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

Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada

Nicholas Ott, Amy Blood, Andrew Almas and Sara Barron
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 2025, 51 (4) 275-296; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2025.011
Nicholas Ott
Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Amy Blood
Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Almas
Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara Barron
Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2045–2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    Bank of Canada. [date unknown]. Inflation calculator. Ottawa (Canada): Bank of Canada. [Accessed 2024 June 20]. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator
  2. ↵
    1. Barrell J.
    2024. TreeAH: International tree assessment for heritage. In: 2024 Indian Amenity Tree Care Conference. Inaugural International Conference on Arboriculture; 2024 March 9–10; St. Andrews Auditorium, Mumbai, India.
  3. ↵
    1. Barron S,
    2. Sheppard S,
    3. Kozak R,
    4. Dunster K,
    5. Dave K,
    6. Sun D,
    7. Rayner J.
    2021. What do they like about trees? Adding local voices to urban forest design and planning. Trees, Forests and People. 5:100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100116
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Benson AR,
    2. Morgenroth J.
    2019. Root pruning negatively affects tree value: A comparison of tree appraisal methods. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 43:126376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126376
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    CAVAT. 2024. CAVAT Full method: A guide for practitioners. Version 1.1. London (United Kingdom): London Tree Officers Association. 74 p. https://www.ltoa.org.uk/documents-1/capital-asset-value-for-amenity-trees-cavat
  6. ↵
    1. Chen WY
    2015. Public willingness-to-pay for conserving urban heritage trees in Guangzhou, south China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 14(4):796–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.002
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    City of Sydney. 2023. Street tree master plan outcomes. Sydney (NSW, Australia): City of Sydney. [Updated 2023 July 7; Accessed 2024 June 19]. https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/strategies-action-plans/street-tree-master-plan#outcomes
  8. ↵
    Committee EV-018. 2018. AS 2303:2018—Australian standard: Tree stock for landscape use. Sydney (NSW, Australia): Standards Australia Limited. 7 p. https://www.standardsau.com/preview/AS%202303-2018.pdf
  9. ↵
    1. Conway TM,
    2. Yip V
    2016. Assessing residents’ reactions to urban forest disservices: A case study of a major storm event. Landscape and Urban Planning. 153:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Croft A.
    2013. Ancient and other veteran trees: Further guidance on management. Arboricultural Journal. 35(2):110–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2013.823318
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    CTLA (Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers). 2020. Guide for plant appraisal. 10th Ed, Revised. Atlanta (GA, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 170 p.
  12. ↵
    1. Cullen S.
    2002. Tree appraisal: Can depreciation factors be rated greater than 100%? Journal of Arboriculture. 28(3):153–158. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2002.023
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Cullen S.
    2005. Tree appraisal: Chronology of North American industry guidance. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 31(4):157–162. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2005.020
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Cullen S.
    2007. Putting a value on trees—CTLA guidance and methods. Arboricultural Journal. 30(1):21–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2007.9747475
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Davies HJ,
    2. Wu H,
    3. Schaafsma M.
    2023. Willingness-to-pay for urban ecosystem services provision under objective and subjective uncertainty. Resource and Energy Economics. 71:101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2022.101344
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Doick KJ,
    2. Neilan C,
    3. Jones G,
    4. Allison A,
    5. McDermott I,
    6. Tipping A,
    7. Haw R.
    2018. CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees): Valuing amenity trees as public assets. Arboricultural Journal. 40(2):67–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2018.1454077
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Durlak W,
    2. Dudkiewicz M,
    3. Milecka M.
    2022. A combined methods of senile trees inventory in sustainable urban greenery management on the example of the City of Sandomierz (Poland). Land. 11(11):1914. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11111914
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Ellwood S,
    2. Greenwood M.
    2016. Accounting for heritage assets: Does measuring economic value ‘kill the cat’? Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 38:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.05.009
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    European Arboricultural Council. 2024. European arboricultural standards: Tree value calculation standard: For arborists. Kolín (Czech Republic): eCOST (European Consulting Standards in Tree Work. 31 p. https://files.site.forpsi.com/52/68/52681133-27aa-422f-bbe0-7a02c24630d4.pdf
  20. ↵
    1. Ferrini F,
    2. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC,
    3. Fini A
    1. Fay N,
    2. Butler J.
    2017. Management and conservation of ancient and other veteran trees. In: Ferrini F, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC, Fini A, editors. Routledge handbook of urban forestry. 1st Ed. Abingdon (United Kingdom): Routledge. p. 500–513. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627106
  21. ↵
    1. Flook RR.
    1996. STEM: A standard tree evaluation method. Richmond, Nelson (NZ): New Zealand Notable Trees Trust. https://www.notabletrees.org.nz/stem
  22. ↵
    1. García-Ventura C,
    2. Sánchez-Medina Á,
    3. Grande-Ortíz MÁ,
    4. González-García C,
    5. Ayuga-Téllez E.
    2018. Comparison of the economic value of urban trees through surveys with photographs in two seasons. Forests. 9(3):132. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9030132
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Grande-Ortiz MA,
    2. Ayuga-Téllez E,
    3. Contato-Carol ML.
    2012. Methods of tree appraisal: A review of their features and application possibilities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 38(4):130–140. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2012.020
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Helliwell R.
    2014. Putting a value on visual amenity. Arboricultural Journal. 36(3):129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2014.929812
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Hull RB IV,
    2. Lam M,
    3. Vigo G.
    1994. Place identity: Symbols of self in the urban fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning. 28(2-3):109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90001-9
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    ISA Ontario. 2021. Ontario supplement: To the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers ® (CTLA) Guide for Plant Appraisal. 10th Ed (third printing). Milton (ON, Canada): International Society of Arboriculture of Ontario. 31 p. https://www.isaontario.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ISAO-CTLA-Supplement-10th-Edition_FINAL_05JUL2022.pdf
  27. ↵
    1. Jim CY.
    2006. Formulaic expert method to integrate evaluation and valuation of heritage trees in compact city. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 116:53–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-7245-x
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Tan PY,
    2. Jim CY
    1. Jim CY.
    2017. Urban heritage trees: Natural-cultural significance informing management and conservation. In: Tan PY, Jim CY, editors. Greening cities: Forms and functions. Advances in 21st century human settlements. Singapore: Springer. p. 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4113-6
  29. ↵
    1. Jim CY,
    2. Zhang H.
    2013. Defect-disorder and risk assessment of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 12(4):585–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.06.003
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Kenney WA,
    2. van Wassenaer PJE,
    3. Satel AL.
    2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(3):108–117. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2011.015
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Grabosky J,
    3. Benson A,
    4. Morgenroth J.
    2025. Quercus virginiana Mill. root regrowth following linear trenching. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 51(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2024.010
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Komen J.
    2017. The importance of reconciliation in tree appraisal: Part 1 of 2. Western Arborist. Summer 2017. 8 p. https://www.jameskomen.com/resources/Importance%20of%20Reconciliation%20in%20Tree%20Appraisal%20WA%202017%20Summer%20PUBLISHED.pdf
  33. ↵
    1. Le Roux DS,
    2. Ikin K,
    3. Lindenmayer DB,
    4. Manning AD,
    5. Gibbons P.
    2014. The future of large old trees in urban landscapes. PLoS ONE. 9(6):e99403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Lin HW,
    2. Chuang YC,
    3. Liu WY.
    2020. Assessing the economic value of an iconic urban heritage tree. Forest Policy and Economics. 118:102216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102216
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Lindenmayer DB,
    2. Laurance WF.
    2017. The ecology, distribution, conservation and management of large old trees. Biological Reviews. 92(3):1434–1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12290
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Lindenmayer DB,
    2. Laurance WF,
    3. Franklin JF.
    2012. Global decline in large old trees. Science. 338(6112):1305–1306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231070
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. McPherson EG,
    2. Simpson JR,
    3. Peper PJ,
    4. Gardner SL,
    5. Vargas KE,
    6. Maco SE,
    7. Xiao Q.
    2006. Piedmont community tree guide: Benefits, costs, and strategic planting. Albany (CA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. PSW-GTR-200. 99 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/PSW-GTR-200
  38. ↵
    1. Millward AA,
    2. Sabir S.
    2010. Structure of a forested urban park: Implications for strategic management. Journal of Environmental Management. 91(11):2215–2224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Nelson T,
    2. Johnson T,
    3. Strong M,
    4. Rudakewich G.
    2001. Perception of tree canopy. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21(3): 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0223
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Ferrini F,
    2. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC,
    3. Fini A
    1. Nowak DJ.
    2017. Assessing the benefits and economic values of trees. In: Ferrini F, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC, Fini A, editors. Routledge handbook of urban forestry. 1st Ed. London (United Kingdom): Routledge. p. 152–163. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627106
  41. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE,
    3. Dwyer JF.
    2002. Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(4):194–199. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2002.028
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Ordóñez Barona C,
    2. St Denis A,
    3. Jung J,
    4. Bassett CG,
    5. Delagrange S,
    6. Duinker P,
    7. Conway T.
    2024. A content analysis of urban forest management plans in Canada: Changes in social-ecological objectives over time. Landscape and Urban Planning. 251:105154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105154
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Östberg J,
    2. Sjögren J.
    2016. The linear index of tree appraisal (LITA) model for economic valuation of large urban trees in Sweden. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 42(1):21–30. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2016.002
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Östberg J,
    2. Trädförening S.
    2019. Economic valuation methods and their use in valuing Veteran trees. EU Erasmus+: VET-cert. 4 p. https://www.vetcert.eu/sites/default/files/2019-11/Economic%20Valuation%20Methods%20.pdf
  45. ↵
    1. Ponce-Donoso M,
    2. Vallejos-Barra Ó,
    3. Escobedo FJ.
    2017. Appraisal of urban trees using twelve valuation formulas and two appraiser groups. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 43(2):72–82. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2017.007
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Price C.
    2020. Considerations concerning CAVAT: What does its “tree amenity value” actually measure? Arboricultural Journal. 42(1):3–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2020.1721957
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Ritchie M,
    2. Szuster B,
    3. Kaufman A.
    2021. Establishing consensus criteria for determining heritage tree status. Arboricultural Journal. 43(2):73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2020.1814655
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Crohn M
    1. Strauss S.
    2022. MIS506: Tree valuation: Industry guidance on tree valuation methodologies, practices and standards. In: Crohn M, editor. Minimum industry standards series. Hallama (VIC, Australia): Arboriculture Australia Ltd. 150 p.
  49. ↵
    The Appraisal Institute. 2015. The dictionary of real estate appraisal. 6th Ed. Chicago (IL, USA): Appraisal Institute. 434 p.
  50. ↵
    1. Thyer P.
    2021. Introduction to the Thyer Tree Valuation Method 2015. Sydney (NSW, Australia): Peter Thyer. [Accessed 2024 July 12]. 2 p. https://www.peterthyer.au
  51. ↵
    1. Tjoelker M.
    2016. Evaluation of nursery tree stock balance parameters. Sydney (NSW, Australia): Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited. NY15001.71 p. https://www.horticulture.com.au/globalassets/laserfiche/assets/project-reports/ny15001/ny15001-final-report-complete-with-appendices.pdf
  52. ↵
    1. Van Hecke T.
    2012. Power study of anova versus Kruskal-Wallis test. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems. 15(2-3): 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720510.2012.10701623
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Watson G.
    2002. Comparing formula methods of tree appraisal. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(1):11–18. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2002.002
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Wyse SV,
    2. Beggs JR,
    3. Burns BR,
    4. Stanley MC.
    2015. Protecting trees at an individual level provides insufficient safeguard for urban forests. Landscape and Urban Planning. 141:112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.05.006
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Bao G,
    3. Zhang D,
    4. Zhai C.
    2022. Spatial distribution and driving factors of old and notable trees in a fast-developing city, Northeast China. Sustainability. 14(13):7937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137937
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry: 51 (4)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 51, Issue 4
July 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • 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.
Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
(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
Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
Nicholas Ott, Amy Blood, Andrew Almas, Sara Barron
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2025, 51 (4) 275-296; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2025.011

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
Nicholas Ott, Amy Blood, Andrew Almas, Sara Barron
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2025, 51 (4) 275-296; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2025.011
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Conflicts of Interest
    • Acknowledgements
    • Appendix
    • Literature Cited
  • 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

  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Amenity Value
  • Heritage Tree
  • Replacement Cost
  • Tree Appraisal
  • Urban Tree

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire