PM Submission - Thomas Kearney - MCU18/0015

AMENITY TREE EVALUATION: A REVISED METHOD

G M Moore

ABSTRACT

Amenity tree evaluation system have been widely used, not only in Australia but around the world.
They place a monetary value on trees, usually for the purposes of insurance, compensation and
litigation. However, the major significance of placing such a value on trees is that they are then
recognised as assets. The recognition of trees as assets has major implications, not only for their
management, but also for the decision making processes that involve trees. No method has received
widespread support or acceptance in Australia and the Burnley Method was developed in 1988 to
meet local needs. This method was intended to be easily used and to minimise operator error.
Criticism of the original method has led to a modification that has resolved most of these criticisms.


INTRODUCTION

In 1988 a method of placing a monetary value on amenity trees was developed at the Victorian
College of Agriculture and Horticulture Limited, Burnley Campus (McGarry and Moore, 1988). The
method was developed in response to a perceived need by those involved in Australian arboriculture
and those responsible for managing trees in public open space (Moore, 1991) for matters relating to
compensation and litigation, insurance, and policy and decision-making.

Although other methods have been tried in Australia, none has received universal support.
Furthermore, when valuations were placed before courts of law, the massive discrepancies in values
placed on trees placed the whole concept and acceptance of tree valuation at risk. Accordingly, a
method was developed which was designed for use in the Australian context, and which attempted to
deal with further concerns, such as placing a realistic dollar base value on the specimens and allowing
for rapid rates of inflation, which required a constant updating of values if they were to be of any
relevance.

The various evaluation techniques available from overseas (Helliwell, 1967; Anon, 1974) for valuing
trees were often tried in Australia, but often failed because of species limitations, historical
components or inappropriate growth rate data for the Australian environment. It is worth noting that
these overseas methods are widely used and are routinely recognised by courts, and in some instances,
have statutory or regulatory status. It is unfortunate that in Australia, despite the hope that the
Australian Institute of Horticulture Method (Anon, 1974) would be widely accepted, methods have
not achieved appropriate recognition.

It is to be hoped that in the not too distant future a method will be accepted by Australian arborists
and open space managers. Failure to do so will continue the situation where trees are not recognised
as assets, are not valued and not recognised in the decision making process. Sadly, the real currency
of decision making is money and until trees are given an appropriate monetary value, they will not be
managed properly and may receive harsh treatment in the expediency of decision making.




For use in conjunction with Computers II Assignment Sheet    C The University of Melbourne