Scott wrote in FV vs. NV #302, " One of the problems I see is the notion that appraisal may be misunderstood (by both practitioners and users) as a measurement exercise which is able to produce precise, absolute answers."

The 'appraisal' is not finalized until acceptance of it's findings (remuneration, therapeutic treatment, etc.) are completely fulfilled. Does this happen? If so, to what extent?

"appraiser 1. a person who appraises. 2. a person given authority to decide the value of goods, propety, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language;,1962

From what authority are we permitted (given) to appraise the 'value' of these plants? Is the driving aspect of judicial permission, client satisfaction, or forestry / arboricultural scientific findings our "given" right of way to appraise?

Do courts, insurance companies, and other recipients provide validation of our final analysis?

In addition to educating the courts on value, as it relates to living trees, maybe we need to address the court's role in 'authority of appraisal'.

Sincerely, Steve

Reply to post by Stephen Wiley, on December 04, 1998 at 02:55:39:

Really good questions.

I'm going to respond in a general way rather than point by point.

We've talked about appraisal as the estimation of monetary value. There is an additional characteristic: 'appraisal is a tool for decision makers.' (The source is Kinnard, William, date?. It's a real estate appraisal text. I can dig up the exact citation if anybody wants it.) Somebody wants the estimate of value to make a decision about something. Should I buy this house? Should we lend money for the purchase of this house? Should you receive X or (3)X in restitution for your destroyed tree? Kevin, is this preference ranking?

The decision maker could be an individual, a group, a business, a government (executive) or a court (judicial). The decision maker employs an appraiser because of insufficient time, expertise or data. Or maybe just to be an independent, third party referee.

(Assume authority to practice, to offer appraisal services -- legal competence -- because you need to be licensed etc. is not an issue.)

Your authority to make the final decision about value (Webster, 1962: 2) comes from the decision maker (maybe enabled by law). I suppose the FINAL decision remains with the decision maker, they have just decided to accept your finding.

The decsion maker may limit the scope of your analysis or the range of data you may consider or the definition of value or the measure of damage / value the appraiser may employ. Authority is limited.

The appraiser, as a professional (through legal regulation or personal responsibility) has a duty to act in the public interest, to honor the public trust. Just because you've been given authority to provide guidance or even a 'final' decision you cannot ignore or suppress or distort factual evidence. You must be objective. You must use the best science the assignment allows.

(Objective as is possible. This goes back to my #302. Value is a subjection perception held by somebody. The appraiser must consider the facts surrounding that. Appraisal is not a hard physical science. Your not measuring the way you would specific gravity or chemical composition. The appraiser must avoid bias: his/her own, the decisionmaker's, the opponent's.)

So, notwithstanding the authority given, the appraiser must not overstate the precision or reliability of the value estimate. The results should not be presented in a manner that is misleading. The ASCA SPP and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) are clear on this.

Decision makers will make bad decisions. Courts will make bad decisions (and in the process bad law). When decision makers validate our findings and it's a bad decision (we did a poor job or pursued a scope of authority so limited it assured a bad decision) we have to consider: is justice served by the process even if this one particular decision is bad? or is a system which allows even one bad decision inherently flawed and untenable? Some individuals may determine that the scope of authority the current (social) environment provides is too limited to allow them to ethically practice appraisal.

Others may determine that responsible appraisal (as good science as is allowed, no bias, full disclosure) is in the public interest and even if there are poor decisions from time to time society benefits from their practice. They may endeavor to 'improve or enlighten' society's views by their level of practice and other activities. They may from time to time decline assignments if they feel they will not have the authority to be act responsibly.

Others may just say 'show me the money.' They may not sink to the level of 'I'll say whatever you want' but they may not have a fully developed ethical awareness of their role.

This all raises another question: scale. Julian, are you out there? Your the regional planner aren't you? How do we distinguish appraisal (helping decision makers on a tree by tree, property by property, case by case basis) from broad scale natural resource assessment? Understanding that 'a tree here a tree there pretty soon your talking about a regional forest system,' are the questions different? Are the impacts of decisions different? Are the ethical reponsibilities different? Are the rights of small scale private property owners regulated differntly from those of large scale owners (public or private? individually or collectively?)?

Whew!

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on December 04, 1998 at 02:55:39:

Yes boss, I am here, contemplating all this erudition and wondering what to say. If we extrapolate the value of that special individual tree, and then take a stand of trees, does the value per tree stay the same of decrease? Well, I suppose it all depends on how we assign "value" and how we use our objective experience in the appraisal. Suppose we come up with a "value" for a stand of trees and then expand that to the landscape (regional) level. Are all the stands of the same value? Likely not, but even so the regional landscape must have some value. It seems to me that at the more extensive scale the value per tree would be less, perhaps reflecting abundance (less rarity value). Perhaps even the notion that regional landscapes cannot possibly reflect the same aggregate value as one would get by multiplying value of an individual by the number of trees present (which might be theoretically correct if every tree had the same condition, and other ratings, but biologically unlikely since location within stands or regional landscapes would be very variable, thus offering a much wider array of individual values to aggregate). Besides the issue of individual tree values, the larger forested systems take on additional values in the ecological sense which would not be possessed by an individual tree. For example, watershed runoff moderation, slope stability, climate moderation and so on. I think it would be a mistake to try and apply the CTLA concepts in any format, to the larger landscapes. Quite where we draw the line between landscapes in the individual homeowner sense, and landscapes in the larger ecological sense, I am not sure.

To some extent the issue may be moot anyway. Surely, as experts it is our job to present convincing (albeit objective and factual) evidence to support the claim being made, as in "based on my best assessment, the value of x is as follows...." If the courts toss that out, then too bad. When writing Arboriculture and the Law in Canada it became clear very quickly that the courts have accepted and rejected a wide array of valuations, usually all of them presented by credible arborists. As with most aspects of the law, repeatedly accepted precedents eventually define what is or is not acceptable. I would love to be able to argue that a full cost accounting approach should apply in cases where, for example, loss of tree cover leads to far more than merely the removal of trees. I could try to add in loss of habitat, climate modifications, on or off site damage, compounded costs to restore the site to its original condition, and so on. But, we tread then into the realms of environmental impact assessment, which is itself complex.

Suppose we manage somehow to quantify tree damage in a credible manner at both the individual and stand, and larger landscape levels. To be reasonable, we have to place that "damage" or change in context with what we might reasonably expect in the absence of that damage. For example, in my part of the world, steep slope failures occur all the time in natural, undisturbed forested landscapes. We call it mass wasting. Large pieces of hillside fail and slump down into the oceans, in places where nobody has cut any trees down. Undoubtedly, road building and logging leads to more mass wasting failures than we believe occurs naturally, but to quantify exactly how much, is fraught with problems, and often some very heroic assumptions. This is why baseline studies on a small scale are relatively simple to conduct. Once we move into larger and larger scales, the interactions possible, both known and unknown, multiply exponentially, leading very fast to an infinite number of possible outcomes, beyond quantification. To reduce this complexity to manageable proportions, we simplify some aspects and make assumptions, or we model the basic elements and scale the results upwards as a surrogate answer for a possible outcome. Either way, the larger the scale the less likely is our confidence in the results. Which raises another issue, namely confidence levels and probability issues. Suppose we have a problem where the chance of being wrong is very unlikely, but if we were, the results would be catastrophic. Or maybe we have tremendous uncertainty but it does not matter because even if we are wrong, the results would be very insignificant and not cause much damage. Either way we have a problem. The former scares us all because of the very idea of failure. The latter does not worry us as much but may in fact be as dangerous if not more so, since cumulative errors or outcomes can magnify to be far more significant than one catastrophic failure.

To get back (at last) to Scott and Steve's comments, I think perhaps we worry too much about some of these issues. The threads are fascinating and are fun to follow, but the cruel reality of day to day experience tells me that we all do the best we can, we all make mistakes, and hopefully, we all learn along the way. After all, experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again. and as Harry Truman said, "It's what you learn after you know it that really counts."

So, I am not sure how or if we should attempt to quantify every possible variation between the scale of an individual tree's value and the entire landscape's value. It seems to me that in many cases intrinsic value has no monetary value, but is simply an experiential and spiritual value beyond any quantification.

(Bet you wished you hadn't asked now).

Cheers

Julian Dunster
Bowen Island, BC
Canada

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on December 04, 1998 at 08:14:18:

No Julian, I'm glad I asked and glad you provided such a cogent response. All very well said.

On the factual side, it may seem paradoxical to the reader that the sum of individual values are not the same as (probably exceed) the large scale value but there are at least two explanations (assuming the defined benefits remain the same which they may not): 1) the beneficiaries may vary so the 'value to whom' question changes, and 2) the issue of marginal vs. average value applies (one tree may a big deal in a yard but insignificant in a million acre reserve).

More generally, I agree that CTLA or other small scale methods are poorly appliacble to large scale problems and it is not very meaningful to ctritique them against large scale problems and goals.

Small scale appraisers address problems on a different level and answer specific questions that are fundamentally different from large scale regional planning or environmental assessment questions.

Decsion makers, including courts, do indeed find variously on varying definitions of value.

We have to work at a reasonable scale and within a reasonable scope. Even if we had the tools to estimate the ENTIRE range of possible values our assignments may not call for it. You're right. Nor should we try to apply an estimate of value developed for a specific definition of value with specific facts to a wider range of values (or fail to alert the decision maker not to make that application).

Your point about probability and confidence is well taken. We should not overstate the reliability of our estimates. The more allegedly precise the estimate the wider the confidence interval will be.

Finally, if by intrinsic value you mean intrinsic phyiscal function or environmental role, I'd suggest it is less confusing to call it intrinsic function. Intrinsic function may indeed have no monetary value because monetary value is a human construct. Monetary value is extrinsic to the good to which it is ascribed.

Whew.