 2,802.2 2,167.4 262.7 1,415.5 1,626.5 6,220.1 324.4 3,391.6 1,681.0 7,561.6 39,878.2 264.4 629.5 19,947.3 2,305.5 16,144.5 149.6 1,279.5 4,889.7 13,575.8 1,005.2 8,843.0 8,551.7 20,185.8 2,156.0 2,063.4 4,570.1 567.1 Tedesco Helliwell 1,078.1 2,554.5 4,057.3 4,282.7 9,128.8 3,806.9 6,987.5 4,032.2 6,480.4 8,790.8 3,731.7 3,418.6 35,839.4 40,347.4 6,593.1 1,540.3 5,810.4 10,143.2 25,044.9 2,028.7 1,051.9 9,091.3 10,030.5 8,809.6 12,021.6 22,640.6 17,731.8 3,043.0 1,402.5 15,327.5 291.2 STEM 1,871.8 4,334.5 3,395.3 3,196.5 1,998.6 4,100.8 2,223.0 4,044.3 5,000.3 9,002.2 2,075.6 2,481.2 10,508.3 5,595.8 2,678.3 6,370.4 2,295.2 5,897.5 2,697.5 2,503.4 6,964.7 6,414.5 2,152.7 3,298.8 2,845.8 5,238.7 2,425.5 2,902.2 2,163.8 2,042.5 Burnley method 1,905.8 8,360.1 4,940.1 4,479.5 2,983.4 6,912.7 3,324.7 4,028.2 11,339.1 11,957.7 1,762.3 2,017.1 5,024.7 12,967.4 1,305.7 3,770.6 4,116.0 1,509.2 4,864.0 1,932.6 7,954.8 7,944.0 2,685.1 2,429.7 2,756.9 3,812.1 2,014.8 2,599.4 2,184.0 2,126.4 Table 3. Least significance difference (LSD) test results for groups of analyzed urban tree appraisal formulas, appraiser experience, and between appraisers in central Chile. Formula Danish method French method CTLA Swiss method Peñalolén method Italian method COPIMA Tedesco method Norma Granada Burnley method Helliwell method STEM Average ranking 537.2 809.1 977.8 1,076.3 1,095.4 1,298.0 1,382.1 1,752.2 1,892.4 2,086.5 2,106.4 2,272.6 Homogenous groups A B C C D D E E F G H H I ©2017 International Society of Arboriculture Appraiser group Senior Junior Average ranking 1,408.4 1,472.6 Homogenous groups J K Appraiser Appraiser S2 Appraiser S1 Appraiser J1 Appraiser S3 Appraiser J2 Appraiser J3 Appraiser J4 Appraiser S4 Average Homogenous ranking 1,340.5 1,360.1 groups L L M 1,419.8 L M N 1,429.1 L M N 1,476.2 1,493.3 1,501.1 1,503.8 M N N N N
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
