Re: CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees): valuing amenity trees as public assets Arboricultural Journal Volume 40(2) pages 67–91

Abstract

Dear Editor I write not to provide a full commentary on the above paper but clarify a number of issues when it comes to “compensation”. Valuation is a practice that uses familiar words in precise, defined ways. Without definitions, discussion of valuation practices may lead to misunderstanding and possible confusion. Valuation best practice helps make valuation estimates consistent, objective and transparent. However, an estimate of value is the subjective opinion of the valuer! Use of best practice builds confidence in valuations so they can be understood and respected. The main body of the CAVAT paper mentions the word “compensation” a mere 23 times with additional uses in the paper’s keywords, abstracts, highlights and titles. No definition of the term is provided. Furthermore, the paper introduces the terms “compensation replacement value”, “adequate compensation”, “compensation value”, “appropriate compensation”, “appropriate level of compensation” and “financial compensation” without explanation. Whilst conceptually all readers may be aware of the principle of compensation, with valuation the devil is in the detail. It would have been interesting to read how the authors decided that any particular value was, in their opinion, “adequate” and/or “appropriate”. Valuation produces no “right” answers, merely judgment and opinion with inevitable room for disagreement and dispute. It only takes a little experience with using CAVAT to find that the CAVAT valuation formula inevitably produces much larger estimates of value for large trees than any other valuation system. It is this feature of CAVAT that underpins the potential for disputes or at least disagreement. In my view, the paper appears to confound two different valuation problems: