Journal of Arboriculture 31(4): July 2005 157 TREE APPRAISAL: CHRONOLOGY OF NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY GUIDANCE By Scott Cullen Abstract. Various individual tree appraisal methods emerged during the first half of the 20th century. Development of North American industry consensus methods was undertaken in 1947. These methods have been refined and elaborated, and additional guidance has been provided in subsequent revisions. Appraisers and appraisal users, however, are not always aware of the most current methods and guidance and may, unknowingly, rely on outdated versions. The purpose of this paper is to provide an accurate and quick reference to the chronology of North American industry- wide consensus methods and guidance for tree and plant appraisal. The differences among methods, guidance, and standards are also explained. Key Words. Appraisal; appraisal guides; tree appraisal; valuation. version of the primary guidance since 1975 has explicitly been titled “guide.” This has been reinforced by commenta- tors. Tate (1989), for example, noted that “the guide is a guide, no more, no less.” Similar statements are found in the guidance itself (CTLA 1992, p. vi; CTLA 2000a, p. xiv). Need and Purpose INTRODUCTION Background It is often necessary in arboriculture and urban forestry to appraise, that is to place a monetary value on, trees or other plants. Various methods have been developed in North America and elsewhere (see, for example, Watson 2002). Tree and plant appraisers can be arborists, foresters, horticulturists, landscape architects, nurserymen, or other professionals (Abbott 1976; Flook 1996, p. 53; Standards Australia 1999, §1.2; CTLA 2000a, p. 115). In fact, plant appraisers are qualified by various combinations of educa- tion, training, knowledge, skill, experience, and judgment (CTLA 2000a, p. 115) rather than any particular back- ground or affiliation. These appraisers are often called “experts,” and the methods they use are often called “expert methods” (e.g., Lorenzo et al. 2003; Price 2003). They are considered “experts” when they provide opinions in court proceedings (e.g., GPO 2004; DCA 2005). Tree and plant appraisers are unlikely to have a formal background in appraisal or valuation and, in any case, rely on published methods, guidance or standards. Methods and associated guidance, based on industry consensus, have been widely used in North America over the years. They have often been considered the “generally accepted” guidance, a term of art describing the “Frye” test of the admissibility of scientific or technical evidence by “experts” in many U.S. courts (see, for example, Berger 2000). They are sometimes described as “standard,” but in fact have never been promulgated as standards. As shown in Table 2 later in this paper, each The courts, the insurance industry, regulatory agencies, resource managers, and other decision makers rely on appraisals and accept the representations of tree and plant appraisers in good faith. Some “expert” appraisers, however, are not aware of the most current methods and guidance and unknowingly use outdated versions. Available, third- party guidance may refer readers to outdated versions or describe outdated methods (e.g., Kuhns 2003; van der Hoeven, no date). If an older version is represented as “current,” either explicitly or implicitly, when in fact it is not, the appraisal results may be misleading or inaccurate. This is especially true if the outdated guidance includes outdated cost data. Outdated versions are also likely to fail a “general acceptance” test. Professional appraisers have a duty to present appraisals in a manner that is not misleading (RICS 2003; IVSC 2005; Appraisal Institute of Canada 2005; Appraisal Standards Board 2005). Members of the American Society of Consulting Arborists have a duty to use “adequate and appropriate” methodology (ASCA 1996, §4.1(C)). ISA Board-Certified Master Arborists have a duty to work in an “accurate … and complete manner” (ISA 2004, §I(C)(4)). Similar duties may be imposed by other professional organizations. Tree and plant appraisers should be alert to publication of new versions. This should be inherent in maintaining current appraisal compe- tence (CTLA 2000a, p 115). The principal purpose of this paper is to provide both appraisers and appraisal users with an accurate, complete, and quick reference to the chronology of North American industry consensus guidance (including methods) and supplemental guidance on tree and plant appraisal. This chronology is presented later in this paper in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The scope of this paper is industry-wide guidance and does not extend to regional guidance. The older entries in Table 2 will be of more historical than practical concern. A secondary purpose of this paper is to document this history, which may provide useful insights ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture
|
Item Number:
|
|
|
Product Description:
|
|
|
|
|
Price:
|
|
|
Item Count:
|
|
July 2005
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
AI Assistant
Ask anything about this document
AI is thinking…
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
Enter a description for this bookmark
Your form submission was a success.
This process might take longer please wait
