Russ, Scott, and Bob,

1) Russ :

Instead of burying my response in the "Fantastic" thread I started a new one. Hope that isn't a breach of netiquette.

I appreciate your position that it is outside the scope of tree appraisal to advocate a particular valuation process. In effect, "it's not my job". In my opinion, since large live trees are not traded in a free market situation, the methodologies we utilize to arrive at a hypothetical value are highly subjective. Sure, the trunk formula method attempts to build upon a market- based basic value, but does that value internalize all of the benefits arrived at by mature tree cover?

Trees are not uniform, inanimate objects that exist and function in isolation. We are dealing with unknown genetic variation in a complex web of poorly understood ecological relationships. For instance - how do we know that that native dogwood that was just smashed by a dozer wasn't the earliest and most prolific fruit bearer on the client's property and was responsible for a significant attraction of birds to the property, wildlife that Mr. Landowner enjoys seeing while he walks in the woods. Mr. Landowner never noticed it before it was damaged and Mr. Tree Appraiser looks at his trunk formula method and sees no category for ecological value (still anthropocentric) so he neglects this aspect. (Yea, yea, I know, it would be a rare dogwood that would need the Trunk formula but hey, it's a damn hypothetical example).

PROBLEM - current methodologies use species as a basic unit of value, yet there is benefit at the genetic level of diversity which is unaccounted for. On a larger scale, there is also benefit in ecosystem diversity, again, not accounted for. These benefits may directly apply to the property owner - your client.

It all falls back on the reductionistic focus of traditional arboriculture with its emphasis on individual units. Trees are biotic entities that evolved in regional ecosystems. They are not uniform, independent, static systems whose primary value is as an "amenity".

Clients rarely come to a forestry professional and say, "I want an eighth edition ISA trunk formula appraisal with beneficiaries limited to myself and my male descendants for two generations". They trust the tree professional to understand and account for all of the benefits which that organism provides. Clients, and the courts, place an almost religious faith in the words of "experts". To present the client with a "valuation" based upon highly subjective assumptions and then claim that it is not the appraisers responsibility to question those assumptions is akin to "topping" trees just because the client wants it. Why bother educating the client as to the possible problems in a procedure? "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap"

2) Scott:

No need to apologize for the logical consistency of your last answer; your posts are almost uniformly articulate and well stated. I am, however, amazed at the thoroughness of your reponses. I can barely find time to log on, never-mind compose an intelligent post.

I am interested in what you find as to the historical genesis of "the present worth of future benefits".

3) Bob

I remember being impressed when Reeves paper came out in '88. We need more creative minds in arboriculture and less mimicry.

Todays lesson for impressionable minds in arboriculture class;

The stiller the pond - the bigger a wave a small stone can make!

(Yea, I know its not nice to throw stones, but sometimes the eutrophication in that stagnant water drives me crazy)

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on February 22, 1999 at 23:18:36:

RE: 1. I don't argue one bit with your observations about the limited focus of tree appraisal to date. That's why we got started with these threads to try to encourage better understanding.

The word of experts is not so reverently taken by the courts. In may last testimony the facts were pretty clear to this expert: a line of boundary trees cut down, they were replaceable size, so estimated replacement cost. The judged flat out refused to even admit replacment cost testimony and interpreted case law to limit damage to cord wood value only: about $4.50 (seriously, about 1/4 cord left in log lengths, green, wholesale).

The growth of ISA and more recently CTLA methods has very much been colored by perceptions of what the courts want.

It is within the appraiser's professional purview to select "adequate and appropriate methodology" (generally and ASCA SPP) which gets back to more appraiser education and understanding the range of values to various beneficiaries. But, the specific beneficiary may be limited by assignmnet and the methodology applicable or acceptable may be limited by law or custom. It is inappropriate, within an appraisal assignment or role for an appraiser to advocate changes in the law. The appraiser must deal with facts as they are found and the current legal environment is a fact.

It seems quite appropriate , in my opinion, for appraisers, after educating themselves, to generally educate the public and the lawyers so as to structure fact based arguments that broaden the understanding allowable at law. But that's very diferent from being an advocate within an assignment, from 'civil disobedience' in an assignment.

There may well be an irreconcilable difference in focus between arboriculture which does indeed focus on single trees or relatively localized groups of trees and broader natural resource valuation. I don't see this as a flaw or defect or negligent approach. It just is what it is. Natural resource valuation has a different set of starting assumptions, requires a different skill set and is well beyond the reasonable application to small scale problems (unless existing regional data can be reduced to a single tree application but I suspect that has lots of reliability problems). Different problems - different methodologies. So the analysis must reduce some how the definition of the problem the research or analytical model to be able to accomplish anything.

RE: 2, your'e very kind.

Reply to post by Scott, on February 22, 1999 at 23:18:36:

Scott, Kevin, and everyone else

In Sylvan Communities magazine December 98, Victor Merullo, Attorney at Law has cited some cases he found interesting from the Pennsylvania State Code. One of these seems to pertain to this arguement and I quote it as follows.

"Bell v. Shetrom (1969)--257 A. 2d 323. -- This case concerns proper measure of damages for the destruction of trees on the property of another. In this case, the court held that the measure of damages depends on the use of the tree. If the tree was meant simply to add bueaty to the land, the correct measure of damages is the value of the land before and after the destruction of the tree. On the other hand, if the tree was some sort of crop or had some reasonable value of its own, the correct measure of damages is the value of the tree itself. Either way, the claiming party should be free to amend the measure of damages to that which is accepted by the court."

Makes things as clear as mud right? Here is an example of a recent appraisal I did in ND. The first statement I include was to determine the use of the trees in question. The second statement, at the end of the appraisal, reaffirmed this use and laid the groundwork for accepting these trees at a value somewhat above the norm.
Value of the trees to the owner is as a shelterbelt to slow winter winds around several calving pens and farm buildings during the late winter calving season in particular. They also provide wind protection and snow control for the farmstead and road in front of the property.
As in any appraisal, resonableness must be considered. Landscaping generally should account for a maximum of 30% of a properties value. However, a shelterbelt, particularly one which is an integral part of a winter calving system in the ranch lands of North Dakota, may have value beyond simple landscaping aesthetics.

This was to compensate the owner-resident for improvements made to the land in the process of settling an estate between the resident owner and a non-resident owner. I have not heard for sure how it came out, but payment for appraisal was to follow sale of calves. Since the deal was supposed to be settled by the first of the year and payment has not yet arrived, I assume that there was no reason for a quick sale. Therefore, an agreement must have been reached.

Bob Underwood

Reply to post by Scott, on February 22, 1999 at 23:18:36:

Attention: For the comfort of our readers (Russ) the following post has been formatted in an anthropocentric, utilitarian, instrumentalist framework.

Scott,

Your experience in the courts runs counter to recent research studying the impact of "expert" witnesses on judges and juries. The testimony of "experts" has been found to carry an undue level of swaying power. In particular, when dealing with scientific information, the opinion of an "expert" has been found to be a critical determinate in court decisions. ( Please do not construe this to mean that you are a poor caliper expert).

We both seem to agree that current valuation methodologies fail to account for all of the benefits provided to the landowner from his or her trees. Russ indicated he felt otherwise, and hence, my last post.

Although I was weaned on Thoreau, I am not advocating any civil disobedience (at least not on this webpage). I am also not advocating broadening the scope of beneficiaries beyond the person who hired you. If a statute or regulation dictates the use of a particular valuation, such as cordwood value, in the determination of restitution for damages then the appraiser is indeed obligated to use that criteria. It is the great mass of valuations that never reach a courtroom that concerns me. This is where advocacy on behalf of the client is required. A more inclusive valuation that incorporates the full range of benefits supplied to that landowner by his tree cover is in the best interests of the client. Anything less is shortchanging them.

On a philosophical note ( I know you gentleman hate this but you simply can not separate valuation and philosophy) :
The difference between arboriculture and natural resource management is indicative of the dichotomy that exists between horticulture and ecology. The objectification of other life forms; as opposed to recognition of the commonality shared by all organisms. I do not think this is necessarily an unbridgeable gap. Arboriculture, if practiced correctly, can in essence become applied ecology. The evolution of our methodologies is an important component of this transition.

Kevin - H

Reply to post by Bob Underwood, on February 23, 1999 at 07:02:01:

"If the tree was meant simply to add bueaty to the land, the correct measure of damages is the value of the land before and after the destruction of the tree."

It must be recognized this was one court's view and 30 year's ago just at the dawn of our current environmental awareness. There are cases when the courts have recognized value well beyond the reasonable contribution to property value, because market value was no the accepted measure of damages. there are other recent cases where the court has limited the damages to cord wood irrespective of use.

"As in any appraisal, resonableness must be considered. Landscaping generally should account for a maximum of 30% of a properties value. "

Reasonableness should always be considered as concerns the facts. It is not a universal fact that the value should be reasonable in relation to property value. Often, but not always. It depends on the definition of value and the acceptable measure of damages. 30%, by the way is really on the high side of contribution to property value. I don't think any of the few studies in the literature have gone much above 255, if that.

Did you see my post asking for an update on SDSU Helwig et al method for shelterbelts?

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on February 23, 1999 at 07:02:01:

"It is the great mass of valuations that never reach a courtroom that concerns me. This is where advocacy on behalf of the client is required."

There is a somewhat arcane but real and important distinction here. The appraiser, when acting as an appraiser and representing the results to be an appraisal is presumed by near universal professional appraisal standards to be an independent and impartial expert and may not be an advocate for either of the parties. this is not limited to expert testimony in a court room.

The consultant / valuer may indeed play a proper and useful role advocating for a party or negotiating or mediating between parties but that is not independent and impartial appraisal and may not be held out as such.

It may be quite difficult to work the gray area between the early parts of a case and the later parts in court if that's where it winds up, if the appraiser has acted as an advocate and employed extra-legal (outside the accepted range of practice no illegal) methodologies or assumptions and then attempts to backtrack in testimony. Not impossible I spose and not necessarily improper but frought with difficulties and pitfalls.

It might be that the best approach would be to uniformly and typically present the range of possibilities (at least in concept if not fully estimated) and disclose to the parties the certainty and reliability as well as legal or cultural acceptability of each. This would allow non-appraisal advocacy if appropriate or a hands off 'here's the information work it out' approach if independence is required.

We seem to be a long way from both the understanding of the issues and any concensus as an industry to adopting any such uniform report standard or format.

Reply to post by Scott, on February 23, 1999 at 14:47:21:

Point well stated. "Advocacy" is not the proper term in this instance. You are correct, an appraiser needs to strive for objectivity.
My point is that a full accounting of all of the benefits supplied by the clients tree cover needs to be undertaken. Current methodololgies fail to achieve this and thus underestimate value.

Kevin - H

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on February 23, 1999 at 07:02:01:

>>RE: We both seem to agree that current valuation methodologies fail to account for all of the benefits provided to the landowner from his or her trees. Russ indicated he felt otherwise, and hence, my last post.

I don't disagree at all that our methods fail to account for all benefits. I only question to what extent should each benefit be applied. We can create endless lists of all the great and glorious things trees do, for us, the environment, and all the other creatures of the world. But how does that apply to the value to my client?

The release of oxygen by one dogwood can be measured, and it is real. Is that of value to my client? Will he be deprived of breathing for a day or two if the tree is cut? The contribution of that benefit is negligible, and should not be considered within the context of an appraisal assignment. A nesting hole for cute little squirrels? They'll find a place to nest, and most places that have squirrels have too many of them anyway (denegrating the environment by overpopulation).

My point is not that these other benefits don't exist, or that we don't recognize them. I simply don't believe they are are entirely germane to the issue of appraisal (and here I'll add "in most cases").

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 23, 1999 at 14:47:21:

Russ and Kevin,

1) A practical issue. We must recognize that, all philosophical and legal considerations aside, there are constraints on our methodologies. IF we estimate replacement cost we can do it with reasonable accuracy and confidence (getting a little fuzzier as we move farther beyond actually replaceable size). IF we estimate contribution to property value we can do it with reasonable accuracy and confidence based on the facts. IF we expand the number of beneficiaries or move into areas of inquiry which are much less clear cut (what is the oxygen production of that one dogwood and what benefit - marginal or otherwise - does it provide to beneficary a, b or c?) we must disclose the differential confidence level of each component of value. It may be that the complexity of the exercise overwhelms the importance or value of the case or that the application of broad scale environmental value data to a single tree or property scale has no meaningful precision and is so easiliy disputed as to discredit the entire analysis.

2) Theoretical issue. Kevin, I don't have time to look up the sources and definitions but I believe that there is not only a distinction between market and non-market goods but economic and non-economic goods. Non-market goods can still be economic and I'd gusee these are appraisable. Non-economic goods which I'd guess include many of the benefits of plants or ecosystems may not be appraisable, at least not by conventional methodologies or any methodologies likely to be within the range of competence of a landscape tree appraiser.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 23, 1999 at 14:47:21:

In my opinion, Russ is right, this time. When diamonds, Jewelry, houses, or other "concrete" items are appraised, the appraiser does not figure in all of the benefits from owning the object. Our problem with large tree appraising, is that we are putting a value on an irreplaceable item. Sometimes the "formula" just seems like smoke and magic.
Very treely,
Lew

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on February 22, 1999 at 23:18:36:

In deference to and awareness of Russ's upcoming stint teaching report writing at the ASCA Academy, we must observe that the dirty deed would be done "cheaply" (as we all do you were typing quickly and couldn't edit your post) or "[on the] cheap" and for the sake of economy of words the prepositional phrase was merely implied or you were knowingly employing a vernacular phrase [sic].

Reply to post by Scott, on February 22, 1999 at 23:18:36:

Or, I suppose, the construction could be that "cheap" was properly used as a predicate adjective and further modified by the adjective "dirt." What do you think Russ?

Reply to post by Scott, on February 25, 1999 at 07:40:32:

The grammatical error was purposeful, as it is a reference to an historic, paradigm shifting, musical sub-culture.

Reply to post by Scott, on February 24, 1999 at 00:02:22:

Russ,

In post 451 you stated:

"You did say benefits... my error. So then how do you know we are underestimating the benefits? Benefits to whom? (Back to the argument about the squirrels.) Correcting my misquote, I stand by the comment".

Now you state:

"I don't disagree at all that our methods fail to account for all benefits. I only question to what extent should each benefit be applied. We can create endless lists of all the great and glorious things trees do, for us, the environment, and all the other creatures of the world. But how does that apply to the value to my client?"

You seem to be confusing my argument concerning underestimating benefits with an extension of beneficiaries beyond the client. Those are two different things. As per my example of wildlife value and genetic diversity (benefits directly applied to your landowner) current methodologies fail to account for these benefits and thus underestimate value. The focus on characteristics which are easily measurable such as species, size, etc. to the exclusion of variables outside of the range of familiarity of an arboricultural appraiser introduces an inherent bias into the appraisal.

I would respectfully disagree with both Lew and Russ. Appraisers of market based goods such as real estate, jewelry, cars, etc. are dealing with a different animal. ISA formula evaluations are an attempt to artificially extend market value. (I agree with Lew that "smoke and mirrors" is an appropriate metaphor.)

Scott,

Please define your use of "non-economic goods". While I do agree that there is a difference between market goods and economic goods, I believe that the benefits which are derived from plants and ecosystems (oxygen, soil stabilization, carbon sequestration, air filtration, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da) are fundamental components to most (if not all) human economies and constitute economic goods. As such they are measurable. In fact, American Forests have made an attempt to quantify this value with their CityGreen program.

I would also argue that just because a benefit is not within the range of expertise of a traditional arboricultural practitioner this is no excuse for discounting its contribution to the landowner. They should either expand their expertise or refrain from presenting their opinion as a true measure of "value".

Russ,

What is this pathological fixation with squirrels? Did they give you a hard time when you were a climber and making a living by eliminating all those nice nesting sites in the name of tree preservation and neo-classical aesthetics?

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on February 24, 1999 at 09:16:17:

I will dig through my stacks of reference material to find the distinctions among market, non-market, economic and non-economic. I simply introduced them into the discussion without much comment since I don't have the definitions at hand.

I agree that the typical landscape tree appraiser (arborist, forester, nurseryman, whomever) has erroneously characterized the single output of the traditional methods as "true value." It's not so much a sham as ignorance. It is the notion of some "true value" that I have characterized as "intrinsic" meaning that it is immutable or universal or somewhere, somehow written down in a big book. The "value" output or opinion of any exercise will vary by the inputs to the analysis including the definition of value estimated, the benefits and the beneficiaries considered.

The societal function of appraisal is to serve as an aid to decision makers (Kinnard, 1971). The aid they need depends on the decisions they need to make. If the decision is forming public policy, indeed the range of values and beneficiaries must or at least should be broad. If the decision is a settlement among individual parties for perceived benefits then the range of benefits may appropriately be smaller (and that range may not be determined so much by the appraiser as by the parties, or cutom or law). That said, the appraisal should be clear that its conclusion is limited to the range of the analysis and should not purport to be an all inclusive "true value."

My objective all along has been to counter the mis-assumption that "replacement cost is identical to value, so what else is there to know." Our mission, should we decide to accept it seems to have broadened since the new focus seems to similarly mis-assume that tree value must be "reasonable in the context of contribution to real estate market value."

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on February 24, 1999 at 09:16:17:

>>You seem to be confusing my argument concerning underestimating benefits with an extension of beneficiaries beyond the client. Those are two different things. As per my example of wildlife value and genetic diversity (benefits directly applied to your landowner) current methodologies fail to account for these benefits and thus underestimate value. The focus on characteristics which are easily measurable such as species, size, etc. to the exclusion of variables outside of the range of familiarity of an arboricultural appraiser introduces an inherent bias into the appraisal.<<

Kevin, as I interpret your arguement, "underestimating benefits" can have two meanings, and you weren't clear on which you intended. One is that we are underestimating the value of each benefit applied, and the second that we are underestimating the number and/or diversity of benefits that apply. I responded to the latter.

The scope of the benefits you are suggesting go far beyond the measure of value to the property owner/client. The environmental aspects you mention, oxygen release, carbon sequestering, etc., are values to a population, or more precisely, to the environment wholistically. We have no foundation to include them as benefits to the property owner whatsoever. Those are societal benefits, not individual benefits. That is simply not what tree appraisal is about, in the form we practice it in general. There may be cases where those aspects apply, but not to the appraisal of one tree or even one property on a landscape basis. I agree we must have an awareness of the benefits derived, but that doesn't mean we should include them in the appraisal process.

Reply to post by Scott, on February 25, 1999 at 14:46:57:

Congratulations Scott, we are in agreement on these points. Now, if we could possibly get Russ straitened out.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 25, 1999 at 14:46:57:

Russ,

Again, as per my example, things like genetic diversity do directly impact the benefits received by the INDIVIDUAL property owner. Intra-species genetic diversity can have a significant impact on the benefits received by the INDIVIDUAL landowner. Not only in terms of wildlife attraction but also in terms of tree vitality, structure, longevity and micro-climatic impact. Genetic diversity is the fundamental unit of biotic diversity yet it is not accounted for in current tree appraisal techniques. Whether or not we have the tools to economically measure this variable is irrelevant. The point being that we are not truly producing an accurate accounting of the benefits supplied by the individual tree.

All oaks are not equal, nor all pines, etc. Before you feel inclined to argue that an arborist is accounting for genetic diversity when he looks at "condition" let us remember that there is a difference between a genotype and the phenotypic expression of that genetic makeup. In addition, the "condition" classification is a highly subjective evaluation biased towards the traditional neo-classical concepts of a "healthy" tree. The presence of cavities, deadwood and decay would reduce the value rating of a plant during an ISA valuation yet it might actually increase the habitat and food quality to wildlife (both charismatic and non-charismatic species). The hypothetical landowner enjoys his diversity of wildlife - it is a benefit he or she receives. Quite simply, we do not yet understand all of the complex ecological relationships that occur outside of our climate -controlled cocoons.

The "societal" benefits you listed were examples I utilized of "ecosystem" benefits. They may be marginal in terms of the individual plant unit, but if the property size is large enough the cumulative impact of multiple tree loss may indeed cause a loss of these benefits to an individual landowner. For instance, I own 12+ acres of fairly rolling forested terrain. If I lose a hypothetical "threshold" number of trees on a particular slope I will "lose" the benefit of soil stabilization supplied by those plants and may have to incur the expense of an engineered solution.

Ultimately it is a question of accuracy, objectivity, and appropriateness. If we insist on trying to apply a market value to a non-mobile biotic entity then we better stick with replacement value or the percentage of contribution to the land value. But, golly, replacement value isn't really accurate unless you are putting in one of those clonaly-propogated K-mart specials. And percentage of property value? Damn, here comes that environmental justice issue Bob now uses to fry his students cerebrums.

Perhaps we need to rethink the appropriateness of applying market value to unique biotic organisms that are not traded in a market situation and lobby for statutory standards for tree preservation and value. Sorry Scott, I slipped into the role of an advocate again!

OK Russ, now you have something truly interesting to discuss at the Academy.

Reply to post by Kevin - H, on February 24, 1999 at 09:16:17:

>>You seem to be confusing my argument concerning underestimating benefits with an extension of beneficiaries
beyond the client. Those are two different things. As per my example of wildlife value and genetic diversity
(benefits directly applied to your landowner) current methodologies fail to account for these benefits and thus
underestimate value. The focus on characteristics which are easily measurable such as species, size, etc. to the
exclusion of variables outside of the range of familiarity of an arboricultural appraiser introduces an inherent bias
into the appraisal.


After further reflection...
I'm not confusing the two- benefits and beneficiaries. They are separate, but intimately tied together. The beneficiary(ies) determines the assignment (not meaning that the individual tells you what it is, but rather that the entity defines it). From this flows the rest of the appraisal process. The assignment is the road map of where you ust arrive to complete the job adequately. Without a well-defined assignment, you can neither develop a course of action nor know when you have arrived at the conclusion. It may be as simple as a mental construct, but it has to be there.

Once the beneficiaries are identified and the purpose and goals of the project determined, you have set the assignment. That in turn helps to indicate which benefits must be considered, and to what extent. Wildlife habitat, for example, has no bearing (in my opinion) if the tree is hazardous. Benefits to be considered will vary according to purpose of the appraisal- the assignment.

If we have been underestimating the importance of some benefits, it is most likely due to lack of education of the appraisers. Since at least the sixth edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal ther has been provision for considering any of the wide range of benefits you have discussed, including all the environmental issues, when they apply. The Guide, sixth edition, page 25 states:
"Location is in essence a multi-purpose factor and includes position, the area in which the plants are located; aesthetic; functional; and site factors. The area in which the plant occurs includes such locations are [sic] arboreta, cemetaries, malls and I ndustrial, residential, street, and wooded areas. It also includes such ecological and environmental conditioins as open soil or areas cut out in pavement, wind-swept situations, or polluted air sites..... The functional factors include such climatic and environmental benefits as air purification, erosioni control, noise abatement, and climate control..."

I won't argue here whether the location factor is the appropriate place to consider these benefits. Historically, they have been part of the appraisal process at least since 1983 (I don't have copies of the earlier editions) The Felt/Spicer formula goes back much farther, and did provide for both condition and location factors, although my sources do not elaborate on what is to be included in those considerations. The point is that we have had a place to consider these ecological and environmental benefits. If they have been undervalued, I see it as a failing of our training, not the process.

Reply to post by Kevin -H, on February 25, 1999 at 22:40:25:

>>Again, as per my example, things like genetic diversity do directly impact the benefits received by the
INDIVIDUAL property owner. Intra-species genetic diversity can have a significant impact on the benefits
received by the INDIVIDUAL landowner. Not only in terms of wildlife attraction but also in terms of tree
vitality, structure, longevity and micro-climatic impact. Genetic diversity is the fundamental unit of biotic
diversity yet it is not accounted for in current tree appraisal techniques. Whether or not we have the tools to
economically measure this variable is irrelevant. The point being that we are not truly producing an accurate
accounting of the benefits supplied by the individual tree.

These issues ARE indeed accounted for, if the appraiser applies the concepts and methods appropriately. See Re: Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap - Russ Carlson 2/27/99 (473) Genetic diversity can be and is accounted for under Location: Contribution, and Location: Placement. Perhaps can even be considered under the site factor (Not suggesting they be counted more than once.) The provisions are there already for these. Applying to your example, a variant that produces more food to attract wildlife will recieve a greater Contribution rating. We still have the objectivity of the appraiser to consider, but as Scott pointed out, that is inherent within the appraisal system. We can only strive to provide adequate training so that the appraiser can recognize and fairly evaluate the relative benefits.

Reply to post by Kevin -H, on February 25, 1999 at 22:40:25:

>>OK Russ, now you have something truly interesting to discuss at the Academy.

Not a topic covered at the Academy, Kevin. Why don't you enroll, and come see what we can teach you?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 26, 1999 at 01:00:06:

I am not sure I understand all of the issues involved here. The answers to a couple of questions might help me understand.

Q: If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to appraise the lost value, are the facts changed?

-and-

Q: Are there obligations not only to fact but also to the client? Confusing the issue in court with sesquipedalians and side bars into Amazon Basin ecology probably is not in the best interests either of the facts of the case or the client.

However,

I truly love the idea of the individualistic valuation of a lost tree. Can you imagine, during the chestnut blight when all chestnuts within a five-mile radius of infection were removed prophyllactically, to be able to stand in court and state that roots of the one removed from your client's property have been tested and found to be genetically resistant?

Appraised value?

It was priceless, your honor.

Reply to post by David Cory, on February 27, 1999 at 23:28:32:

"Q: If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to appraise the lost value, are the facts changed?"

What facts? What value? Can I assume you mean that no one is aware the tree fell rather than that there is awareness but no appraiser to help the beneficiaries decide what value might have been?

Either way the physical characteristics of the tree and its environment is unchanged. It's role in the environment is unchanged. Value may be changed. Value -- in an appraisal context -- is a human perception. No perception, no value. At least no change in value at least for the duration of unawareness. Is there no awareness because the woods are so remote or the tree so marginally insignificant that there is no effective loss of benefit? Or does the marginal unit contribute real benefits (erosion control, screening, whatever) but the beneficiary just has not discovered the loss yet?

The appraisal process starts with identifying the specifc definition of value, the beneficiary and the date of appraisal. Those are some of the facts.

"Q: Are there obligations not only to fact but also to the client? Confusing the issue in court with sesquipedalians and side bars into Amazon Basin ecology probably is not in the best interests either of the facts of the case or the client."

In my opinion, yes. And also a duty to the public interest not to burden to dispute resolution system with arcane arguments that may involve deminimis value to either the parties or the public. If the scope of case is limited to a single specimen on a single property the considerations and duties (ethical and professional) are different from those which would apply to a case involving significantly large land areas, numbers of trees and off site consequences. There may be specific exceptions to the single site situation including: regulated resources; historic or scientific significance; violation of agreements, etc.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 26, 1999 at 01:00:06:

Russ, we must recognize that the CTLA methods are COST approaches to value. The Species, Condition and Location depreciation factors can only reduce cost. We can apply depreciation to reflect the various elements of value that Kevin describes - species diversity etc. - IF those elements are described by the portion of value which is less than total cost but greater than cost depreciated for other factors. E.G. Cost is $1,000 and after applying the typical adjustments is reduced to $600; but we recognize some ecological benefits less than $400 so we adjust our percentage adjustments so value is $700.

However, IF those other elements of ecological or environmental value or benefit to the owner are incremental to otherwise depreciated cost the methods will not account for them except a) as separate additions to depreciated replacement cost or b) by recognizing a separate set of costs (in addition to plant replacment cost) to account for the lost ecological benefit. E.G. Tree is lost, we get replacment tree from nursery, all benefits are replaced EXCEPT that the nursery tree is not from the genetic stock originating in England and winding up in the colonies because acorns were used to pack delicate glassware and that genetic stock is more resistant to the colonial leaf miner.

The technical issue is very much worth noting and it may be appropriate to recognize such benefits by separate addition to the cost indication of value. BUT the issue of materiality or significance is just as important. Are such additional benefits reliably estimateable and is the estimate significant in the case?

Reply to post by Scott, on February 27, 1999 at 23:24:19:

>>The Species, Condition and
Location depreciation factors can only reduce cost.

Why? Can we not apply a negative depreciation, or appreciation? If your oak replaces all except one key benefit, can we not add a reasonable factor for that? Many arborists have argued that trees can have a negative value, if they are hazardous. This seems much the same, in going past the zero mark. If a caharacteristic detracts from value, we deduct a percentage. If it appreciates the vaule, should we not add a percentage as compensation? This goes a long way toward rectifying the differences in the cost approach when an exact species match is not available.

Yes, these are cost approach methods, but that is what the CTLA Guide has been dealing with. All of the methods suggested by the Guide (TF, CoC, Replacement) make use of adjustments by location, where appropriate.