UKTC Archive

RE: Tree Valuation systems

Subject: RE: Tree Valuation systems
From: David Lofthouse
Date: Dec 23 2010 11:41:29
I agree (at quick perusal only) it looks very sound. The downside being that 
it must take quite considerable time per tree - justifiably so as its current 
subjects are the 'Berkeley Square' trees of Hong Kong. Mocks the 'CAVAT 
overvalues trees' view, does it not?

 Dave

Dave Lofthouse 
Arboricultural Manager 
Greenspaces 
Environment and Regeneration Dept, 
London Borough of Merton, 
Tel 0208 XXX XXXX 
Fax 0208 XXX XXXX 
Mobile 0790 XXXX XXX



-----Original Message-----
From: Rupert Baker [mailto:rupert_baker@xxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 23 December 2010 11:21
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Tree Valuation systems


Dear Scott, et al,
After my initial post, I re-read the paper, and it seems to me that the
method advocated is much more soundly based than others I have used;
especially, it uses an additive formula rather than a multiplicative one
like Helliwell. (multiplicative ones increase errors form subjectivity to a
much greater extent than additive systems).  The results for heritage trees
in Hong Kong are skewed to give very high prices because of the
extraordinary real-estate value in HK; a similar system used in US or UK,
adjusted for local property valuation, would work rather well, I think

Have a good Christmas everyone!

All the best

Rupert

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cullen [mailto:dscottcul@xxxx.net] 
Sent: 21 December 2010 21:43
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: CAVAT .....not really....climate change, peer review,
bristlecones, hockey sticks, PCA......


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rupert Baker 
  To: UK Tree Care 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:11 PM
  Subject: RE: CAVAT .....not really....climate change, peer review,
bristlecones, hockey sticks, PCA......


  If you want to have a look at Prof Jim's article, here is the link:

  http://www.springerlink.com/content/l03207w075150645/fulltext.pdf

  and the reference:
  Journal of Environmental Monitoring & Assessment: Vol 116; No's 1-3,
  PPs 58-80

  SC Ha!  No wonder I couldn't recall which journal.  Thanks for the ref.

  The bit that interested me was:  on average, the method gave values 66
times
  higher than the CTLA method........... largely because of property values
in
  Hong Kong - I'd never be able to afford to live there!

  SC  As I recall there were some issues with the use of CTLA methods and
his "CTLA" values were lower than might properly result.  But none the less,
even corrected, the multiple from CTLA to FEM would be several times.  Also
as I recall, the relulating FEM values were not necessarily based on market
data (actual contributions of trees to property market values) but rather
the inputs and adjustments were intended to result in values high enough
that trees were not trivialised in comparison to property values.  No I
suppose I should test my recollections by re-reading the paper.
  SC You and I could not afford to live in posh neighborhoods, but I imagine
there are neighborhoods where we could pool our money and afford a closet.

  Cheers

  Scott


  Rupert

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Scott Cullen [mailto:dscottcul@xxxx.net] 
  Sent: 21 December 2010 18:16
  To: UK Tree Care
  Subject: Re: CAVAT .....not really....climate change, peer review,
  bristlecones, hockey sticks, PCA......


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Jon Heuch 
    To: UK Tree Care 
    Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:00 PM
    Subject: RE: CAVAT .....not really....climate change, peer review,
  bristlecones, hockey sticks, PCA......


    Peer review may have its flaws, but it does help an editor weed out
  problem papers - just that,
    help, not guarantee. However, just because it may have flaws shouldn't
put
  you off it. On the other
    hand, having CAVAT "peer" reviewed by arborists would have its
limitations
  - it needs to be reviewed
    by a wider group of professionals.

    SC Accepting the flaws, the question would be "peer review for what?"
The
  peer review process is most applicable to research.  Was the experimental
  design acceptaable?  Were the data and analyses appropriate.  Were the
  properly arcane and symbol heavy statistical tests applied?  And so on.
  "Peers" are folks with some familiarity with the basics of research and
  statistics and the topic area.

    SC would CAVAT's peers be the LTOA?  Well this is keen, it does what we
  want and it can be learnt in a day.  Economists would not get it because
it
  is not what normative economics tells them the world should be like.
  Chartered surveyors sort of get it and are bothered by the results not
being
  tied to "market."  Nevermind that amenity trees, especially street and
park
  trees, are not market goods... they should be.  CAVAT could be reviewed
for
  its maths, that is the calculations. One of the biggest questions is the
  validity of the population density multiplier (or whatever it is called).
  Understand that the adjustment assumes that a tree in central London MUST
be
  worth more than a tree in a country churchyard because more folks enjoy
its
  benefits.  Intuitively appealing.  How is the resulting number tested?
When
  we undertstand the mnethod was crafted to create eye catching numbers then
  it is what i claims to be.

    SC C.Y. Jim who is a professor in Hong Kong and fairly prolific in
  publishing developed a Formulaic Expert Method to Value Trees in a Compact
  City.  It was peer reviewed and published (not sure in in Arb Jour, Urban
  Forestry and Urban Greening, Journal of Arboriculture or Landscape and
  Regional Planning).  FEM's stated purpose was to arrive at figure
  sufficiently large to discourage tree loss in development in Hong Kong.
  Would CAVAT fair any differently in peer review?

    SC IMO part of the problem is that few - even in the various "peer"
  communities - really understand the range of meaning for "value."
  Economists want it to be one thing, surveyors another and perhaps arbs
  another.  And there is nothing essentially wrong with that.  The problem
is
  when one concept is tested by the preconceptions of another.  Valuation is
  always an answer to a question or an aid to a decision.  A valuation
method
  can only be judged by how well it addresses the question or the decision.
  And the decison maker might be aided by any number of questions, that is
  look through various lenses.

    Scott Cullen


  -- 
  The UK Tree Care mailing list
  To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

  The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
  http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/




  -- 
  The UK Tree Care mailing list
  To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

  The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
  http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/


-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce waste - please do not print this message unless you need to.
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use 
of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
This email may contain information that is confidential and may contain 
sensitive or protectively marked information up to RESTRICTED and should be 
handled accordingly. 
This communication may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in 
accordance with relevant legislation. 
If you have received this email in error you must not copy, disclose or make 
any further use of the information contained within it. 
Instead we request that you notify the system manager.
Postmaster@xxxxxxx.gov.uk
http://www.merton.gov.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/