CAVAT Training

[Amelanchier]

Is her arse actually worth $5 mill? Or is that how much it is insured for? Essentially, the maximum value that the insurers would pay out if some massive arse calamity occured. And is it that amount because it is "beautiful" or just because it sells a lot of records/clothes/shampoo? I.e., is the value (not the arse) inflated?

 

Aesthetics are subjective, therefore the value of aesthetics is subjective, therefore no tree valuation system can be completely holistic (compare answers from a bad developer, a tree hugger and a blind person).

 

Progress is being made to calibrate iTree for the UK

i-Tree - Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests

 

A handy system, but again produces a value for a specific purpose. Behind every value/price/cost there is a framework for its interpretation. If you make the framework too broad the accuracy of the value drops - make it too specific and it becomes irrelevant.

 

So - even if you could integrate every possible aspect of a trees worth to society, you would have blurred the lines to the point of uselessness. A golden rule in environmental valuation is to avoid double counting. Are those worms with this tree or that?

 

Fun though huh?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Is her arse actually worth $5 mill? Or is that how much it is insured for? Essentially, the maximum value that the insurers would pay out if some massive arse calamity occured. And is it that amount because it is "beautiful" or just because it sells a lot of records/clothes/shampoo? I.e., is the value (not the arse) inflated?

 

Aesthetics are subjective, therefore the value of aesthetics is subjective, therefore no tree valuation system can be completely holistic (compare answers from a bad developer, a tree hugger and a blind person).

 

Progress is being made to calibrate iTree for the UK

i-Tree - Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests

 

A handy system, but again produces a value for a specific purpose. Behind every value/price/cost there is a framework for its interpretation. If you make the framework too broad the accuracy of the value drops - make it too specific and it becomes irrelevant.

 

So - even if you could integrate every possible aspect of a trees worth to society, you would have blurred the lines to the point of uselessness. A golden rule in environmental valuation is to avoid double counting. Are those worms with this tree or that?

 

Fun though huh?

 

I think for the first time I see fault in your thinking!

 

if we attach a value for services rendered, on a score basis, as with any score system we arive at a vlaue that is both real and defendable.

 

A tree is not just a tree, it must be valued with a contributary effect within its context and combined effect.

 

for instance a rain forest tree as an individual is of little value, but combined within its natural nieghbourhood, it is part of a system that generates rain for much of our planet. it is also a "genetic factory"

[Amelanchier]

Rain is good. Lets go with rain.

 

It rains quite a lot in Wales but not very much in Norfolk. Are trees worth less in Norfolk than they are in Wales? Who are these rain services rendered to and do they want/need the 'service'? Are trees worth more in a wet year?

 

And how would you seperate the 'tree-rain' from the 'Atlantic/orographic-rain'? Double counting?

 

My point is that its easy to say what should be valued (given a price/cost), but far harder to actually value it. Just try to think of a mechanism by which you could put a price, per tree, for its genetic resource?!?

 

Also not all scoring systems are equal - when the information they attempt to quantify is continuous (eg physiological/structural condition) answers are highly dependent on the categories given (1-10 gives more variation than 1-5 - but terms like good/fair/poor/bad/run away still get used because you have to draw the line somewhere...) Some systems deal with this well and some don't.

 

Essentially IMO, valuing something simply for the services it offers to us misses a large proportion of its worth. However, disregarding those services is a similar folly, so you put them together right? Add subjective into objective and you get subjective - it dominates and there nothing wrong with that.

 

Problem is what's the ratio between the two components and how do you decide on it?

[Bundle 2]

It may be that to value a tree(s) within a more confined context lends itself more easily to a reasoned discussion.

Significance is readily recognisable and so then a value...

[arb culture]

Naaah. Pick your system, name your value, stick in in your report. Its as subjective as the rest of the document - if someone wants to argue the point so what? They'll normally argue everything anyway,

 

Unfortunately Tony this is a very perceptive summary of modern arboriculture.

 

You could also easily swap 'value' for 'risk' in the above, and it would still be true.

 

What a scientific profession we aren't - I'm really depressed now.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Unfortunately Tony this is a very perceptive summary of modern arboriculture.

 

You could also easily swap 'value' for 'risk' in the above, and it would still be true.

 

What a scientific profession we aren't - I'm really depressed now.

 

No dont get depressed, thats defeatest, lets keep at it and work this out.

 

So, lets ask ourselves how the European council came to a value of 1,000,000 euros per kilometre of avenued mature trees.

 

has anyone any ideas?

 

i will go see my TEP seminar book for clues.

[Amelanchier]

It may be that to value a tree(s) within a more confined context lends itself more easily to a reasoned discussion.

Significance is readily recognisable and so then a value...

 

Exactomundo.

[Amelanchier]

Unfortunately Tony this is a very perceptive summary of modern arboriculture.

 

You could also easily swap 'value' for 'risk' in the above, and it would still be true.

 

What a scientific profession we aren't - I'm really depressed now.

 

I see no problem with subjectivity in Arboriculture. Subjective is what we are, objective is what we strive to be. We'll never achieve it of course, but the principle of attempting to attain it has many benefits and sets our combined course.

 

The only time a problem arises is when we fail to recognise and define our terms of reference and how they affect our answers - our ontology and epistemology. Thats part of the science.

 

Chin up.

[Amelanchier]

No dont get depressed, thats defeatest, lets keep at it and work this out.

 

So, lets ask ourselves how the European council came to a value of 1,000,000 euros per kilometre of avenued mature trees.

 

has anyone any ideas?

 

i will go see my TEP seminar book for clues.

 

Did it involve a hat? Only kidding - hadn't heard of that before. Would be interested to find out.