Online Calculator| Revised Burnley Method of Tree Valuation

Eric Frei

World first! I just built this online calculator for the Revised Burnley Method of Tree Valuation and would like some feedback. I'm yet to reduce decimal places to 2 digits but it appears very accurate. The PDF pertaining to this method of Valuation is also attached here.

Enjoy

Attached Files

Revised Burnley Method of Tree Valuation.pdf (13.8 KB, 847 views)

__________________

stirmantrees

excellent contributer you are to our profession eric. i unfortunately, at this time would not know where to begin using this. Nonetheless,

interested to see the feedback from those that are more aquainted with this procedure.

Drouin Tree Service

Bookmarked a very useful tool

__________________

Drouin Tree Services | Excavator Hire - Drouin and SE Gippsland | Landclearing Melbourne

Eric Frei

It's two decimal places now and working sweet, had a javascript coder look over it.

__________________

banner

Impressive work, but what does it really mean Eric?

Is the the value added to your property value?
Does speices of tree affect the base factor?
Etc..........? I'll google up what I can to answer my questions.

Eric Frei

It's a method, one of many, that values a tree.

Just read the PDF in the first post, explains it all but is a little confusing on the formula as it covers the older version first where they calculated differently, then they adjusted it later to what the calculator does now.

The calculator takes into consideration a number of factors that discount the value, species is part of it as is longevity, structure and health.

__________________

axe

never knew they had such a thing very interesting good work!!

trees3111

Very interesting stuff Ekka. Thanks for the form email bringing it our attention. Here in the states I have never seen that. We only use Replacement Cost and Trunk Method. Trunk Method also has a "Fudge Factor" for larger diameter trees. I wonder if the method you posted has replaced the use in Australia of the above methodology I mentioned??? I plugged in a hypothetical tree but I don't understand how one comes up with $/M3. Perhaps on a local table as we would to get our species% value modifier for the above methods. When I ran my hypothetical tree and played with the numbers it appears that the $/M3 must be low figures in the order of $.05-$.10 US dollars. Perhaps I have this all screwed up though and I missed something that explained how to get $ after the 1 is placed in the $/M3 box and volume is gained. I would like to use this as a quick calc to give a client a rough idea of value so they know if they would like to proceed with hiring us to appraise the tree(s) using a method that would hold up in court. Many people hear the cost of an appraisal and do not want to proceed as they fear they will not be able to get the money back if they lose in court. Thanks. Love this forum when I get the chance to look at it!

Eric Frei

$m3 is simple, it is the average price of buying whatever species you are valuing from nursieries today. What does it cost to buy 1m3 of tree today.

So if a 25 litre potted Flame tree had 1m3 of volume and it cost $30 then that's your base rate (30), simple and uniform for every species and self adjusting for inflation.

You do not have to go searching nurseries for 1m3 canopy sized stock either. Take the plants measurements, here's an example.

300mm potted Flame Tree, it's only 0.8m high and radius of canopy is 0.25m ... and costs $10

So the volume is 0.05m3

$10/0.05= $200m3

You will find large trees valued in the $100K+ range no worries.

__________________

glennak

One of the troubles using this method using cones for both base value and tree valuation is it is a lot of calculation for nothing. It would be the same $ value using cylinders, spheres or square prisms. Which is fair enough but the base value is suposed to be a cylinder even though it was written incorrectly by Greg Moore. The only change that was meant to happen with the Revised Burnley Method from the original Burnley Method was to remove the shape factor and pretend all trees to be valued are cones.
The only practical way to value trees is to have a standard set of values for species. Either $/square cm trunk cross sectional area DBH or $/cubic metre of foliage. Who is going to pay someone to value trees if for every species you had to find 3 nurseries growing large specimens then go to them and measure the trees. I have done this and some nurseries have their trees staked in the pots (which in my opinion makes them close to worthless) and they have huge canopy volumes for their age. This makes the species cheap others with good tapered trunks and small volume make the species expensive, if they were the same price/tree. With trunk cross sectional area the opposite would be true.
We need an Australian standard for tree valuation and someone like the ISA to keep a list of valuations.
Originally the Burnley method had standard values for species. This was rubbished at the time because Pinus radiata was the most expensive tree / volume because the only reason they are sold in pots is for Christmas trees.

Eric Frei

So what you are saying is that the mature tree we are valuing we use the cone but for the nursery specimen we use the cylinder.

Either way it doesn't affect the way the calculator works, it affects the base value figure, the formula within the calculator is correct.

Perhaps provide both figures? The issue I have is validation of what is correct from legitimate authoritative sources, not saying you are wrong or your sources but some-one somewhere has to put an official statement out about it.

You don't have to find mature specimens from nurseries either, just measure up any old one and extrapolate. If they have heaps of 200mm potted for $10 calculate the volume and multiply it up to get a 1m3.

The biggest problem is finding the tree stock.

__________________

glennak

No Eric if you read on the top of page 2 in the revised burnley method you will see that the base value trees need to be at least 1 cubic metre as a cylinder.
I can understand your trouble with the bottom of page 4 where it says base value using cone. This is a total contradiction, next time I see Greg I will see what can be done to change this or just get rid of that paragraph. If you believe page 4 rather than page 2 the trees are worth a 1/3 of the value.
Yes your calculator works fine and it is just the base value that is the problem.
I'm liking your site thanks but I have a lot of trouble reading the image verification.

Eric Frei

I'll correct you. I have no trouble, my comprehension is great and I have clearly interpreted the text to what it states at the bottom of page four. If that is not correct then the trouble lies with the University and the author doesn't it.

Yeah be good if Greg can clear it in writing.

__________________

davids

Hello everybody,
You are genius. This is really http://tiny.cc/h6nuh niche invention.

kelvinhanagan

Hi, I'm doing something obviously wrong here. I've got a Ficus benjamina in a roundabout and I've got the figures of:
Volume- 1, Expectancy- 1, Form and Vigour- 0.9, Location-1, Base Value- 5.73 (obtained from a 3.5m high x 1.25m radius ($400 for 40litre plant)). This values the tree at $5.15.
The actual tree is 16 m high x 22m total spread and is worth more than $5!
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks folks,
Kelvin (new member)

Treemo

If I put a 11m radius, 16m height, and a base value of 5.73 (which you determined and I have yet to get my head around), into the calculator, I get:

$10455.17


Rereading the cone volume calc area, the tree size is 5.73m3, and worth $400 from a nursery. Does that mean it's $70 per m3?

Which gives you a reading of $127724.59

Eric Frei

If you want only the cone volume you put 1 into the base value box.

You are supposed to get the base value of 1m3 in $'s from nurseries.

Your tree is 2027.37 m3 so if a m3 from a nursery cost $5.73 (sounds too cheap) the value of the tree (all factors perfect) would be $11,616.86

__________________

glennak

Except base values are supposed to be calculated from a cylinder. Otherwise the shape could be anything cube, sphere, cylinder etc the results would all be the same.

Eric Frei

We have spoken about this before, unless the author makes an announcement or written submission his original document stands, all we have otherwise is hearsay.

__________________

Treemo

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm looking for some clarification on this also, but I would like to nail this down for future reference. I've asked another member on this site and we both struggled to get the right answer though his reasoning is more along your lines.

Now, the way I read this, his base value is 3.5m x 1.25m (for the nursery stock). Put that into the calculator (cone volume only = 1 value) which gives an amount of 5.73m3 total volume. His tree costs $400 for a 3.5m x 1.25m so to get the 1m3 amount do we divide 5.73 into $400 to give us a dollar amount of approx $70 per m3 base value?

Then using the $70m3 base value into the calculator for a tree of 16m high and 11m radius gives us the answer I gave above? Supposing I calculated the base value correctly.

Are those sums incorrect? Is it better to price trees at approximately the 1m3 to get a more accurate reading or can you use what's available, such as a 5.73m3 tree and divide into a m3 amount?

Personally, I would value a 16m x 22m fig with high life expectancy, good form and vigour, and excellent location at $100K plus.

Eric Frei

The base value is $'s for a m3, you do not put the data of the tree at the nursery into the calculator. Whatever that trees dimensions are at the nursery is irrelevant to the calculator. You are supposed to find a nursery specimen that is 1m3 and that can be difficult so then you adapt by finding bigger ones and dividing down to get 1m3 value.

You put the details of the tree you want to value into the calculator.

It's this simple .....

How much volume is my tree? Answer A

How much does 1m3 cost to buy? Answer B

How much is my tree worth? A x B

Are there any other influencing factors from the modifiers that devalue the tree? Answer ... fill in the most appropriate drop down box and the calculator works it all out for you.

It's that simple.

__________________

glennak

Ekka this is just wrong. The volume has to be at least 1 cubic meter minimum. bigger is better. Here is a quote from the pdf you have posted.
" The second element of the method involved establishing a dollar base value for the tree. This was achieved by obtaining the retail price from appropriate nurseries for purchasing a specimen with a volume greater than 1m3, using the formula for a cylinder. The base value calculation was expressed as $/M3. The calculation was done by determining an average value for at least three specimens from different nurseries."
So base value of tree, 1 cubic meter or larger worked as a cylinder get price /cubic meter and put in your calculator

Eric Frei

Thanks for pointing that out, so go for larger and divide it out to get 1m3 value.

__________________

Treemo

glennak quotes cylinder, the calculator page wants cone for base value stock. So, for me, that's another layer of complexity but I will stick with the calculator for now.


As per the original request by Kelvin, what's your answer Ekka? You seem to indicate that this is incorrect 5.73 is his cone volume value for the larger nursery stock, not the price per m3. And your 2027 x 5.73 doesn't take the E/FV/L modifiers into account as you mention. (Expectancy- 1, Form and Vigour- 0.9, Location-1).

If I manage to get the same answer from the owner of the calculator page, then I know I'm doing it right. I get $141510.74 for a perfect tree, my modified answer is in a previous post.

glennak: What do you get for kelvin's tree conundrum?

Eric Frei

So we have a nursery tree that is 5.73m3 and costs $400

That equates to $69.81 (rounded off) a m3

The dimensions of the tree you want to value are 16m high and 11m radius.

If all modifiers are perfect (ie 1.0) the value is $141,531.01

But adjusting the modifiers as he requested (Expectancy- 1, Form and Vigour- 0.9, Location-1) I get $127,377.91

Now the issue of the nursery stock being measure as a cone or cyclinder lets take a look at the difference.

dimensions are 3.5m high x 1.25m radius and costs $400

Cone volume is 5.73 m3 and is $69.81 m3
Cylinder volume is 17.17 m3 and is $23.30 m3

A huge difference.

To the value of the tree using the modifiers the answers are:-

$127,377.91 (using cone at nursery)
$42,514.04 (using cylinder at nursery)

This is why it is important that an official notice be provided as to which we use at a nursery, cone or cylinder. But from my perspective I think cone as the cylinder values are way too low. Also it is inconsistent to use say a cylinder at the nursery and a cone on the mature tree being valued.

To try this out yourself use this calculator, you can switch between the various shapes easily whilst the numbers you input stay the same.

__________________

Treemo

Ahh, that was extremely helpful. Cleared it up.

I used the dome calculator for a fig tree shape, resulting in 2787.64 m3 which pushes the final value up significantly.


When you speak of official notice regarding cylinder vs cone, what do you envision is best used? I understand your reasoning for both and the inconsistencies, but which does one chose? $80K difference is a large difference, which would polarise both an environmentalist and an engineer.

Eric Frei

Personally I really do not care as I have never had to provide a tree $ value in a report, court etc.

There's a few threads around here about tree valuations and my personal perspective is that they are all flawed and subjective, even this one.

The valuing of trees is hypothetical and not based on true market forces and supply and demand like most other commodities. I understand they have values but to nail the exact value is impossible.

The author should in an official capacity clear up this confusion though, heck even posting here would do, an email or anything. Right now, as per the example above, it leaves one open to ridicule if the numbers were used in court.

__________________

Treemo

I've often hypothesised that if the trees were valued accordingly, there would be greater incentive to not cut them down and therefore, plan services/buildings/roads/paths away from valuable trees, rather than straight through them.

For example, and I've mentioned this in passing before, $650K to widen a road slightly at an intersection, make it twice as bad to turn by removing the safety lane, and remove 40 medium to very large Eucalypts, cut drain and leave jagged/torn roots from leftover trees . At an average of $18,000 each tree, that's more than the job was worth to do and perhaps should of been considered.

I suppose, like you say, without a standardised approach, it's all subjective anyway. Some don't put any value on a tree, some put a huge amount (just through sheer age of tree in some cases).

Councils/Governments should adopt an internal method, and factor it in when planning. I went to an Arbor Camp several years back and there was a lecturer from Melbourne there talking about the importance of tree valuations, theorising that's the only way to speak to some people in charge i.e. through money value, rather than environmental/aesthetic. He spoke of trees temporarily reducing rainfall into stormwater by 40% through canopy retention, shading protects and lengthens life of bitumen and so forth.


And what about a habitat modifier, or importance in food chain modifier, or like the Mary St trees - the value as part of a nature corridor?

You can't stop progress.

glennak

The cylinder to cone makes a 3 fold difference. You are supposed to use a cylinder as it states on page 2 but on the bottom of page 4 Greg has made a mistake. I asked him and he told me to use a cylinder. The old Burnley method had a shape factor. This was removed as some people thought it was a fudge factor to change the value to what you wanted so it was changed to a cone.
If you use a cone for nursery stock it makes no sence at all. You would get the same valuation using cylinders for both calculations. Same for cubes for that matter.

Eric Frei

Can you talk to Greg and tell him to write something?

__________________