Scott, I must apologize. I reread my last post condemning the concept of HBU and I felt it came across too strongly. I praise your attempts to raise the collective intellect to a new standard. Unfortunately your definitions failed to even come close to examining the true nature of value. An over-reliance on the dogma of classical economic theory has limited your true examination of the concept of "value".

The definitions you have quoted from the Blacks Law Dictionary and the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal are ultimately rooted in an ethical framework known as "utilitarianism". Drawing from the nineteenth century writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarians recognize two types of value: the "good" which is valued for its own sake (ex-pleasure) and all other things, which are valued for their relation to the "good". These categories are sometimes described as "intrinsic" Vs "instrumental".

Free market capitalism draws primarily from a subset of utilitarianism known as "preference utilitarianism". Preference utilitarianism holds that happy people is a fundamental "value" and that this is achieved by maximizing the preferences of as many as possible. Remember Gifford Pinchot and "the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time"? Rank-ordering of desires or preferences is fundamental to this tradition and to the appraisal process.

This is the fundamental nature of the "value" definition that you have presented.

Problems -

1) It is not the only definition of "value".

2) As Julian pointed out it is skewed towards what can be measured. Appraisers and policy makers focus on things that can be quantified and then substitute them for the actual "value" they are trying to measure. For instance - utilizing life expectancy as a measure of quality of life. These two are not necessarily directly proportional. In terms of trees, benefits that may contribute to overall "value" are neglected or devalued because they are not readily quantified and/or not traded in the marketplace.

3) The beneficiaries during a rank-ordering of preferences are narrowly focused. Future generations of people are discounted and the preferences of other biotic organism are not even considered.

Appraisers need to realize that they are not merely performing a service to the client but are in fact reinforcing and perpetuating the illusion of what constitutes "value". As such, appraisers can never be "objective".

Again Scott, I did not mean to sound arrogant but it is just that type of deferring to the textbook "authorities" that drives me crazy. Too many field practitioners as it is refuse to think for themselves. They want a cookbook to follow or a high priest of arboriculture to show them the Way!

Reply to post by Kevin H, on November 19, 1998 at 19:21:34:

Same arguement, Kevin. We apply the utilitarian measures because that is what is appropriate to the assignment. When a client asks me for a valuation of a tree that was erroneously bulldozed, they don't want an expose' on the value to the local family of squirrels, or the volume of carbon sequestered annually. The judge won't listen to me tell him how much breatable oxygen is released by the photosynthetic processes of x square inches of leaf surface. What they want, what the client is paying for, is the fair and equitable amount of money due the injured party. What is his part of value.

Yes, it is a narrow and limited point of view. But it must of necessity be that way. It does not mean that we disregard the other factors, nor that we can't put a valid number to them (given sufficient research opportunity). It is simply because that is NOT part of our assignment as an appraiser. If you don't understand what the assignment is, you can't do the job. And arguing esoteric concepts that are not understood even by our own industry is counterproductive and a disservice to the client.

In short, we can't do our jobs well if we don't understand the full contribution of all the benefits (and detriments) provided by a tree, to all parts of its environment. But that doesn't mean that all those factors should or can be applied to determing the monetary value pertaining to humans.

Reply to post by Kevin H, on November 19, 1998 at 19:21:34:

Kevin, I have cited authorities in an effort to suggest that tree appraisal, if it is to be credible, must look somwehere for an academic or theoretical basis (foundation as the lawyers say) and must move beyond A) a convenient but ill-supported and overly narrow industry concensus and/or B) endlessly variable individual interpretations founded only on intuition.

I have cited real estate appraisal literature NOT because tree value should be limited to real estate market value, but because RE appraisal happens to A) be a highly developed discipline, B) be widely accepted, practiced and understood and C) have an extensive and widely available literature. This is not to suggest that other disciplines might not also contribute to the models that are employed.

I have cited economics literaturte because that's where society's concepts of value come from. This is not to suggest that society's economic concepts cannot or should not evolve.

You suggest that "In terms of trees, benefits that may contribute to overall "value" are neglected or devalued because they are not readily quantified and/or not traded in the marketplace." The sources I cited suggest that "value is the current worth of future benefits." What you suggest is not that value is something other than benefits, but rather that because of imperfect models or imperfect data or bias the entire set of benefits or particular sub-sets of benefits might not be adequately estimated. We are saying the same things Kevin. I'll have to reread The Worldly Philosophers about Bentham and Mill, but I think modern value theory has moved beyond pure utilitarianism. Our concepts of utility and use now include 'existence,' 'non-use,' and preservation in addition to consumption. The notion of putting monetary value on such concepts only has meaning to guide societal choices and actions, whether they are socitetally self serving or mindful of a 'higher good' or 'natural order.' Appraisal is about estimating monetary value.

If value, as environmental ethics would have it understood, is something other than the range of benefits which acrue from something's existence I'm open to all explanations.

I must agree with Russ's 10/19. Appraisers perform a function in a social context. They answer questions which are asked. They do not have the right to make society ask different questions. They cannot ethically impose the cost of analyses outside the scope of their assignments on society. They have no duty to incur those costs themselves.

As I said in my response to Julian, appraisal is an imperfect science. That does not make it an immoral science. Appraisres must of course avoid overstating the precision or relaibility or perfection of their work.

I agree fully with your observation (citing Julian) about measurment. I think I said in my response to Julian that value is not a physical characteristic and cannot be directly measured. There has indeed been a bias toward measurement in tree appraisal and those measureable characteristics are not value.

My rationale throughout these threads has been to help establish a meaninful understanding of value, the range of things value can be understood to be, as the essential starting point for meaningful appraisal.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on November 19, 1998 at 19:21:34:

Right Russ, you are just giving the client what he/she wants. Understand however, that this transaction has little to do with the actual "value" of the plant. The resistance to even examine the nature of value, outside of the predetermined comfort zone of those who claim to work with it for a living, is disturbing. The concepts and ideas I have presented are not particle physics and are less "esoteric" than the ISA 8th Edition Guidelines. More people are familiar with these ideas than will ever come in contact with a tree appraisal.

An ethical existence requires a careful examination of the impact and results of our actions. A powerful argument can be made that the very act of applying a dollar value to a biotic organism or ecosystem reinforces an ownership paradigm based upon faulty assumptions. A paradigm which has resulted in the ecological devastation we live with today. I'm not talking some New Age, Earth Goddess, Pagan, and Nature Worship spirituality. I am speaking of a rational, logical argument based upon supportable assumptions.

Even within the framework from which Scott has restricted the definition of value there is no consensus as to which benefits should be tallied when estimating the instrumental value of a tree. An inherent bias exists within the current guidelines towards neoclassical suburban landscapes. A landscape aesthetic which is non-sustainable and overly consumptive of land.

What you do as a tree appraiser has repercussions outside of the actual transaction with a client. Impacts to both society and the ecosystem. To paraphrase Jacob Marley, "BUISNESS! MANKIND (the planet) IS MY BUISNESS!

Okay, back to work. Soapbox back in the closet. Hey Russ, can I advertise my book on your site when it's released?

Reply to post by Kevin-H, on November 19, 1998 at 20:13:14:

Kevin, we seem to be leapfrogging each other here, you hadn't seem my 10/20 post when posting yours.

I suggested we may be saying some of the same things. The key question I posed was 'is value something other than the range of benefits which accrue from something's existence?' Does the definition of value as the current worth of future benefits refuse to consider what value really is? That's quite different from saying that particular estimates of value may (rightly or wrongly) focus on particular subsets of value.

I understand the ethical dilemma you pose. IF the very concept of monetary value is immoral or unethical, is any human activity, subsequent to walking on two legs, unethical or immoral? Kevin, I don't mean to be flip or belittle what you've introduced. But if there is a 'natural order' did we start to disturb it with our very first industry, the making of stone tools?

If we are to live in a natural world in an ethical way how are we to determine what that is except by making choices, subjective choices because they come from within ourselves? So we're back to subjective and extrinsic rather that 'objective' and intrinsic values. How can we suggest that we should not exercise free will without denying our human nature? Are we not part of the natural system? Are we not doing what it is in our nature to do? In the geologic time scale what will the difference be if we cause current ecosystems to collapse and the earth takes a millon years to evolve new ones? In the galactic time scale what would the the difference be if we caused the earth to self destruct? Isn't a view that we should prevent such events anthropocentric and self serving because we want to presrve life as we know it?

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 19, 1998 at 19:21:34:

Well said Scott. Value theory has moved beyond utilitarianism, economic theory however, has not. That was what I was trying to explore in response to your loaded "What is Value?" question.

To clarify, I can remember discussions of "existence value" as an undergraduate in a Natural Resource Economics class. It was a factor in passage of the Wilderness Act (1964?). Although innovative, it is still a utilitarian instrumentalist rational. Instrumental benefits are accrued by the individual or individuals who enjoy the knowledge that a certain area is protected, even if it is nothing more than a warm and cozy feeling (as opposed to x dollars in the bank). I know I enjoy the knowledge that a significant amount of the Brooks Range is protected in Northern Alaska even though I probably will never see it. (Protected at least until some Jackass drills for oil to perpetuate the mythology of economic growth!)

Many creative ways have been devised to try and estimate (or appraise) the monetary value that preservation of these areas is worth to people. Again, these are methods of preference ranking in order to measure the relative worth of different societal and individual choices. The same type of problems applies to these methodologies as I stated earlier (ex- narrow definition of beneficiaries).

Another problem with preference ranking (or cost- benefit analysis) is that if the limited group of recognized beneficiaries decides that an alternative choice can meet their needs at less cost than it is logical to switch. For instance, perhaps we decide that trees will indeed only be valued for cordwood production (hey, its easily measured). A new oil supply is then found under Russ's house while he is out "shootin at sum food". Damn the trees! This oil is CHEAP. Tree protection then goes down the tubes even though it is a renewable energy source and provides benefits to other organisms. Screw the future generations when the oil runs out - we heavily discount the future. Benefits provided by the trees outside of cordwood are also lost because they were hard to measure in the "appraisal" process.

Point? Some things should be outside of the realm of cost benefit and the appraisal process.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 20, 1998 at 13:11:25:

SEE I TOLD YOU VALUE WAS A PANDORA'S BOX!!

Here we are at the fundamental definitions of who we are as a species and the proper scope of our moral concern. Free will and nihilism! Now that's cookin! Russ will have to open a new section on his web page.

Quick answers (I need to get some work done). Obviously, each one of the topics you have raised is deserving of an entire volume.

1) I never said preference ranking (monetary value) is unethical. All biotic organisms do this in order to survive. I said it was not appropriate to all definitions of value.

2) Natural Vs UnNatural is a false dichotomy. We are a product of our environment and evolutionary heritage; as such we are subject to the same constraints as other organisms. (Covered Free Will on this one too).

3) You have fallen into the trap known in the philosophical literature as the "naturalistic fallacy" - I am part of nature so everything I do is natural and OK. Response - just because it is natural does not make it ethical.

4) Ultimately it comes down to moral extensionism - the proper scope of our moral concern. Do we act as moral agents and include the interests of other organisms in our decisions or do we operate from a narrow focus. Most people (Nazis excluded) extend moral considerability to others in our species. There is however, no clear demarcation between other species and us. Logical consistency requires that we either embrace the rest of the biota or sink into nihilism and look out only for number one. That choice is indeed a subjective decision and a foundation of the concept of environmental ethics - our relationship to the rest of the ecosystem.

I could delve into extensive metaphysics combined with biology and ecology but that is the focus of my book. The Internet demands a bumper sticker approach;

"I think, therefore I am." VS " I am because we are".

Reply to post by Kevin-h, on November 20, 1998 at 13:49:14:

Kevin, I suspect that right or wrong the way the world will go is somewhere between nihilism and ideal asceticism. Imposing what I suppose most of us accept as 'ethical' it would be nice if society is repulsed by the Nazi ethic and somehow inspired by the purity of a Shaker ethic as we wander down the road of survival. Mindful of both extremes we have to deal with a real day to day world, in which some folks need appraisals to make choices.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 19, 1998 at 19:21:34:

OK, while you guys are talking about religion and other psychobabble, let me jump in with a couple of simple objections. (Maybe a little bit defensive, but I need to get it off my chest)

1)Scott says:..."if it is to be credible, must look somewhere for an academic or theoretical basis (foundation as lawyers say) and must move beyond A) a convenient but ill-supported and overly narrow industry consensus and/or B) endlessly variable individual interpretations founded only on intuition."

"ill supported", and "overly narrow" shows utter disrespect for the last 80 or more year's research on the subject. From my perspective, the CTLA method of plant appraisal is WELL supported and readily substantiated as a foundation upon which to base my testimony (in the presence of lawyers). I think that it's good to narrow the focus when comparing the value of a tree to it's monetary value. Is it a "forest product" or is it an "ornamental"? I think where the problems come in is when the CTLA methods are used too broadly.

2)...."appraisal happens to A) be a highly developed discipline, B) be widely accepted, practiced and understood and C) have an extensive and widely available literature."......except when it comes to the separable value of trees from land. That's why there is a nich for tree appraisers. Real estate appraisers have no idea what they're looking at, they can only guess, because all of that good literature doesn't address it well enough to eliminate the need for a trained and experienced plantsman to be involved in the process.

The bottom line is, Tree appraisal requires competent JUDGEMENT on the part of the appraiser. A highly developed and disciplined real estate appraiser rarely has that expertise, and the ones that are truly good at it seek out a qualified arborist for help.

I share the concern that individual interpretations are variable. I think that a better solution to that issue (to moaning about it) is the continued education of "would be" plant appraisers, with and emphasis on a high degree of experience, local knowledge of the behavior of the plant material and it's pests, and a good general sense of how an individual plant contributes to it's surroundings.

I have included my standard email disclaimer as an indication of my greater perspective, or it can FUNCTION as merely a little bit of entertainment for the moment.

Best regards,
KWK
------------------------------------------------
The above is my opinion, more or less, considerably more than less, since less can be construed as more than less. On the other hand....
Opinions are opinions and subject to misinterpretation regarding just exactly what it is that you think I think.

KerryWKnorr@csi.com

Reply to post by Kerry, on November 20, 1998 at 12:55:23:

>>The above is my opinion, more or less, considerably more than less, since less can be construed
as more than less. On the other hand....


Now that's a disclaimer...

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Reply to post by Kerry, on November 20, 1998 at 12:55:23:

Kerry, in response to your 10/21, by paragraph #.

1) E-mail doesn't make for diplomatic or deferential presentations and as we respond to short questions with short answers some of the picture is obscured. I never did like sound-bites. I have a great deal of respect for the work that has gone before and for my colleagues on CTLA, some of whom I count as friends.

I have read a lot of the material that underlies the current CTLA methods, back to the 1901 text that is referred to briefly but not mentioned by name. What I have found is constant improvement in the ability to gather and interpret arboricultural / horticultural facts, but insufficient connection to the concept of value and the discipline of valuation. I might better have said 'ill-articulated' than 'ill-supported.' I happen to think that there is theoretical support for CTLA methods and elaborated on them in 'Tree Appraisal: What Is The Trunk Formula Method?" in the Oct. 1997 Arboricultural Consultant. But that support, the explanation of what the methods are and what they mean, is not in the 8th Edition. It is clear from these discussions that there is little common agreement on what the methods mean. There are as many voices ready to abandon Trunk Formula as to use it and explain it.

The 8th Edition being a foundation for your application of the 8th Edition methods is not the same as a well articulated academic / theoretical foundation for the 8th Edition or for a concept of value.

The CTLA methods have focused on Replacement Costs, because they are discernable and because they fall within the range of skill and training of the typical tree appraiser. In recent years attention has been paid to market value of real estate and hence the concern about reasonableness, but the methods still focus on replacement costs. This focus is overly narrow. The narrow focus along with the lack of understanding of value has led to narrow assumptions in many cases, e.g. that replacement cost IS value, the only way to consider value.

2. I have cited tree appraisal literature and suggested that tree appraisers might learn from it because of the concepts, principles and techniques involved NOT because of real estate or real estate value. You're absolutely right, few if any real estate appraisers have any ability to appraise landscape or amenity trees, particularly apart from the land.

3. The individual interpretations I'm moaning about (and I hope trying to constructively address through better understanding) are NOT the arboricultural intrepretations. In fact, I have a lot of concern about the effort to standardize those interpretations, to have everybody come up with the same rating factors, because they risk becoming arbitrary rather than truly objective.

I am concerned about individual intrepretations of what value means, about what methods are supposed to describe and so forth. These must rest on a firm theoretical foundation, which is insufficiently understood.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 21, 1998 at 00:22:45:

Yeah, that's why I put the disclaimer in. I think we might be saying a lot of the same things, are really on the same page, but speaking different dialects.

I haven't had the privaledge of reading an issue of Arboricultural Consultant, is that an ASCA publication? The point you make about the support not being well articulated, and not included in the guide is HUGE. I have the same complaint about the ANSI standards. I would like to be able to read the reasoning that has gone in to the creation of the consensus. I would like to read the issues that came up in the discussion, and the points of view that were expressed.

We all must be able to get a feel for the "spirit and intent" of the recommendation. That is an element that is rarely captured by anyone who is not present when the dialogue takes place. It is made worse by the loyal scribe who is hard pressed to simply articulate what the group decided in the meeting; capturing relevant dialogue may be too much to ask.

But in this case, where judgement is such a critical issue in appraisal, I must agree with Scott, in that the foundation/founding principles of the system for appraisal of trees must be well understood by the user in order to make proper use of it.

B) I question whether the CTLA methods focus on REPLACEMENT costs simply because most folks using the system know about planting and replacement, and can relate to that. I'm sure that is a consideration, but also look at that perspective as providing the most "well rounded" and balanced basis. We can look at each of the benefits provided by trees, and appraise their value; for example a privacy barrier would be comparable in value to a solid fence. I'm not so sure we have enough data to add all of the individual values of benefits and come up with a better representation of what the tree is worth, than by using the replacement value. Do we?

C) O.K. What does "value" mean? If we step outside of this forum for a second and ask 100 people what value is, we would get a percentage that would say "bargain", we would get a percentage that would say "quality", and we would get a percentage that would say "What it's worth". My experience has been that the person who has to pay for the damaged tree wants a bargain, the person who is going to get paid for the damage wants quality (meaning HIGH quality), and the court wants to know what it's worth. In that light, I think the appraiser is charged with the responsibility of separating bias from the process, and make some choices which substantially define what the subject is worth in monetary terms.

Best regards,
KWK

Reply to post by Kerry, on November 22, 1998 at 20:12:13:

Arboricultural Consultant is the ASCA newsletter. If the webmaster is reading maybe he can follow up on the idea of non-member subscriptions at the board session in Dec. Better yet, Kerry, join! Come to the Academy on March.

RE B: I re-read my post and that's what I meant by discernable. Replacement costs are tangible and documentable. The courts have often preferred that kind of data. (Chapman & Meyer 1947. Forest Valuation. NY: McGraw-Hill, p.307; Davis 1966. Forest Management: Regulation and Valuation 2nd Edition. NY: McGraw-Hill,c p.321.) Our benefits tools are limited and just really emerging. I think I listed some in the post on fixed price street trees.

RE C: That's a pretty good description of what appraisal should be. We should consider the facts that indicate value as objectively as possible avoiding the bias(es) of the parties. Value, however, remains related to benefits and the parties may perceive different benefits. Should the appraiser resolve the difference or should the appraiser provide the range of facts to the forum for dispute resolution? I'd lean towards the latter.

Scott

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 24, 1998 at 00:22:23:

You wrote: >>Should the appraiser resolve the difference or should the appraiser provide the range of facts to the forum for dispute resolution? I'd lean towards the latter.<<

The problem with this is that the client usually expects the first, as does the opponent and often even the court. They look to us as the experts, and want a firm answer- "In my professional opinion...."

It is very difficult, or even impossible to say "In my opinion, the value is somewhere between a little and a lot." It returns once again to education of the client, the courts, and society in general.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on November 24, 1998 at 14:20:22:

Absolutely! We certainly need to educate the clients and attorneys we work for. Particularly, the attorneys need to know how to question both experts. Unfortuneately they don't always ask / want to listen / authorize the time ('just send me the report'). All this of course without being an advocate.

Somewhere in these posts I think I explained that Real Estate appraisers have a very strict standard form of narrative report which includes more than anybody ever wanted to know. A lot of it is meaninglessly redundant boilerplate (the good appraisers will tell you this)and it's useless without good judgment by the appraiser, but the point is they've refused to be forced into providing just part of the report. 'If you want the story, here's the whole story.' They still distill it to a point estimate (that's what the courts and the banks want) but the story is there for educated counsel to tell in questioning.

Some of the literature (e.g. Smith, Halbert C. and Gerry D. Belloit 1987. Real Estate Appraisal, 2nd edition. Dayton, OH: Century VII Publishing Co.) is very clear that value estimation is by nature a probabilistic rather than absolute exercise and that ranges and confidence rankings are more meaningful than points.

Maybe the best thing the tree appraisal community could do is to develop a standard reporting scale which plots what we know from facts, what we don't know, the range of possibilities and an accommodation for 'most reasonable' or 'most probable.' Combine that with statutory reform and maybe we get somewhere. (Sorry if that's redundant, it may also be back in some of the other posts).

scott

Reply to post by Kevin H, on November 19, 1998 at 19:21:34:

I haven't gotten to any primary Mill yet, but here's a secondary source. (Heilbroner, Robert L. 1986. The Worldly Philospohers, 6th Edition. NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 365 pp.)

"And yet it would be wrong to undervalue Mill's insight, just as it is wrong to exagerate it. For the existence of limits means there is room for maneuver, that capitalism is not beyond reform. Indeed, the New Deal and the welfare capitalisms of Scandinavia are the direct expressions of Mill's vision of a society that would try to remedy its 'natural' workings by imposing its moral values." pp. 130-131.

Maybe Mill wasn't the bad guy. Sounds like he was way ahead of Dr. Leary. Because he described the workings of utilitarianism doesn't mean that he didn't forsee, even desire, a more enlightened society.

"But a distaste for acquisitiveness did not blind him to its usefulness: '[quoting Mill] That the energies of mankind should be kept in employment by the struggle for riches as they were formerly by the struggle for war, unil better minds [Dr. Leary?] succeed in educating the others intob better things, is undoubtedly better than that they should rust and stagnate.' " p. 132.

OK it's 6AM I have to go to work now.

Scott