Looking for additional input on What is Value? and What is HBU? threads, which are getting hidden down the page. Join in!

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 04, 1998 at 11:48:14:

Deep thoughts in aboriculture! I just checked in on these treads. Several noble yet incomplete attempts were made to define value and HBU. I think you have made an important point Scott, in that valuation during the appraisel process is a subset of the philosophical basis of value.

As Julian points out, we are heirs to a Western tradition where humans are the sole determinents of value - anthropocentrism. The philosophical underpinnings of this dogma have been severely eroded by the fields of modern ecology and molecular genetics. The development of the field of environmental ethics over the last twenty years has followed our growing awareness that the concept of an evolutionary hierarchy, with humans at the pinnicle, is merely a self-serving fiction.

From a metaphysical standpoint, we need to first define if value is intrinsic (residing in the entity independent of the presence of a valuer) or if the value is instrumental (a function of the needs of the valuer). Even at this level we need to understand that instrumental value can be a function of the needs of a non-human entity (ex- a deer values oaks for the acorn production).

I would submit that the very act of trying to affix a human monitary figure to a biotic entity, in effect, "devalues" the inherent worth of that organism. The appraisal process is an attempt to define the instrumental value that a theoretical human market would attibute to the benefits of the organism. This narrow concept of value will always be elusive as most of the benefits derived by humans from trees are not internalized by the property owner. If a tree gives off oxygen my neighbor is just as likely to breathe the molecules as I am.


Could a tree appraisal, however, relect the intrumental worth of a plant to non-humans? I feel it could and in fact, should. We grant legal rights to "paper" entities such as corporations. They have many of the same ownership advantages as an individual. Why not trees? I would suggest that anyone interested in valuation read the original Christopher Stone article from 1970 -"Should Trees have Standing". Imagine how much additional work there would be for starving ASCA members if every insult suffered by a leafy organism required compensation! I guess that would quickly end the decades old topping problem!

Scott, you really did not expect to get a definative answer on the question of value did you?

Forget "Highest and Best Use", that term is supercharged with nonsensical eighteenth century Lockean ideas about land use. More sloburban sprawl is not the highest and best use of any forested property!

Dr Leary

Reply to post by Dr Leary, on November 04, 1998 at 11:48:14:

Well! Dr. Leary, did you have one of those sugar cubes from the fresh batch? That was certainly an energized post.

As appraisers we are constrained to work within the "envelope." Limits are imposed by assignments, clients, law (statute, case law, judicial rulings) and accepted practice.

If our envelope is defined by a Western, anthropocentric tradition, then that's what we must work with. There may indeed be a lag between cutting edge environmental ethics / bioeconomics and appraisal practice, but in an objective and independent appraisal role it cannot be considered.

In an appraisal context "intrinsic" is a meaningless, or at best not very meaningful concept. Appraisable value, by definition is "extrinsic." It is a human perception separate from physically measureable function. Part of the appraisal process is to define "value to whom." We might indeed offer an opinion of $value to deer or squirrels or fungi ar any component of the ecosystem, if recognized and quantiable in economic terms. If it's recognized it's "extrinsic."

I'm more troubled by the misuse, in my opinion, of "intrinsic" in a manner opposite your concern. That is the notion that "intrinsic" value is limited to some arbitrary level (owner's interest, market value, whatever) and that additional "extrinsic" values cannot be recognized.

I was/am not sure to receive a clear, generic definition of value. I am sure there is one, well documented in the literature and supported by common sense. Is anyone else troubled that appraisers, by definition in the business of estimating value, seem unable to offer such a definition?

You've offered a strong opinion about HBU, but not defined it either.

Scott

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 06, 1998 at 11:01:11:

What troubles me is that you guys have gone a long way to complicate the simple. The simple truth is that a dollar bill is meaningless to a deer or a squirrel. A dollar bill only has meaning to humans.

A unit of money, (whether a dollar, pound, yen, mark, or whatever) merely represents a value in what has become a theoretical realm. It used to be backed up by a precious commodity such as gold, silver, salt, etc.

I am further concerned that with all of the dialog that has ensued, no one has acknowledged that "function" defines the value. Whether that function be to make a home site beautiful, or simply provide feed and habitat for wild animals, it seems to me that function serves as a very useful tool for quantifying the value of a tree.

Best regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Kerry, on November 06, 1998 at 11:57:24:

Kerry, while we have not yet seen a final definition on the term VALUE (or HBU), the discussion is helping us all to focus our thoughts. That is the intent of any dialog of this sort. I don't necessarily expect to see a definition that everyone will tacitly accept, nor one that will be undeniably the ultimate answer. But the discussion itself brings us to a better understanding of what our own conceptions are.

At least I hope that's what is happening here....

Reply to post by Kerry, on November 06, 1998 at 11:57:24:

You're right Kerry, it is simple. "A dollar bill (a unit of money whether a dollar, pound, yen, mark, or whatever) only has meaning to humans." Appraisal, by definition, is the esimation of value (Appraisal Institute, 1993, Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, p. 16; Appraisal Institute, 1992, The Appraisal of Real Estate, p.9; Appraisal Foundation, 1998, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), Definitions) and implicit in the definition is that monetary value is estimated (Cullen, Scott, 1998, Tree Appraisal: What Are the Diferences Between Valuation and Appraisal? Arboricultural Consultant, Summer 31(3) ). That's why value is "extrinsic." Appraisal is about estimating the worth to humans in monetary terms.

And you're also right that "function" is a key characteristic of value. The discussion and the literature get a little less simple because of the difference between physically measureable function and valuable function.

You're on the right track, but nobody has defined value yet. And it is simple.

(It might be simpler for the Webmaster to archive this stuff if we post to the "Value" thread rather than the "Reminder" thread.)

Scott

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on November 06, 1998 at 14:58:01:

I hope that's what's going on too, Russ. Kerry may be right about simplicity. Maybe everbody is overthinking value. The definition is simple, so simple and sensible that it may well be generally acceptable (within an appraisal context as we discussed it, which may exclude Tim Leary).

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 06, 1998 at 16:46:17:

Simple, so simple.....

Value, for anything humans apply the term to, comes down to the fee a willing buyer pays to a willing seller. In short, a monetary amount agreeable to the parties involved.

This assumes a concensus on the fee, and should not be confused with an adversarial relationship where "value" is disputed.

Reply to post by Dr Leary, on November 04, 1998 at 11:48:14:

While your reply has some pertinent (and a few impertinent) comments, they would be more relevant if we knew who you are. Board rules request that you post under your own name and email address.

Your participation is welcome, and your compliance expected, thank you.
Russ Carlson, webmaster

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on November 06, 1998 at 16:56:56:

As Scott requested, these are two interesting subjects, however comments relating
to each one are better followed in the seperate threads below.

It is clear that value is an intricate characteristic relationship of HBU,
yet it is not visa/versa to defining 'VALUE'.

Sincerely, Steve

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on November 06, 1998 at 16:56:56:

Now we're getting somewhere! I'll give you two chickens for one of those oak seedlings.

Reply to post by Kerry, on November 06, 1998 at 17:26:42:

Make that one chicken and one rooster, and you have a deal.....

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on November 06, 1998 at 20:59:52:

Is my commission on this deal on top of the two birds or taken out of the proceeds?

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 07, 1998 at 13:11:50:

Scrambled or fried?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on November 08, 1998 at 17:43:08:

You mean you'll cook them too? That is a good deal.

Reply to post by Dr Leary, on November 04, 1998 at 11:48:14:

I applaud the eloquence and fevor in which you write. As to the content of the responce I wish you would consider the idea of value placed on the tree or property is not so much intrinsic or instamental as it may be punitive.

Few of us have our trees and property appraised so that we can pay higher inheritance taxes, and I would venture to say that the monitery value would be chanlenge by fewer yet, if it were lower than that which we ascibed. Most of the cases I belive deal with notion of what fiscal can be prided out of the insurance companies, or others that may have vandelizes our trees.

I would like to challenge propriety as to the notion of responsibility, which lay mostly with those that hold possession the land; to all that are conserned for nature.

As you mentioned HBU is supercharged and can be argued for different reasons. I suggest the idea; that untill the proper appreciation of nature outweighs the desire for single family dewelings and curbs the foraying of developers our battle will be for survival; not nobility.

Reply to post by Stephen Wiley, on November 06, 1998 at 17:26:42:

Well, apart from Kerry, I think you are all wrong! Value cannot and should not be confined to the staid and narrowly defined mindset of western appraisers trained in the dismal science of economics. Ecological value is the basis for life on the planet. If we continue to isoloate that baseline thought from our own reality then we will always perpetuate environmental damage, and promote incremental but cumulative destruction of all that we say we hold dear. Ecological functions and processes drive the planet, period. They all have value, and it is abundantly clear that if we remove the linkages then the system starts to malfunction or stop altogether. This is why I have been actively promoting wildlife trees in riparian habitats, and trying to promote the idea that arborists can do far more then merely stethoscope the tree and pronounce, without offering mitigation or compensation options. In an appraisal, I see no reason why we should not add in some factors for ecological value. Undoubtedly it would complicate matters, but then it would be arguable, based on credible science, that the tree(s) in question have a monetary value that includes ecology. I disagree with Scott (respectfully of course, as per the ASCA code of runic stones). We should be pushing the appraisal process forward, not merely accepting contemporary western thought (which historically has caused immense and very extensive amounts of environmental damage, and continues to do so).

So there. Figure out how to weave full cost accounting approaches into the 9th edition, so that we can utilise ecological values as well, and I will be happier with the approach.


Julian Dunster
Bowen Island, where my chickens would eat an oak seedling!

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on November 06, 1998 at 19:48:18:

If you were truly an environmental steward you would not allow your chickens to eat the seedling. It would be much more sustainable if you let the seedling flourish and fed them the acorns! But wait....all seriouness aside folks....

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on November 06, 1998 at 19:48:18:

Julian, I don't disagree with your comments about the ecosystem. Intuitively I agree, but it's not my area of expertise so I can't talk about the science.

We must distinguish value in the broadest sense of importance, vital function and so forth from appraisable monetary value. This discussion is about appraisal and the definition of value as appraisers estimate it.

Appraisers can only estimate monetary value as it is recognized within the definition of the appraisal assignment. If the assignment is limited to market value, then that is the constraint. If the assignment is to estimate ecological value to society or the planet or the great druid then the constraint is different.

The unfortunate truth is that society values what is scarce, or worse what is perceived to be scarce. What appears to be ubiquitous has little if any monetary value. Only when resources start to vanish or their function is impaired does recognition of monetary value emerge.

We're not in complete disagreement. I think the appraisal discipline must evolve to be able to deal with concepts like ecological value. Somewhere back in these threads I think I suggested an appraisal model which sets forth a range of scientifically supportable possibilities from which the trier of fact, or the parties or society select "value."

See today's new Law thread. Appraisers must avoid advocacy (even for the environment) when working on a case in the Appraisal Role.

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on November 06, 1998 at 19:48:18:

Kudos to Julian for his emphasis on the functions and values of ecological processes. In the realm of wetland mitigation societal recognition of these values and a corresponding regulatory structure has created an artificial market for wetland protection. Mitigation "banks" have been created where developers can "trade' the destruction of one wetland for the preservation or enhancement of another similar system. Although I have serious ethical and scientific concerns with this method, at least it demonstrates that the concept of "value" (in a narrow, anthropocentric paradigm) can extend beyond the confines of private land ownership and individual benefits.

Scott opened Pandora's Box when he asked for a definition of value and now it appears he is trying to force the lid back on by arbitrarily restricting the definition to an anthropocentric, market-based appraisal process. If the underlying philosophical assumptions about value are logically flawed, then the foundation of your tree appraisal house is resting on sand.

I would also contest the assumption that any tree appraisal can be "objective" outside of replacement value. The presence of an outside eVALUEator presenting his or her opinion on the monetary worth of a plant is, by definition, a subjective process. Of course, not all opinions are created equal.

A paradigm shift is required away from our Lockean ideas about real estate and tree value. Back in the before times, when slaves were common and white males of European descent reigned supreme, John Locke put forth the idea that land only had value after it was "improved" (i.e.-cultivated). Of course, this conveniently left out the native Americans and their concepts of land use (not ownership). The idea of "Highest and Best Use" is a direct descendent of this concept. It is flawed from an ethical, philosophical, ecological, sociological, and economic standpoint.

As I pointed out under the Pseudonym DR Leary, current tree valuation techniques are inherently flawed due to the association with real estate values. The functions and benefits that that tree provides to both the individual and society is not recognized by the current methodology. Tying the value of the plant to the real estate market results in an environmental justice issue which I still have not seen resolved.

Jeez, my mind seems so clear since Leary left!

Kevin H

Reply to post by kevin-h, on November 10, 1998 at 09:28:23:

Some fair observations Kevin.

I'm happy to have the lid off the box. But the discussion must take one of two courses: 1) that there are no limits to the defintion, that no one will ever agree on just what it is we try to estimate and so the whole discussion is pointless, or 2) that appraisers must be concerned with value as it is recognized by someone else, whether it be an indivdual, a group, society as a whole or even an unproven theory. Whoever it is it must be specified to make a meaningful appraisal.

I would like to think that we are not all just doing appraisals because someone is willing to pay us, that we are acting in the public interest by providing a necessary service, and that we can work within course 2, even while the debate rages.

Through the Value, HBU and Mutiple Beneficiary threads I've been concerned about the two extremes: 1) that value must be arbitrarily limited (to real estate value, or replacement cost, or the most commonly planted replacement size or whatever) so that we don't appear to overvalue (in relation to what I don't know, but that's what they say) and 2) that appraisal is flawed because it does not recognize the value(s) it should recognize.

I agree with Dr. Leary that tree values need not necessarily be limited to real estate value. Appraisal techniques are not flawed in this regard (though they may be limited in their ability to measure the full range of values). Individual appraisers may be subjectively (and improperly) limiting the application of the techniques or the facts and circumstances of cases including the law may be (properly) limiting it, but that does not mean the techniques themselves are flawed.

In many respects the notion of "objective" value is flawed. It suggests that value is a physical characteristic, that it can be directly measured and so is amenable to some precision. Value is a perception, it is something that is recognized (again by an individual, a group, a society or a theory; it is extrinsic). Value is subjective to the recognizor. The challange for the appraiser is to remain objective in considering the facts that present themselves in the case, the facts which indicate the subjective values understood by others. The appraiser must keep his/her own subjectivity out of it.

If appraisal, the discipline and the toolbag of techniques, is to move forward and accomdate the range of values that are or may be estimable, if it is to break the 'Lockean' or Western or anthropocentric or CTLAean or tree- huggerean or save-the-whalesean mold (everybody with an agenda who thinks the other bunch has it wrong), if it is to convince society or the courts or the legislatures, then it has to be credible. It has to be a rational, fact oriented, science based exercise.

We cannot, to paraphrase Dunster and Dunster, "banter around common or obscure words..without a good understanding of what the words mean or might imply." But I still have not seen a simple, yet comprehensive definition of value emerge from this discussion. Lots of 'it should include this, or it shouldn't be that or I wish it were something else, or that's not the way we always done it.' And the definition, which accomodates the full range of possibilities is in the literature, it's based on common sense. If we are going to be credible we need to move beyond beliefs and mushy debates.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 10, 1998 at 12:48:15:

Scott,

This discussion, even if it fails to arrive at a clear consensus as to the nature of value, could never be pointless. Exercising the cerebral cortex is an important activity (especially if you have spent a lot of time in commercial arboriculture, right Russ J ). Appraisers do indeed need to understand what is meant when they use the term "value" and the limitations of the current tools.

At the risk of opening up another thread, I would dispute your contention that appraisals (as currently practiced) serve the public interest. In my opinion they merely reinforce an anthropocentric, neo-classical, energy-intensive, non-sustainable, landscape aesthetic. WHEW! I JUST HAD A FLASHBACK!

I agree with you that, in terms of real estate value, current appraisal techniques are fairly accurate (within that framework). Hey, the tree comes with the property so how could it be more valuable than the total parcel? The flaw lies in the arbitrary disregard for the full functions and benefits provided by the plant.


You have indicated that the appraiser needs to avoid advocacy and stay within the confines of the client's request. The same rational was frequently utilized by a number of former commercial arboricultural competitors when they would "top" a clients trees. Sure, it hurt the tree but if the client knew that and wanted it anyway - so be it. My point is that an ethical dilemma forms when one realizes the gross limitations of a practice and continues to promote it without reservation. The lay public is left with the impression that the "experts" do it so it must be correct.

Although it makes many people uncomfortable and challenges their worldview, it is impossible to truly define "value" without first examining the underlying philosophical framework. For instance, if society chooses to recognize intrinsic value in an organism (as the endangered species act does at the species level) then the presence of an evaluator is not a prerequisite for value.

Before you throw up your hands in frustration that philosophical debates never go anywhere and are "mushy", remember that all opinions are not created equal. The opinion best supported by a logical, internally consistent argument carries the day. Unless, of course, you have access to weaponry. Nothing like a good crusade, jihad, or pogrom to stifle creative thought.

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on November 06, 1998 at 19:48:18:

Julian,

Kerry's definition involving function, is not necessarily right or wrong, nor is your analog. However, ecological value is but one form of descriptiveness to the term 'value'. But it is not a generic definition of the term 'value'.

You wrote: " Value cannot and should not be confine to the staid and narrowly defined mindset of wetern appraisers trained in the dismal science of economics."

Although, much discussion has taken place with the bias and perspective from arboricultural appraising, that is not what Scott has requested for in describing 'What is value?'

You wrote: " Ecological value is the basis for life on the planet."

How can a value be the basis for life? Is not the communication whether written or oral pertaining this discussion a function of mankind? Do plants, animals converse in philisophical debates? Could it be that life is value?

I agree that any arboricultural appraisal value should contain and ecological basis. Correct me if I am wrong Scott, but the assumption that we need to identify an aborist appraisal value is not the scope of the original question.


A generic definition of 'value' is what the courts need to hear in our appraisals to validate credibility.

Thus, market v., fair v., ecological v., intrinsic v., or any other classification of definitivness cannot be creditable without first defining "value".

Sincerely, Steve

Reply to post by Stephen Wiley, on November 10, 1998 at 09:28:23:

SW to the rescue! You've said it better than I've been able to. The generic definition I'm looking for, one that's documented in the literature I'm not making it up, is broad enough to accomodate real estate "values," arborist "values," environmental "values" and so on.

We need to understand that generic definition to assist all decision makers (courts, individuals, legislatures, society). Even if a situation imposes a narrower definition we must rest on the broad base.

Scott

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 10, 1998 at 12:48:15:

Hey, Scott. I like mushy debates! If everything were clear, concise and analytically correct in valuation (or life for that matter) there would be no room for debate. It is a fact that many of us (me in particular) are driven by human emotions rather than conclusions derived from scientific research that keeps the appraisal methodology purely subjective in the long run. But, as you have pointed out to me before, the appraiser must first have an objective basis for placing a dollar value on a tree or landscaped area.
If trees have value for wildlife habitat then perhaps the appraiser needs to research the monetary value of wildlife habitat or wetlands. What price has been paid in recent years to buy and restore wet land or forest areas? What monetary figures can we use in our debate (emotional and subjective debate) for value? Then, in addition to the dollar value, the appraiser must also describe the values that are more subjective and difficult to prove - like historic or emotional value.
Or, maybe it is possible in some cases to research the dollar amounts awarded for loss of landscape where historic or emotional value were the primary function and value of the landscape.
I guess where I am going with this is: as appraisers we have to start with some base in the monetary driven real world - whether real estate value, wildlife value, cost of replacement, etc. The approach the appraiser uses must set the dollar value at a fair and reasonable amount based on well researched and documented basic values. If esoteric values are present that can not be defined by research of monetary value then it seems it is up to the judge, jury or both to award additional monies to cover the loss of those values.
Am I misremembering (nice word, huh?) our recent phone discussion of value here?