Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Plant Material Evaluation

Gordon S. King
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) April 1977, 3 (4) 61-64; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1977.017
Gordon S. King
Department of University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

General observations

There are at least seven basic ways to place a dollar value on plant material. No one way is ideal for all cases. Some of the methods used in the past are being changed or have been changed within the last year. Very often the many conditions under which the damage occurred will determine the method to be used and in some cases, several methods may be used.

Why evaluate

  1. Settlement for damage to plant material—in court or out of court.

  2. Income tax deduction.

  3. Appraisal of the value of plant material for real estate purposes, etc.

Methods of evaluating

  1. Board Foot or Cordwood Value.

    This method is used under forest conditions or to force a lower settlement when a higher value is reached by some other method. If trees are cut for lumber, cordwood, or for other forest products on land that is trespassed, then the value of the forest product and the amount is used.

    Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

    It is often best to have an extension or consulting forester help in deriving the amount.

  2. Capital Gain.

    This method is seldom used today but is mentioned in some texts. If the cost of planting a 2½ inch tree were deposited in a bank, and the interest computed for a number of years the tree is old; and if an estimated yearly maintenance cost were also deposited, and the accrued interest estimated; a figure could be reached.

    Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

    Rather than figure this out yourself, call a bank and ask the final value of say, $50.00 left in their bank for 100 years, plus say, $3.00 deposited yearly for 100 years.

  3. Replacement

    This method is most commonly used and best understood by the public because it is a method used for settlements in other matters.

    It may be divided into several areas:

    1. Replace the same number and size of plants. This is usually used on small trees, shrubs, or turf. For trees over 18 inches in diameter, this may be impractical.

    2. Replace a large tree with several small trees which may equal the total diameter of the large tree.

    3. Replace a large tree with a smaller tree plus a cash settlement.

    Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

  4. Income Tax Deduction—Federal

    This is sometimes called real estate value and is presently under considerable criticism and review because it is determined primarily by real estate appraisers. Supply and demand of real estate in the area at that particular time may affect the value.

    The Internal Revenue Service holds that the allowable deduction is the difference in the market value of the property as a whole immediately before and after the tree loss has occurred, as determined by a competent real estate appraiser.

    There are cases where other methods of determining the value of plants have been used, and permitted by the IRS, especially where the demand far exceeded the supply of real estate.

    Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  5. Square Inch Method, Felt-Spicer Method This is based on the number of square inches in cross-section at dbh, computed at $10.00 per square inch; species, physical condition, and aesthetic value being considered.

    This method is used quite commonly on specimen trees in the urban and suburban areas, and is recommended for trees over 12 inches in diamter.

    To obtain a clear and complete understanding of this method, a booklet, A Guide to Professional Evaluation of Landscape Trees, Specimen Shrubs, and Evergreens, is available from the International Society of Arboriculture, P.O. Box 71, 5 Lincoln Square, Urbana, Illinois 61801.

    Cost to members of the ISA is $5.00. To nonmembers the cost is $25.00.

    Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  6. Crop Value Lost

    This method is used where the plants have a crop value, such as fruit trees, berry bushes, Christmas trees, etc. Multiply the crop value per year by the years of remaining life expectancy of the plants. The life expectancy figure may be cut if the replacement cost of the destroyed plants is considered.

    It is desirable, if not a must, to consult an extension pomology specialist in the particular area.

    Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  7. The British Arboricultural Association Method

    A point system is used to evaluate these factors:

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup

Points for each evaluation are multiplied and the final figure is in British pounds. The conversion then may be made to other currencies.

Conclusions

Listen

There are various ways to place a value on plant material and probably the list here is not complete. Good judgment through experience is important in selecting the method to use, for no one method can be used under every condition. Always charge for your services in evaluating the plant material on a fee basis and not on a percent of the evaluation. A percentage fee may influence the method used and judgment beyond justification.

  • © 1977, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

References

Listen
    1. Abbott, R.E.
    1976. Arboricultural and horticultural appraisal. The Arboriculturist 1(3): 1-9.
    OpenUrl
    1. Allison, J.R.
    1974. Costs and expected returns from pecan groves. Department of Agricultural Economics, Georgia Station, Experiment, Georgia, Research Bulletin 151.
    1. Anonymous
    . 1975. A guide to the professional evaluation of landscape trees, specimen shrubs, and evergreens. International Society of Arboriculture.
    1. Anonymous
    . 1976. Tree evaluation for tax purposes. Shade Tree Digest. January.
    1. Armstrong, N.
    1947. Shade tree evaluation formulas and their use. Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 23: 38-48.
    1. Baer, W.C. and
    2. P. Gordon
    . 1972. Tree planting reconsidered: an argument for big transplants. Landscape Architecture 3: 236-239.
    OpenUrl
    1. Baldwin, V.
    1958. Should trees be planted in business areas? Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 34: 239-243.
    OpenUrl
    1. Bingham, C.
    1968. Tree preservation and protection on private property. Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 44: 234-246.
    1. Blettner, R.
    1969. Mass appraisals vis multiple regression analysis. The Appraisal Journal 37(4): 513-521.
    OpenUrl
    1. Brigham, E.
    1965. The determination of residential land value. Land Economics 41(4): 325-334.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Brooke, D.L.
    1974. Citrus production costs and returns in Florida, season 1972-73 with comparisons. University of Florida, Economics Report 67.
    1. Bylund, B.
    1965. Homeowners characteristics affecting their landscape planting. Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 719. April.
    1. Connell, E.A.
    1930. Five billion dollars worth of street trees. The American City. p. 143. January.
    1. Coughlin, R. and
    2. J. Fritz
    . 1971. Land values and environmental characteristics in the rural-urban fringe. RSRI Discussion Paper Series 45, p. 1-36.
    1. Dilmore, G.
    1974. Appraising houses. The Real Estate Appraiser 40(4): 42.
    OpenUrl
    1. Dressel, K.
    1973. Street and park tree evaluation. Midwestern Shade Tree Conference 18: 105-112.
    OpenUrl
    1. Eldin, H.
    1963. Amenity values in British forestry. Forestry 36: 65-89.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Felt, E.P.
    1930. How a tree may be valued. The American City, p. 102. March.
    1. Forest Industries Committee on Timber Valuation and Taxation
    . 1967. Timber Tax Journal 3(1): 951 pp.
    OpenUrl
    1. Foster, C.
    1965. Forestry in megalopolis. Proceedings of Society of American Foresters 1965: 65-67.
    OpenUrl
    1. Friedman, E
    . 1960. Encyclopedia of real estate appraising. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall.
    1. Gould, E
    . 1971. Values, trees, and the urban realm. Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing Environment, Amherst, Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service, pp. 79-90.
    1. Guinan, D
    . 1966. We duck the Dutch elm disaster. The American City p. 102-103. March.
    1. Hafstad, G
    . 1964. Realistic evaluation of shade trees. Proc. Midwestern Shade Tree Conference 19: 77-81.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hammer, T.,
    2. E. Horn, and
    3. R. Coughlin
    . 1971. The effect of a large urban park on real estate value. RSRI Discussion Paper Series 51: 1-32. September.
    1. Hatcher, O
    . 1965. Scope of shade tree care in Region 5 of the International Shade Tree Conference. Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 41: 114-119.
    1. Horticultural Research Institute, Inc
    . 1965. Marketing of ornamental nursery stock. American Association of Nurserymen, Inc. 5 p.
    1. Internal Revenue Service
    . 1971. Condemnations of private property for public use. Publ. 549(10-70). 19 p.
    OpenUrl
    1. Internal Revenue Service
    . 1970. Tax information on diseases, casualty losses and thefts. Publ. 547(10-70). 19 p.
    OpenUrl
    1. International Shade Tree Conference, Inc
    . 1970. Shade tree evaluation. Urbana, Illinois, p. 6-9.
    1. Jacobs, P. and
    2. D. Way
    . 1969. How much development can landscapes absorb? Landscape Architecture. 59: 296-298.
    OpenUrl
    1. Johnson, I
    . 1956. Planning and implementing a municipal street tree program. Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 32: 219-229.
    OpenUrl
    1. Kaiser, E
    . 1970. Natural landscape and housing location decisions. Landscape Architecture 60: 105-107.
    OpenUrl
    1. Kenney, K
    . 1964. Locational decisions of residential land development and building firms in Greensboro urban area. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, p. 4-8.
    1. Kielbaso, J.J.
    1971. Economic value of trees in the urban locale. Symposium on the Role of Trees in the Souths Urban Environment, University of Georgia, p. 82-94.
    1. Kielbaso, J.J.
    1975. Economic values of trees in the urban locale. Trees Magazine 34(1): 9-13.
    OpenUrl
    1. Lansing, J. and
    2. R.W. Marans
    . 1969. Evaluation of neighborhood quality. American Institute of Planners Journal 35: 195-199.
    OpenUrl
    1. Lehman, H.O.
    1959. The effect of trees and planting on property values. Appraisal and Valuation Manual 4: 173-176.
    OpenUrl
    1. Lessinger, J
    . 1969. Econometrics and appraisal. The Appraisal Journal 37(4): 501-502.
    OpenUrl
    1. McMichael, S.L.
    1956. McMichaels Appraising Manual. 4th edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. p. 383-393.
    1. McNable, H
    . 1968. Determining the value of shade trees effect on the economy. Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 44: 224-232.
    1. Morse, H
    . 1961. Branches of the law. Trees Magazine 21(4): 5.
    1. Munger, J.A.
    1964. Components of rural land values in northern Wisconsin. Land Economics 40(1): 87-91.
    OpenUrl
    1. Niles, J.A. and
    2. C.L. Anderson
    . 1973. Economic strategy for rehabilitating, selling or abandoning a ‘Valencia’ grove under varying situations. Proc. Florida State Horticulture Society 86: 75-79.
    OpenUrl
    1. National Association of Homebuildings
    . 1958. Home Builders Manual, Washington, D.C. p. 198.
    1. Paige, R.E.
    1964. 20,000 money trees in the streets. Landscape Architecture 55: 68.
    OpenUrl
    1. Payne, B.R.
    1973. The twenty-nine tree home improvement plan. Natural History 82(9): 74-75.
    OpenUrl
    1. Peters, L.C.
    1971. Shade and ornamental tree evaluation. Journal of Forestry. July.
    1. Pirone, P.P.
    1972. Tree Maintenance. 4th edition. Oxford University Press, New York. p. 3-13.
    1. Purcell, C.R.
    1956. The realty value of trees. Proc. National Shade Tree Conference 32: 128-136.
    1. Rabinowitz, C. and
    2. R. Coughlin
    . 1970. Analysis of landscape characteristic relevant to preference. RSRI Discussion Paper Series No. 38: 1-89. March.
    1. Rabinowitz, C. and
    2. R. Coughlin
    . 1971. Some experiments in quantitative measurement of landscape quality. RSRI Discussion Paper Series No. 43: 1-57. March.
    1. Savage, Z
    . 1966. Citrus yield per tree by age. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Florida, Economics Series 66:3.
    OpenUrl
    1. Schiff, C
    . 1969. What is happening in municipal arboriculture in New York? Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 45: 121-127.
    1. Shelger, K
    . 1957. Techniques of analyzing residential areas. The Appraisal Journal 25: 566-574.
    OpenUrl
    1. Simoneau, E.T.
    1961. Legal aspects of shade trees. New York State Arborists Association Shade Tree Notes Supplement 1.
    1. Smith, F
    . 1971. Trees and the urban ecology. Symposium on the role of trees in the souths urban environment. University of Georgia, p. 1-5.
    1. Tilford, P
    . 1957. How many street trees? Trees Magazine 17(5): 24.
    OpenUrl
    1. Waller, J
    . 1965. Cooperative enterprises—activities of civic groups, organizations and individuals in beautification programs. Proc. International Shade Tree Conference 41:195-201.
    1. Waters, W. and
    2. R. Brandt
    . 1970. Trees for people—or pests? American Forests 76(9): 21-23.
    OpenUrl
    1. Wistrand, G.L. and
    2. A.B. Wooten
    . 1968. Use of the income approach for the appraisal of pecan orchards. Journal American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 32(2): 40-44.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 3, Issue 4
April 1977
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Plant Material Evaluation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Plant Material Evaluation
Gordon S. King
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Apr 1977, 3 (4) 61-64; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1977.017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Plant Material Evaluation
Gordon S. King
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Apr 1977, 3 (4) 61-64; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1977.017
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Conclusions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire