Summary of Tree Valuation Based on CTLA Approach

Transcription

1 Summary of Tree Valuation Based on CTLA Approach Trees in cities and communities have mainly been planted for beauty and to provide shade. Lately, many other values, such as environmental and economic benefits have been recognized. The less tangible aesthetic value of trees and the value they add to the property are realized mostly by the owners. The aesthetic value of trees is very subjective and difficult to measure. However, the economic value of trees can be estimated by their impact on property value. Research shows that the value trees add to a particular property ranges from 15 % to 25 % of the total value. Approximately 15% of the house and lot price (CLTA 1992) may be related to tree value. Petit et al. (1995) quote developers who estimate that the amount could be between 20% and 30%. Each tree and shrub has a monetary value that represents its replacement cost. A number of different formulae can be used to calculate the appraised value of a tree. In this report, the estimated value of trees is determined using an approach by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA1992). This procedure calculates a value based on crosssectional area at DBH. This value is calculated using the current value of trees available for transplanting. This basic price is then adjusted for species, tree condition and location. It should be noted that the objective for this report is to determine a conservative value based on average conditions. The approach applied here may overestimate some trees, but will also underestimate others. It will, nonetheless, yield a credible value for all the trees in the community, or for a group of trees, but should not be used for individual tree valuation. It should be noted that the objective for this report was to determine a conservative value based on average conditions. The approach applied here, may over-estimate some trees but will also under-estimate others. It will yield a credible value for all the trees in the community, or for a group of trees but should not be used for individual trees valuation. 17-Jan-03 E - 1

2 Tree Value Based on CTLA Approach The value of trees by ownership in the community is shown in Figure 24. The value of community trees summarized by ownership is shown in Table 7. Figure 25 shows the value of community trees by street. Figure 25. Tree value based on CTLA by the ownership Privately owned 38% City owned 23% Ownership not available 8% Joint ownership 31% Table - 7. Tree Value based on CTLA approach on public and private land Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees City owned Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd $1, % $4, % $34, % $6, % $4, % $18, % $124, % $86, % E - 2

3 Table - 7. Tree Value based on CTLA approach on public and private land Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Sumach St City owned $36, % $36, % $352, % Joint ownership Joint ownership $1, % $14, % $16, % Ownership not available Rivercourt Blvd Ownership not available $ % $ % Privately owned Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St Privately owned Total Value of of All Trees: $1, % $ % $34, % $34, % $30, % $22, % $89, % $102, % $62, % $86, % $465, % $834, E - 3

4 Tree Value Based on CTLA Approach on Private Land Table - 7a. Tree Value based on CTLA approach on private land Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of PrivateTrees Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St Privately owned Total Value of of All Trees: $1, % $ % $34, % $34, % $30, % $22, % $89, % $102, % $62, % $86, % $465, % $465, E - 4

5 Tree Value Based on CTLA Approach - City and Jointly Owned Trees Table - 7b. Tree Value based on CTLA approach for city and jointly owned trees Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of Public/Joint Trees Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St City owned Joint ownership Total Value of of All Trees: $1, % $4, % $34, % $6, % $4, % $18, % $124, % $86, % $36, % $36, % $352, % $1, % $14, % $16, % $368, E - 5

6 Value of Community Trees by Streets Based on CTLA Approach Figure Value of trees summarized by streets (more than $ ) $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Hogarth Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St E - 6

7 Value of Trees by Diameter Classes Based on CTLA Approach The value of a single tree is related to its size, condition, location and species rating. A few trees left on a lot that is being developed may add thousands of dollars to the site's property value. Furthermore, a healthy tree in an urban area may be worth twenty-five times its rural counterpart (Moll 1989). The value of trees, by diameter class, is shown in Figure 26.The cumulative values of all species represented in the community have been estimated based on the CTLA approach, and shown in Table 8. The ten species with maximum cumulative values are shown in Figure 27.Similarly, values of all genera represented in the community are shown in Figure 28 and Table 9. Figure Value of trees in each diameter class based on CTLA approach $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $ E - 7 Diameter classes cm cm cm cm cm 6- >76.6cm

8 Value of Species Based on CTLA Approach (sorted by species) Figure Top ten species values based on CTLA approach $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 American Elm Black Locust Common Horsechestnut Norway Maple Norway Spruce Siberian Elm Silver Maple Tree of Heaven White Mulberry White Oak Table - 8. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by species Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Alder Buckthorn American Beech American Elm Apple/Crabapple sp. Austrian Pine Basswood Black Locust Black Walnut Blue Beech Cherry (Fruit) Choke Cherry Colorado Spruce Common Horsechestnut Crack Willow Eastern White-Cedar English Oak European Beech $ % $5, % $14, % $2, % $5, % $9, % $21, % $14, % $1, % $3, % $ % $13, % $14, % $4, % $11, % $1, % $7, % E - 8

9 Table - 8. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by species Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees European Hornbeam Ginkgo Gray Birch Honey Locust Japanese Maple Little-Leaf Linden London Plane Manitoba Maple Northern Catalpa Norway Maple Norway Spruce Paper Birch Red Maple Red Oak Red Pine Red/Green Ash Scot's Pine Showy Mountain-ash Siberian Elm Silver Maple Sugar Maple Tree of Heaven Upright Japanese Yew White Mulberry White Oak White Pine White Spruce Total Value of Trees: $ % $2, % $1, % $9, % $2, % $8, % $2, % $14, % $10, % $383, % $15, % $12, % $1, % $8, % $5, % $14, % $1, % $6, % $15, % $113, % $3, % $14, % $ % $21, % $15, % $8, % $8, % $834, E - 9

10 Value of Species Based on CTLA Approach (sorted by value) Table - 8a. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by value Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Norway Maple $383, % Silver Maple $113, % White Mulberry $21, % Black Locust $21, % White Oak $15, % Norway Spruce $15, % Siberian Elm $15, % Common Horsechestnut $14, % American Elm $14, % Tree of Heaven $14, % Red/Green Ash $14, % Manitoba Maple $14, % Black Walnut $14, % Colorado Spruce $13, % Paper Birch $12, % Eastern White-Cedar $11, % Northern Catalpa $10, % Basswood $9, % Honey Locust $9, % Little-Leaf Linden $8, % White Spruce $8, % White Pine $8, % Red Oak $8, % European Beech $7, % Showy Mountain-ash $6, % Austrian Pine $5, % Red Pine $5, % American Beech $5, % Crack Willow $4, % Sugar Maple $3, % Cherry (Fruit) $3, % Apple/Crabapple sp. $2, % Japanese Maple $2, % E - 10

11 Table - 8a. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by value Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees London Plane $2, % Ginkgo $2, % English Oak $1, % Gray Birch $1, % Blue Beech $1, % Red Maple $1, % Scot's Pine $1, % Upright Japanese Yew $ % Choke Cherry $ % European Hornbeam $ % Alder Buckthorn $ % Total Value of Trees: $834, E - 11

12 Value of Genera Based on CTLA Approach Figure Value of genera based on CTLA approach Apple/Crabapple Ash Beech Birch Black Locust Buckeye/Horsechestnut Buckthorn Catalpa Cedar (Thuja) Cherry/Plum Elm Ginkgo Honey Locust Ironwood-Hornbeam Linden-Basswood Maple Mountin Ash/Whitebeam Mulberry Oak Pine Plane-Sycamore Spruce Tree of Heaven Walnut/Butternut Willow Yew Table - 9. Genera value based on CTLA Approach Genus Genera Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Apple/Craba Ash Beech $2, % $14, % $12, % E - 12

13 Table - 9. Genera value based on CTLA Approach Genus Genera Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Birch Black Locust Buckeye/Hor Buckthorn Catalpa Cedar (Thuja Cherry/Plum Elm Ginkgo Honey Locust Ironwood-Ho Linden-Bass Maple Mountin Ash/ Mulberry Oak Pine Plane-Sycam Spruce Tree of Heav Walnut/Butte Willow Yew Total Value: $14, % $21, % $14, % $ % $10, % $11, % $4, % $30, % $2, % $9, % $1, % $18, % $519, % $6, % $21, % $25, % $20, % $2, % $37, % $14, % $14, % $4, % $ % $834, E - 13