# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- simple to use
- little or no expertise required
- little or no field work required
- well known and utilised
- monetary output is simple to communicate

Disadvantages:
- highly subjective
- under/over estimation can alter the output greatly
- very narrow field of focus with regards to the multiple values of trees
- lacks definition to assist with reducing subjectivity e.g. suitability may include whether there are significant ground works/utilities

# data[].attributes.body
Pros
+ Simple to use. Even with very limited tree knowledge the Helliwell system can be undertaken.
+No complicated/expensive equipment needed.
+Monetary figures are a universally understood way of stating value.

Cons
- Limited to visual amenity. Other valuation tools include other benefits trees provide. Although this generally means they are much more involved/complicated to carry out.
- Subjective in implementation. Results can vary between assessors. This can lead to people manipulating the system to give higher/lower values depending on their view of the subject tree.
- No available information on how the monetary values were created in the first instance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Helliwell System - Advantages and Disadvantages. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Helliwell System - Advantages and Disadvantages. 

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- The system is simplistic, easy to use and understand, and could be carried out by those with little arboricultural knowledge.
- The system is widely recognised and practised. Used previously in court cases and is a method deemed acceptable by the Arb Association.
- The system requires no specialist equipment, technology and/or software.
- The process is relatively quick and requires minimal data.

Disadvantages:
- It is subjective, results could vary drastically from one persons judgement to another's.
-It lacks some more in depth factors which I believe should be considered when assessing a trees value, such as: Biodiversity/habitat, Rare/uncommon Species, Age (veteran trees with retrenchment work or those that have retrenched naturally have the potential to score low).
- The value is limited and therefore could potentially lead to a quantified cost prior to an unlawful removal.
- Despite being simplistic, basic knowledge on various species could be beneficial, for estimating life expectancy, quantifying suitability to the setting, etc.

I believe, although basic, it is a good system. I feel that it should only be carried out by impartial professionals as the results could differ so dramatically. A second (or third) opinion could be necessary to ensure the results are all of similar value.

Grant

# data[].attributes.body
Pro's
+ Low field data requirements, a relatively simple formula, based on expert judgement and therefore quite quick.
+ Social and economic status is taken into account during the monetary conversion stage.
+ Visual quality to the landscape.  Though also a negative as that is not as a public asset.
+ No special training required.  Though this could also be a negative as some of the formula is subjective and there needs to be consistency.
- Only single tree, small community and urban woodlands.  Not metropolitan.
- Limited data input and output focussed solely on visual value.
- Variable valuation outcomes
- Has a maximum monetary value, which is limiting
- Doesn't quantify the environmental services that a tree provides.

I've had a go at valuing the examples given in the powerpoint presentation, but I'll give it a go on real trees this week at work.

Jenny

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
> Simple to use. Does not require any specialist equipment/software/training.
> Widely recognised/backed system in the UK.
> Minimal field data required.

Disadvantages:
> Its subjective, potential for different surveyors to come up with different values for the same tree.
> Does not take into account a number of factors e.g. ecological/biodiversity benefit of the tree, whether its an ancient/veteran tree, species of tree & certain ecosystem services i.e. fuel provision, noise regulation, air quality improvements etc.
> Value is capped.

# data[].attributes.headline
Helliwell system overview:Pros + Field data required is low making the process quick in producing results.+ Helliwell system is recognized by UK wide organic like Arb. Association, making it useful for legislative issues.+ The system is straight forward, user friendly and has a long standing historical record Cons - A multitude of crucial factors are overlooked in this system, to name a few : noise regulation, fuel provision, biodiversity, spiritual/ social.-No historical context is taken into account of the trees and the site e.g part of larger woodland, conservation area.- the system is not robust in the sense of no third party corroborates the data, created incredibly varied and subjective data.ConclusionsThe Helliwell system is a long standing, user friendly, efficient valuation system that is best deployed a quick yielding tool for aesthetic valuations.When comparing it to the CAVAT and iTrees methods, the gulf in the wider factors not considering is vast.

# data[].attributes.subject
Helliwell system overview:Pros + Field data required is low making the process quick in producing results.+ Helliwell system is recognized by UK wide organic like Arb. Association, making it useful for legislative issues.+ The system is straight forward, user friendly and has a long standing historical record Cons - A multitude of crucial factors are overlooked in this system, to name a few : noise regulation, fuel provision, biodiversity, spiritual/ social.-No historical context is taken into account of the trees and the site e.g part of larger woodland, conservation area.- the system is not robust in the sense of no third party corroborates the data, created incredibly varied and subjective data.ConclusionsThe Helliwell system is a long standing, user friendly, efficient valuation system that is best deployed a quick yielding tool for aesthetic valuations.When comparing it to the CAVAT and iTrees methods, the gulf in the wider factors not considering is vast.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- Low field data requirements, which can be collected quickly.
-  When used in the context of development sites, a monetary value can be attached to trees, which can be factored in to new Tree Planting Scheme
- Recognised system in the UK with many recorded uses in court cases, insurance claims and public enquiries

Disadvantages:
- The system is limited in that value is primarily informed by visual impact, disregarding many other important benefits, such as socio-cultural i.e. an old oak tree may have very little value to one demographic, yet be of great value to the older population who have grown up with the tree.
- Though the Helliwell System is relatively simple to use, it requires expert judgment for factors such as useful life expectancy and suitability of species to setting.
- There is a degree of subjectivity to the system, especially when regarding the 'suitability' of a tree in a setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- It is a very simple and easy system to use that anyone with little knowledge of trees could carry out.
- No special training is required.
-It has been around for a few decades, so is widely recognised and is a tried and tested system.
- Setting scores to each factor is straight forward.
-No specialist equipment is required. i.e. can be completed with a pen and paper.

Disadvantages:
- Doesn't take in to account all of below:
- Fuel Provision, firewood from tree work.
- Biodiversity, it doesn't take in to account the species of the tree and what the tree can be a habitat to. Also it doesn't mention anything about the age of the tree, i.e. a old veteran tree or even a standing dead monolith can be a great habitat to bats amongst other nesting birds and wildlife.
- Noise regulation, for example around a motorway they tend to plant trees on the bank this can reduce the volume of the noise down to a respectable level for local residences.
- Spiritual and social, this can be how often people use this tree for meeting up or as a area to relax in.
- Tourism, Old or ancient trees can be a tourist hotspot due to whether they played a bit part in some historical event, or are just massive trees.
- Community development.

-Other systems are available which produce more detailed accounts of the trees and have more data. For example 'i-Tree' which allows you to compare benefits of the tree within the street environment to the associated management costs.
- This system is very subjective and relies on the individual carrying out the survey.

Alistair

# data[].attributes.body
Pros:

The Helliwell System is a widely accepted method by the Arb Association and has been used extensively in various different occasions. It has been established longer than the other systems, showing it has been useful for a long period of time.

It is very simple to use and doesn't need expensive or complicated software/training. It is easy for someone who is not working within the industry to understand.

Little data is needed to be implemented for the Helliwell System to work, with only six easy to assess factors making up the score.

Cons:

The results are purely down expert judgement and therefore results may vary depending on who is inputting the data.

The Helliwell System no longer includes special factors such as historical association or rarity. These could potentially be influential to a trees value.

It needs the least information in comparison to the other systems. Whilst this makes it simple to use, this could in turn lead to inconclusive or incorrect scores.

Conclusion:

The Helliwell System is a tried and tested way for anybody to score the value of trees. It is simple and effective way to gain this information and is certainly the easiest and quickest to use. However, for a more extensive result the other systems may be of greater use.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi,

The advantages to this system are that it is a very simple method which makes it really easy to use for anyone wanting to calculate the value of trees. It’s also obviously very well established, used by many, and Arb approved making it carry quite a lot of weight within the industry.

The disadvantages would be the fact that as we all agree it’s very much down to the assessors opinion on the the tree, one persons view on the shape and form might be different to another. When assessing the oak tree on the power point my scores did differ from that of the tutor.

It also doesn’t take into account some quite important factors such as  the environmental and economic benefits and it does appear a little dated.

I think that although the system is very simple and easy to use it is important to take into account that a second opinion would always be necessary to conclude the valuation process

# data[].attributes.body
So after looking into the 3 variations of systems used we focus on Helliwell and firstly it is easy to use by the operator, requires minimal training, the system is accepted by the Arboriculture Association, and the Tree council, it overall is a quick and simple system to use which is acknowledged by the above and can be used in court.

Following on this, it has some draw backs again these include that the data can be manipulated therefore meaning a 2nd opinion may be necessary which is then time consuming and not making the system viable.
It also does not take into account the species of the tree and what it provides to wildlife and nature.
The system also doesn't take into account the relevance of historical importance of the tree or woodland.

Overall the helliwell system works well as a simple and brief overview of the Tree or woodland but due to only requiring simple data at times it may require a more in depth valuation which CAVAT would be ideal.

Thanks for reading.
James

# data[].attributes.body
Brendon
Helliwell advantages:
Simplistic so most connected stakeholders can understand the methodology.
Isn’t limited if there is a lack of data.
Legacy - it’s well established and considered by many professionals and authorities as “acceptable”. Change is difficult to instigate unless there are huge problems with the existing practise (it is old but it has been updated a few times since the 60s).
Disadvantages:
Personal view is a commanding factor so different assessors could arrive at different valuations ( in theory, it could be “fiddled”) so second opinion is desirable or some form of standardisation.
Superficial valuation system that underestimates value with respect to social  and cultural benefits. Doesn’t account for environmental benefits.
The aesthetic nature of the system means that the “lolly pop” Lego tree form might score higher than a tree that is actually, naturally “right”.

I think the tree multiplier is £41 in 2021 but I could be wrong with this?

# data[].attributes.body
Helliwell Tree valuation system

Good aspects

1-      UK recognised and values updated by AA

2-      Easy to assign scores to the factors

3-      Probably best for showing the value of single amenity trees

Poor aspects

1-      Doesn’t given value to veteran/ancient trees, rare species etc

2-      Doesn’t factor in energy savings / pollution reduction, value added to property etc

3-      Relation to setting score needs better definitions.  Crown area.

Cheers
John

# data[].attributes.body
+ Well established methods widely recognised by governing authorities, courts, local authority officers and insurance claims recognise the methodology.
+Reasonably simple system to learn but subjective and easy to manipulate the results in a desired direction.
+Doesn’t require complex software or licences to assess trees.
+Simple.

_Focused around how a tree looks rather than how much value it may have ecologically.
_Does not value any deadwood habitat.
_Difficult to assess multiple trees or the value of a group of trees / woodland.
_Amenity value does not consider cultural or historical importance.
_Too narrow  a data source as an assessment for true value rather than just its monetary value.
**
Velda

# data[].attributes.body
Disadvantages:
1; The system is purely based on the aesthetic values of a tree/group of trees. This overlooks important factors that have a huge sway on the overall value of a tree, such as the species (an oak hosts thousands of species, compared to a sycamore, which hosts very few for example).
2; It also fails to place a value on a dead or dying tree. Ecologically, standing deadwood provides important habitat and food source.
3; A trees location is in itself a very subjective way of appropriating a value to it. During its lifespan, the location of a tree may alter in terms of human interaction, and thus a tree of no value could become very valuable. This point could be as simple as the opinion of the surveyor.
4: The importance of trees in the modern world is growing hugely, as we come to terms with the changing climate. This system fails in any way to put a value on this.
5; A surveyor can skew the results to reflect their desired outcome.
Pro's:
1; it is user friendly and requires very little effort.
2; It has legal legal precedence.
3; A surveyor can skew the results to reflect their desired outcome.

If you had not guessed, I think it is a fairly poor option in comparison to the CAVAT approach, which still has acres of room for improvement. The AA should really be looking to introduce an alternative that is fit for purpose in terms of modern tree management and of how trees are now appreciated on many more levels by society.

ps, I just noticed, the Arb association has the current value of a Helliwell point at: Individual Trees: £34.17
Woodlands: £136.68
https://www.trees.org.uk/Help-Advice/Public/What-is-the-Helliwell-system-and-how-much-is-a-po

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
1) The method is quick to use and apply
2) Amenity (ability to be seen by people) is at its core. We know exactly why were assessing the tree.
3) It can be utilised by a non arborist, so great for landscape architects and tree enthusiasts
Disadvantages:
1) One score of zero will reduce the tree's value hugely, especially if its the last score.
2) The form criteria is pretty much a subjective visual assessment of attractiveness
3) Large monetary values anticipated by the maximum achievable are rarely achieved in practice, and the score conversion methodology does not step down methodically.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the second time I've written in here...think the first post had disappeared into the ether!

Advantages:
The system is easy to use (good for Arbs)
The system / process is widely recognised within the Arboricultural community.
The system requires no batteries, no costly yearly subscriptions or licences to operate.
Tree wardens could use an uncomplicated system such as this (no offence intended)

Negatives:

The system is very open to subjectivity.
Tree size and crown spread can be quantified and measured to a degree of accuracy.
Longevity could be open for conjecture.
System doesn’t take into account the trees value to society or cultural significance.
You could argue that the system does not take into account the trees contribution to environmental factors.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages of Helliwell system:

1) Easy to use, with no special tech equipment required, compared to the likes of CAVAT and i-Tree systems.
2)Has been established the longest out of the three systems and is recognised by the AA and other Arboricultural bodies.
3) Very little data needed in comparison with the other 2 systems, making it efficient in the field.

Disadvantages of the Helliwell system:

1) Very subjective, scored on the basis of "expert judgment"
2) Has the most varied valuation outcomes out of the 3 systems with no recognised standard training.
3) Very little data input needed which produces limited results. Focus's solely on visual amenity, where as the other systems include, ecological, historical and environmental.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:

1. relatively quick to work through the six factors of this system.
2.No real training required.
3. This method first proposed in the 60S, so long established , since adoption from the tree council the method has been used for court cases, Insurances claim.

Disadvantages:

1. The scores allocated to each factor could be different from someone else assessing amenity value of same tree.
2.Only  six factors are identified  for each tree.
3. Does not take into consideration ecological, environmental or historical factors.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages of the Helliwell system:
1) Easy to use (Simple Stupid).
2) Quick to use in the field.
3) Seems to be more widely recognised.

Disadvantages of the Helliwell system:
1) Solely relies on the judgment, knowledge, and experience of the individual carrying out the evaluation.
2) This system unlike others does not take into account any environmental factors.
3) Can only really be used on a single tree or a small area.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
1. Least amount of data needed out of the 3 systems, therefore the quickest option
2. No official training required
3. Considers the location and visual aspect of the tree
Disadvantages:
1. Although it is the quickest of the 3 systems it has the least information required.
2. Subjective and therefore the same tree may produce different values depending on the surveyor.
3. Doesn't include any environmental factors

# data[].attributes.body
Having got into the Helliwell system I'm going to offer up:

Advantages

Valuations can be quick to carry out

Doesn't require specific training (i.e. on proprietary software)

Its is an established 'Industry Standard' being endorsed by both the Tree Council and Arboricultural Association

Disadvantages

It is the system that can lead to the most variable valuation outcomes, largely because it relies almost entirely on subjective, expert judgement

It isn't as well suited to valuations of large populations of trees as other systems, such as i-Tree

Helliwell doesn't take into account environmental importance of a tree or woodland

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages of Helliwell:
1. Only basic data required to perform the valuation.
2. No software training required.
3. Having been used for a long time it has historical legal precedent.
4. Recognised by arboricultual bodies.

Disadvantages of Helliwell:
1. Subjective to the view of the valuer
2. Results in varying outcomes
3. Does not consider enviromental or economic benefits of trees
4. Unsuitable for valuations of large tree populations

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages of Helliwell:
1. Quick and easy to use due to limited data inputs
2. Accessible, no specific training required to use it.
3. Well established going back to 1967 and has been used in multiple court cases etc.

Disadvantages:
1. Limited by the lack of data inputs - doesn't assess the environmental, cultural values of trees.
2. Very subjective and reliant on the expertise of the valuer.
3. Can produce widely varying results making it hard to compare trees valued by different people.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi all, to post on the padlet, you need to click on it and then click the big pink '+' button in the lower right corner. Look forward to seeing your views.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:

Recognised system by AA and has a long period of established use at inquiry. court cases and insurance claims

Relatively simple to use and does not need much training (although might be less subjective if there was some)

Considers visual amenity of trees in relation to their visual setting and can be used to justify retention of trees on development sites and set fines for their loss (although last time I looked max fines were £20,000, which is under max value of trees under this system)

Disadvantages

System developed in 1960s and updated in 2000s and feels like a planning tool rather than what is needed now to tackle climate change and air pollution. ( I would hope that the AA would reconsider their endorsement of any system that did not do so)

System does not consider the value of the tree to the community, contribution to trees to active lifestyles or our changing cultural makeup (ie west african communities prefer formality in their landscapes)

System is subjective and there is no recognised standard training to ensure results consistent.  (The Landscape institute landscape and visual impact guidance is 100s of pages long and a specialist part of landscape architecture). This may lead to appeals in court