sheffield trees

[maria warwick]

.....Or having their tea !!

[WesD]

On 29/03/2018 at 17:22, Island Lescure said:

Extra perspective for people: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tree-value-missing-metric-built-environment-jeremy-barrell/

 

Interesting! How though do they put a value on of say 2.6mil on the chestnuts when really you could never get that money for them as an asset?

[Gary Prentice]

10 hours ago, WesD said:

Interesting! How though do they put a value on of say 2.6mil on the chestnuts when really you could never get that money for them as an asset?

The asset value isn’t timber value, it’s based on a lot of intransigent things like carbon sequestration, particulate filtering, flood water reduction, reduction of energy use in buildings (shade/reduction of wind speeds) etc

 

Im not sure what valuing system has been used, but I know that iTree valuations are altered dependent on where in the world it’s used. Somewhere like Texas, the reduction in temp. From canopy shading and the associated reduction of air conditioning use in shaded buildings creates a higher asset value than a similar tree in a more temperate city survey.

[Island Lescure]

 

19 hours ago, WesD said:

Interesting! How though do they put a value on of say 2.6mil on the chestnuts when really you could never get that money for them as an asset?

There are a few ways to evaluate the value of trees as Gary mentioned. Other formats to value trees, apart from i-Tree, are the Heliwell system and CAVAT. Looking for a link to a description of CAVAT brought up the CAVAT report on the Sheffield street trees mentioned in Jeremy Barrel's article. Its only 50 pages long ;-)

[Gary Prentice]

Playing devils advocate.....

 

The Cavat system has a couple of input values that require the surveyor to have a high level of arboricultural knowledge;

 

 Functional Value: This is a 2-part assessment, in which a professional arborist assesses the completeness and health of the crown against what would be expected of a perfectly grown tree with the measured trunk diameter. For this evaluation, an overall standard depreciation of 60% is proposed, based on previous surveys in Sheffield and elsewhere, as a conservative figure.

 

Adjusted Value: This is again a 2-part assessment, reflecting the positive and negative contributions arising from species characteristics as expressed in the location. Again, it is an assessment requiring detailed arboricultural expertise; therefore, a standard depreciation of 90% has been used, as a conservative depreciation under this heading

 

If I'm reading this right, the input figure have been adjusted based on previous surveys and due to lack of qualification of the surveyors? 

 

I'm probably being a bit pedantic, but if the point of a survey is to prove a point/bolster one side of an argument, shouldn't it be done accurately? 

 

Discuss 

[Paul Barton]

32 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Playing devils advocate.....

 

The Cavat system has a couple of input values that require the surveyor to have a high level of arboricultural knowledge;

 

 Functional Value: This is a 2-part assessment, in which a professional arborist assesses the completeness and health of the crown against what would be expected of a perfectly grown tree with the measured trunk diameter. For this evaluation, an overall standard depreciation of 60% is proposed, based on previous surveys in Sheffield and elsewhere, as a conservative figure.

 

Adjusted Value: This is again a 2-part assessment, reflecting the positive and negative contributions arising from species characteristics as expressed in the location. Again, it is an assessment requiring detailed arboricultural expertise; therefore, a standard depreciation of 90% has been used, as a conservative depreciation under this heading

 

If I'm reading this right, the input figure have been adjusted based on previous surveys and due to lack of qualification of the surveyors? 

 

 

Good point Gary, but I think he is saying that as the surveyors for this CAVAT report were non-arb trained volunteers, instead of expecting them to make a sound judgment he just applied standard depreciations.  It's quite a broad-brushed approach that obviously limits the confidence in the final valuations given.

 

However, as a starter for ten using a respected published method, it's not bad.

[sean]

A damning verdict on Sheffield's replacement tree plantings

 

https://savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/a-critique-of-ameys-replacement-trees/

Edited May 3, 2018 by sean

[David Humphries]

3 hours ago, sean said:

A damning verdict on Sheffield's replacement tree plantings

 

https://savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/a-critique-of-ameys-replacement-trees/

I certainly don't disagree with the highlighting of this particular aspect of the overall shoddy management of the 'street' tree stock in Sheffield, but.........there's absolutely nothing new or 'Amey' specific in that article that doesn't happen in each and every village, town and city across the whole urban treescape of the UK with regards to replacement planting.

[Tom Richards]

7 hours ago, David Humphries said:

I certainly don't disagree with the highlighting of this particular aspect of the overall shoddy management of the 'street' tree stock in Sheffield, but.........there's absolutely nothing new or 'Amey' specific in that article that doesn't happen in each and every village, town and city across the whole urban treescape of the UK with regards to replacement planting.

This is sadly true David but you would think given the hightend publicity that they would be making every effort to avoid this sort of exposure. Tree planting is a fairly easy job ( in my opinion ) but something that is rarely done properly especially when done on a large scale . It's definitely an area that we as arborists should improve on . 

[Khriss]

Def' Tom , its atrocious how a good tree from an expensive nursey ends up in the hands of some bods , provokes an exponential positive thermic response to my urinal volume  K