Well, you gentlemen have been busy! One well-placed stone sure does stir up the pond. I'm not sure you got the point of the locust example but thats what happens when you cross paradigms. To briefly address some issues;

Scott: I understand your emphasis on TFM as a COST approach to value, HOWEVER - "basic value" or, as you state, "basic cost" is a market-derived price with respect to nursery stock of transplantable size. An assumption is then made as to the appreciation involved with respect to the DBH increase in the plant. This is, in effect, an attempt to extend market value where no market exists (due to technological and financial "read reasonable" constraints). TFM fails in this respect, again because it is an attempt to artificially extend a market price beyond market parameters.

KWK: I believe we both "value" (if only that term was really defined) trees, and I agree that humans have valid rights to modification of the landscape. As I stated before, the natural - unnatural dichotomy is false. We are a part of nature and have legitimate needs for food, shelter, etc. Our right to modify the environment however, ceases when we begin to objectify other life forms for whimsical reasons such as a transitory cultural aesthetic. Particularly if this aesthetic requires massive subsidization in the form of fossil fuels and species displacement. From a completely anthropocentric perspective, we are robbing future generations (Scott would say "beneficiaries" if it was in the assignment) of their evolutionary heritage in the form of biodiversity.

To All : A paradigm challenger (per KWK's last post) -

Reasonableness? Consider: A large municipality uses the TFM as a tool in assessing tree value in the City. Municipal trees located in wealthy neighborhoods are potentially worth more than trees of the same size, species, and condition located in front of economically disenfranchised residents homes ( according to the TFM reasonableness constraint). As such this municipality logically wishes to maximize the value of their investment and thus elects to plant more trees in front of rich homes. To go even further, they invest more in maintenance per tree in wealthy neighborhoods. Don't laugh, this is a logical result of the reasonableness constraint. Of course, we can confuse the issue with debates about the political justifications and responsibilities of a municipal government but that still does not change the basic environmental justice flaw inherent in tying tree value to land value.

Reply to post by Kevin-H, on April 11, 1999 at 23:47:05:

Kevin,

RE: PAR 1. The segregation of approaches to value into COST, MARKET or SALES COMPARABLE [PRICE} and INCOME or BENEFIT is a convention, a way of organizing thought so as to bring some logic and some descriptiveness to an appraisal framework or model. It is borrowed from real estate appraisal but is found in many other areas of appraisal including natural resource damage assessment as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations and elsewhere.

The convention describes COST approaches as related to PRODUCTION. Build something from scratch. Buys nails and lumber and sheetrock and wires and pipes and combine them with transportation, tools and skills to build a house on a piece of land. That's pretty much descriptive of what TFM and RCM do. MARKET approaches are related to EXCHANGE. You buy - somebody else sells - a finished good in place, ready to consume or enjoy. Factors of production already assembled or inherent.

Yes indeed, each element of the factors of production has a market price at a point in time and they are aggregated to reflect replacement or reproduction cost. But that aggregated COST may or may not = market PRICE for the finished good at any point in time. The idea of using both approaches is reveal or filter out wild market swings.

COST and MARKET approaches both assume that benefits remain constant. With COST you build a new unit, with MARKET you find and buy one at X$. So you, your heirs, the system are all made whole. If the goods we are valuing are indeed replaceable - whether by building or buying - value is pretty reliably estimated. If the goods are not replaceable the approaches become more hypothetical. As trees become larger they become more non-replaceable. Technically non-replaceable in COST approaches and supply non-replaceable in MARKET approaches. They are indeed non-market goods separate from the land. (Setting aside the anomolous and non-representative transplanting of very large material with dubious survivability.)

So, TFM is indeed imperfect but it does not fail. It provides a logical, if hypothetical, extension of the production COST of small sizes for large non-replaceable, non-market sizes. It trends in the right direction. It does a better job than MARKET approaches which would extract tree value from market price of land+house in reflecting lost benefits to a particular beneficiary, UNLESS the definition of value is market value or the appraiser uses the Location Factor as if the definition of value is market value.

Gets back to definition of value and beneficiaries in the analysis.

RE: PAR 2. We've explored this a little before. Appraisal works within an existing ethic (assuming the ethic does not wrongfully permit crimes against humanity or abhorent acts). Some of the environmental ethics arguments are at a moral or societal plane above these technical discussions. That said, there are scale issues. The natual-unnatural issue may be a false dichotomy in theory, but practically given the nature of Homo sapiens it ain't going away. Even assuming a stable world population, societies will need to set broad scale parameters within which there are inviolable protections for resources - by class, by protected region, whatever - and consumable resouces isn't sustainability the buzzword these days?) inculding suburban yards where people can cut trees down to get the shade off the pool or rural woodlots wherte people can cut trees to cook their food.

RE: PAR 3. Haven't gone back to KWK's last, so just reponding to this. Favero introduced a thread "Why must it be reasonable?" I think I suggest our analyses must be reasonable in the context of the facts and in consideration of the definition of value and the beneficiaries. (It keeps coming back to that doesn't it? I think I also said in another thread that any opinion of value that is represented or misconstrued to be "true value" in all cases for all definitions of value and all beneficiaries will be flawed from one perspective or another.)

So the use of a method, say TFM, to estimate market value on a single property to settle a dispute may logically relate tree value to land value. In a broad scale municipal inventory, it may not makes sense to use the Location factor the same way if at all. The trees are held in the public interest and values should be leveled across the public interest. Maybe the definition of value has nothing to do with market, maybe the goal is a management tool which provides a hypothetical replacement cost for the entire forest to justify budgets. Maybe the goal is to estimate contribution to market value (Location factor then WOULD apply) to get a sense for contribution to property tax base. Maybe you focus resources on the lower priced neighborhoods to enhance value, encourage stability and reinvestment. Ahhh, now you've run afoul of the social justice people. Get your environmental justice out of here! We don't want our trees to get their fair share. You'll improve the neighborhood, encourage gentrification, inflate market price of housing, drive the poor folks out.

Now we're headed back to broad scope public policy issues. Real indeed, but the appraisal practitioner follows policy rather than leads it. But not BLINDLY. Understand the theory and the methodology. Understand the purpose and use of the analysis. Define value and beneficiaries carefully. Insist on the freedom to do that.

Scott

Reply to post by Kevin-H, on April 11, 1999 at 23:47:05:

There are none so blind.....

Kevin, IÂd like to thank you for your contributions to these discussions. You have led us into areas quite removed from tree valuation, and into the realm of the esoteric, under the guise of philosophic enlightment.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion on the value structure of the universe, even if it differs greatly from the concepts of society at large. Our problem as arborists, though, is that society, of which we are a part, requests and demands that monetary equivalents be assigned to Âtree valueÂ, and that it be done within a framework already established by that society. This is what Scott, Kerry and others have been arguing all along. I think we all agree to some extent that the current socio-economic philosophies of the public at large (society) are not necessarily the ideal. But we canÂt instantly nor unilaterally change them as we please. They must be developed. They must evolve. We can work toward that end, but we canÂt mandate it, despite all your eloquent locution.

So far, I see a lot of empty words. You have taken the position that our (societyÂs) value system is wrong, but I have not seen a lot of constructive suggestions on how that should be corrected. A lot of wistful thinking. You have complained of lack of definintions, but havenÂt offered suitable suggestions, predicated on accepted theory. You havenÂt offered sources to substantiate your arguements, leaving them as little more than your own opinion- the same that you complain of when others fall into that trap. The readers of this board, both those who post regularly and the Âlurkers (those who prefer to quietly read and learn- an Internet term), are seeking to further their understanding of tree valuation as it is defined by society. That is, afterall, the task we are assigned, and as we have said many times, the assignment is the guide to our methods.

While it may be fun to toss stones into ponds and delve into the undercurrents of philosophic debate, we also have to maintain the perspective of reality. This is the real world, in which we all have to live and work, including Dr. Leary. [g]

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on April 11, 1999 at 23:47:05:

Whoa, isn't that a little bit harsh?! Far be it from me to chastise the webmaster, but I'd hate to discourage Kevin from entering into the fray.

Some of the questions he raises are ones which are going to be raised in court. While we do have some answers, and some of that answer is in escence: "Get real" or "let's stay in touch with reality"; we do need to answer. Sure, I am committed to the integrity of intelligent discussion, especially here in this forum. I am also aware of the need for exposure of experts to some of the absurd edge of arguements we may encounter, not that Kevin's points are absurd, nor responses to the questions.

We must be able to define our capabilities within bounds of reasonablness and what is commonly practiced. In order to do that, it is a good idea for us all to benefit from discussion of the boundries between common practice, reasonablness; and fringe ideals. Sometimes those lines are not clear. The best way in my opinion, to clarify them, is to discuss them.

Whew, sorry about the soapbox guys, but this begins to touch on some ideals of my own. It is a privaledge to be able to discuss these issues with folks who indeed know something about the subject. Otherwise, I'm discussing them with my imaginary friends (ghosts) or with folks who really don't have anything to contribute to the discussion because the whole discussion is over their heads.

Thank you Mr. Webmaster for your valuable time and effort in providing this forum for such broadly reaching and meaningful discussions.

Best regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Kevin-H, on April 11, 1999 at 23:47:05:

"TFM fails in this respect, again because it is an attempt to artificially extend a market price beyond market parameters. "

It is what you say, an artificial extension of market price, adjusted for species desireability, it's fulfillment of function on the site, and wear and tear. That isn't a failure, that's a good thing. It is a tool that takes a credible look at an otherwise improbable task. The tool differs from looking at actual purchase and transplant of huge trees, which is also a good thing.

"Our right to modify the environment however, ceases when we begin to objectify other life forms for whimsical reasons such as a transitory cultural aesthetic."

This statement implies that other life forms have rights. I can never agree with such a notion. Humans have responsibilities to lower life forms, but never to the extent that another life form takes priority over human needs. Trees shouldn't be treated as "objects" quite to the extent that a city public works map might treat them, ie; a drawing next to a fire hydrant next to a curb, an inanimate object. As good stewards, humans do have responsibilities to lower life forms. We must consider the living process, and enhance health in an effort to maximize the life of the object. We must be considerate of struggling species, who may be in danger of vanishing from suitable environments, but that may not include my back yard. It would be an unacceptable request for someone to impose habitat for wolves in my suburban neighborhood. The coyotes and cougars are already here, and need to go. They can benefit from their natural heritage somewhere else, a place that is appropriate for them.

"As such this municipality logically wishes to maximize the value of their investment and thus elects to plant more trees in front of rich homes."

The reasonable test, held in relation to the value of the property is extraordinarily important, for the very reasons you mention. Those "rich" homes get taxed on a much higher scale. Someone, somewhere MUST hold that logical municipality to a reasonable standard when the "poor" guy cuts the parking strip tree down for firewood during tough times. The expectation that the poor guy would pay what a rich guy would is out of line, and the appraiser is responsible to show that. I have never seen a greater need for peer review of appraisals than some of these city wide inventories and appraisals.

Best regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Kerry, on April 13, 1999 at 17:10:21:

Kerry, my comments are not as 'webmaster', but as a reader of this forum. I have no intention of limiting the discussion, nor of removing or censoring any posts that fit within the realm of civility.

My comments are directed toward the tendency I see in Kevin's messages to ignore the previous discussions, and to 'incite' without offering substance back. Kevin offers thought-provoking (and just plain provoking) comments and ideas, but in many cases hasn't offered what I feel are constructive arguments or approaches to resolve the conflicts he perceives.

I also want to make it clear to all readers that these are open discussions, as between learned individuals, and the participation by everyone is welcome and encouraged. The whole point of this forum is to encourage discussions. There have been only a few (you among them, Kerry) who have contributed much to these discussions. While some of these discussions have been 'heavy reading', there must be a lot of questions out there, yet they are not showing up here. There have been over 360 'hits' on Scott's article on the TFM, but no questions posted here. Does everyone understand this stuff that well?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on April 13, 1999 at 23:45:23:

Fair enough.

You and Scott are both very concerned about feedback on his article. I think one reason you aren't getting much is because guys like me respect the effort and thought that has gone into the article, and don't want to offend.

I still don't want to offend, but here goes:
The article is harder than hell to read and come away feeling like you have a sense of what in the world he's talking about. I had to couple a whole lot of what I already know with what I was seeing, just to follow the thought processes presented. There are a lot of undefined words and phrases used, which require further research.

I don't think very many people can sit down in one shot and understand the article, fully. That may explain some of the many hits, people are taking a second run at the article in an effort to figure out what is being said.

Plain, simple language is the key to communicating the subject clearly.

With respect and high regard,
KWK

Reply to post by Kerry, on April 14, 1999 at 11:08:30:

Kerry,

No offense taken. It was a challenge to get a comprehensive explanation of what the trunk formula method is (in theoretically grounded terms, not common understanding and mis-understanding) in a concise article. That required quite extensive reliance on citation of other works containing the theory.

Yes, real understanding will require some attention to some or all of of the cited work.

I think one of the problems with tree appraisal is that practitioners are typically trained as plants people with little or no training in appraisal. And I don't think the CTLA/ISA/ASCA training does much in that regard. It focuses on the plants.

I'll go back and check my sources but I think designation as a real estate appraiser, for example, requires something like 150 classroom hours in APPRAISAL (not all the other technical stuff you already may or may not know) and a year or two of full time appraisal experience.
That's on top of a 4 year degree.

Value is a very complex issue as the threads have shown. Reducing it to simple methodology may seem to make it easy for the practitioner, but I think it just gets people into trouble especially if the simplification process was not well informed.

I'll go re-read the article to try to identify poorly defined stuff. Of course it may be clear to me and not to readers. I'd be happy to explain any you care to post questions about.

Thanks for offering your comments.

Scott

Reply to post by Kerry, on April 11, 1999 at 23:47:05:

I'm going to stay out of the fray on whether non-human biota have rights. That's not my field. And I don't think I can dispute anybody's opinion one way or another. At least not theoretically. I'll just acccept that for the moment fact is man seem to have the upper hand.

Kerry, there is a useful distinction between COST approaches which assemble materials with labor and expertise to PRODUCE something and MARKET approaches which focus on purchase of a finished product pretty mush in place at a PRICE. You're right, TFM takes a logical - admittedly hypothetical - crack at something that can't be done in an actual way.

I'm not sure I agree with your municipal example. Assuming the definition of value is contribution to market price of real estate the tree in the yard in a poor neighborhood will be lower than similar tree in a rich neighborhood. Put that same tree in the center median on public property and you could argue that the citywide average value for a given trees/species/size/condition shopuld be uniform. It's the value to the public entity that matters. If the court decides to take a lenient view on the perpetrator because of extenuating circumstances that's a different matter than the value of the tree. Particularly if value is indicated by the replacement cost to the community.

Reply to post by Scott, on April 14, 1999 at 12:09:11:

Hey I agree with the plants person vs someone who has an extensive background in appraisal bit. It is clear that a plantsman who attempts appraisal needs to study appraisal principles. I agree that training materials don't steer adequately enough to more appraisal specific principles, and most of all leaves voids in information between appraisal principles and how to apply them to plants.

I'm not asking you to "dumb it down", merely suggesting that the principles at stake be explained in simpler terms. And, I agree that a little bit of information, without a clear view of the whole picture is dangerous.

The thing about a degree is a stumbling block to the process. It creates a wide chasm between experienced practicioners and acadamia - not good. I am more interested if someone has taken the time to study the trade than if they have some kind of degree, but, that's another subject, and maybe beyond our control.

Best regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Scott, on April 14, 1999 at 10:39:25:

RE: "I'm not sure I agree with your municipal example." and "It's the value to the public entity that matters."

It would depend upon who owns the tree. While ROW agreements give cities, utilities, etc. certain rights in exchange for privaledges, the trees are most often viewed as a liability to that agreement, to the extent that maintenance responsibilities are assigned to a given party. The street department or parks department wants to enjoy benefits, but who pays for that? Who owns the tree?

That tree is a part of the land upon which it resides. It belongs to the land owner. Public benefits - minus commitment to maintenance does not entitle the public to rights to consider the value of that tree as an asset.

Of course local law etc. may alter the generality of the above expressed opinion, plus other disclaimers that would/should lead the reader to qualify these statements.

Best regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Kerry, on April 14, 1999 at 15:56:38:

I'm not suggesting that a degree is necessary, though education is just about always a good thing. I was just pointing out how much appraisal specific training is required in other areas of appraisal, irrespective of how much other education or field experience exists as a base.

You posted "I'm not asking you to "dumb it down", merely suggesting that the
principles at stake be explained in simpler terms. And, I agree that a
little bit of information, without a clear view of the whole picture is
dangerous."

I've come to feel that it can't be done in a single article, even a short booklet. There are so many building blocks to get to a meaningful structure that it probably requires a book. As you can see from these threads, any one facet (value, species, location.........) can be a very complex business. I do feel it can be reduced to simple concepts, but only if all of the concepts are presented in an organized framework. Else - again as seen here - things get hung up on single concepts and ill-formed current understandings.

So, bit by bit I'm just trying to do a short treatment at a time. Maybe they can grow into a unified whole.

Reply to post by Scott, on April 14, 1999 at 19:43:43:

Press on, my friend! Go for it! That's kind of what I'm doing with my work on tree care industry safety issues, bit by bit, an article here and there. It's got to be both simple and complete, a challenge on top of clearly identifying and addressing all of the issues at stake. Eventually, my hope is to have a comprehensive work done that can be published at a reasonable price. Safety shouldn't be expensive, nor difficult to lay hold of.

Best regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Kerry, on April 15, 1999 at 09:09:12:

Press on with the safety issue. Good luck.

A few thoughts on simplicity. What we consider depends on our level of understanding. Making things appear simple may make them seem easier but it may not make for better results.

A tree person might say "cost, price, expense; what's the difference it's money, that's what we're estimating, don't complicate things." That same tree person would have a lot to say if an appraiser said "Acer rubrum, Acer saccharum who cares? They're maples. Pine, spruce who cares? They're evergreens. Why complicate things?" On 4/3 at Worthless Value # 515 you said "My rating checklist includes 102 considerations for rating a species." There are even a lot of tree people who would say that's not simple. You may not include everyone of those considerations in every evalution, but you understand what everyone of them means and why they might be important.

Somebody said "we don't know what it is we don't know."

Reply to post by Kerry, on April 14, 1999 at 16:11:29:

Absolutely right. Ownership, beneficial rights, harvest or trimming rights (separate pieces of the "bundle of rights") are all important parts of the definition of the appraisal problem.

In the example you gave I was assuming the tree was in a public ROW and publicly owned. A typical street tree.

There was a whole thread a while back on the 'multiple beneficiaries' concept which can be pretty complex and would ned be supported by law in each case. There is case law that private property owners can have beneficial interests in publicly owned trees abutting the private property and that public entities have a responsibility to safeguard that beneficial interest.

Reply to post by David Cory, on April 16, 1999 at 07:49:19:

What Were Those Measurements Again?

Note: I think I have sent a blank message (more than one so say some). I am new to this and do not yet understand. Please accept my apology.

Diameter at breast height (DBH) is the diameter of a tree at four and one-half (4.5) feet (one and two-fifths [1.4] meters) above grade, said of trees normally considered too large to transplant. However, on one hand, if the diameter of a tree at six (6) inches (fifteen [15] centimeters) above grade is four (4)inches (ten [10] centimeters) or less, diameter is
measured at six (6) inches (fifteen [15] centimeters) above grade. But, on the other hand, if the diameter at six (6) inches (fifteen [15] centimeters)above grade is greater than four (4) inches, AND the tree is assumed to be of transplantable size, then diameter is measured at twelve (12) inches
(thirty [30] centimeters) above grade.

These simple procedures, based on very basic principles, inspired those immortal lines many years ago, "Under the spreading chestnut tree, the village arborist has tied himself up with a measuring tape." (This probably would be a common sight, even today, if it had not been for the tragic chestnut blight which has left only multi-stemmed American chestnuts.)

The diameter of a multi-stemmed tree, if it is on perfectly level ground,(we will address those on slopes much later), is calculated in a way as simple as milking a duck. (Continued on Page 3,456.)

Reply to post by David Cory, on May 03, 1999 at 18:52:33:

David, not sure how to reply to your reply. Are you merely pointing out - using the trunk measurement example - how muddy some of this can be?