Letter to the editor in reply to C. Neilan’s letter

Price, Colin

doi:10.1080/03071375.2020.1864991

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I have offered an extensive critique of the method (Price, 2020), and suggested some ways whereby its practical protocol might be combined with techniques from environmental and forestry economics. Neilan (2021) has responded to my critique, and I have made a rejoinder to him and his co-authors (Price, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Further considerations concerning CAVAT

Price

2021

Arboricultural Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The amenity tree valuation method CAVAT apparently gives reduced weight to future benefits, similarly to discounting. Discounting future conditions allows calculation of a value per year per square centimetre of tree basal area, on the premise that tree planting was rationally done. The resulting value ascribed to a target tree is much lower than that calculated by CAVAT. CAVAT's value is the same as given by the "rational" procedure if trees were predicted not to grow. The "rational" perspective provides a reasoned estimate of CAVAT's avowed objective of calculating a compensation replacement value for lost trees. CAVAT itself seemingly calculates over-generous compensation. The "rational" protocol's apparently low value may be adjusted upwards to recognise incomplete planting survival, conditions of high cost, overheads and, sometimes, defective discounting. These, and any neglect of the value of subsequent replanting and of people's particular associations with trees, may undervalue fair financial recompense, especially when no compensation planting is made. However, some of these factors would revise CAVAT values upwards too, so the gap between outcomes might remain. Neither protocol translates from a cost basis to a full amenity benefit of trees.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%