Thread: One person's view of the floods & other natural disasters in Australia

Originally Posted by Lionelgee

I need to express my apologies to the economists amongst our membership. Please consider that my musings only reflect my individual representations within only one discipline of academic studies.

Well that is my two bob’s worth anyway – ooops


Kind Regards
Lionel

Lionel,

There may be the odd reader that puts your treatise down to some academic w__k_erism, but happily not I. I reckon you have raised a genuinely interesting point in what I take to be the central tenet - too easily substituting dollar values for human values.

In my own line of work, more by necessity, I travel among economists from time to time and in another context they seem to have the same bemusing urge to monetarise complex natural or human phenomenon.

Take conservation of the natural environment for example - the argument goes that if we don't place dollar values on landscape attributes like lookout vistas of considerable scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, general wildnerness etc the less-informed politicians and planners will discount them relative to tangible earners like farms, pipelines or sub-divisions. So, the economists have spent the last few decades coming up with clever ways to try to put monetary values on things that we rarely go out of our way to actually put monetary values on - mostly we just personally value those things and leave it at that.

Now suppose, by way of an example, that we could clear a 1000ha forest for new farms that might earn say $1 million a year, but in the process lose a nice stream to fishing, 500ha of extremely rare numbat habitat, a pleasant view that 500 people stopped to look at each weekend and so on. Suppose further that the economists have a crack at valuing the alternative and come up with something like that this might be worth $1.1 million a year if people reckon they would be willing to pay that much to stop it or have that added to next years' tax bill. Sounds rational because it seems like we are clearly being asked to choose between $1 million gain and $1.1 million loss. However, it always seems to me - silly perhaps - that this is a nonsense because beyond the rubbery figures (how many decimal places do you want) the thing we would be actually giving up is not $0.1 million (net) but rather a nice stream with fishing opportunity for the anglers, some rare habitat for numbat fanciers and what used to be a nice view - plus hopefully a few forest roads for the 4X4 folks. This is the real choice and aggegating it into money just blurs its real dimensions.

So, I am with you all the way on the need to look at the emotions behind the figures.

Apologies to anyone who think this was having a cheap go at land clearing, because I owned a farm and one of my limited and fading skills was pasture development. I could have made the farms worth $2 million a year.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by S3ute

Lionel,

There may be the odd reader that puts your treatise down to some academic w__k_erism, but happily not I. I reckon you have raised a genuinely interesting point in what I take to be the central tenet - too easily substituting dollar values for human values.

In my own line of work, more by necessity, I travel among economists from time to time and in another context they seem to have the same bemusing urge to monetarise complex natural or human phenomenon.

Take conservation of the natural environment for example - the argument goes that if we don't place dollar values on landscape attributes like lookout vistas of considerable scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, general wildnerness etc the less-informed politicians and planners will discount them relative to tangible earners like farms, pipelines or sub-divisions. So, the economists have spent the last few decades coming up with clever ways to try to put monetary values on things that we rarely go out of our way to actually put monetary values on - mostly we just personally value those things and leave it at that.

Now suppose, by way of an example, that we could clear a 1000ha forest for new farms that might earn say $1 million a year, but in the process lose a nice stream to fishing, 500ha of extremely rare numbat habitat, a pleasant view that 500 people stopped to look at each weekend and so on. Suppose further that the economists have a crack at valuing the alternative and come up with something like that this might be worth $1.1 million a year if people reckon they would be willing to pay that much to stop it or have that added to next years' tax bill. Sounds rational because it seems like we are clearly being asked to choose between $1 million gain and $1.1 million loss. However, it always seems to me - silly perhaps - that this is a nonsense because beyond the rubbery figures (how many decimal places do you want) the thing we would be actually giving up is not $0.1 million (net) but rather a nice stream with fishing opportunity for the anglers, some rare habitat for numbat fanciers and what used to be a nice view - plus hopefully a few forest roads for the 4X4 folks. This is the real choice and aggegating it into money just blurs its real dimensions.

So, I am with you all the way on the need to look at the emotions behind the figures.

Apologies to anyone who think this was having a cheap go at land clearing, because I owned a farm and one of my limited and fading skills was pasture development. I could have made the farms worth $2 million a year.

Cheers,

Hello S3Ute,

Thank you for your support, I appreciate it. I also fully agree with you and also the views of some economists. My first foray into tertiary studies was Farm Management Horticulture Strand at Queensland Agricultural College. In my former vocation as a Parks and Gardens supervisor I frequently had to place economic values on such things as street trees. For example the last shire council I worked at had an avenue of Leopard trees that lined each side of the main entrance road into town. One of the trees I inspected had major damage to its main structural roots. The state of the tree meant that a strong wind could have blown it across the road - which was also part of an interstate highway which passes through town. So I had to develop the costs of the tree's removal and demonstrate in writing to the council why we should outlay the cost of buying an advanced tree; transport it from the capital city of the state where the tree nursery was located and dig a very big hole in the ground with specialist soil mix to let it grow. The other option was to buy a seedling in tube stock and cross fingers it would survive and one day fill the void left by mature tree.

I was also fortunate to interview local fishers when the government decided to impose green zones for the Great Barrier Reef. While they did mention loss of income and rising prices for imported sea food the fishers also mentioned the social losses involved in some of them who were 3rd generation fishers. It is not so much an emotional stance - it is more one of the social consequences and loss of local identity which the economist fail to factor into their dollars and cents estimate. I know from my former role in disability advocacy that once people start pressing the "emotional value" button then their cause is lost. Interestingly, another term that refers to the social consequences is also known as "social capital" Yep the economists are trying aren't they or maybe it is us social - quality of life types trying to appease the economists by using a term they think carries some gravity .

Kind Regards
Lionel

Now suppose, by way of an example, that we could clear a 1000ha forest for new farms that might earn say $1 million a year, but in the process lose a nice stream to fishing, 500ha of extremely rare numbat habitat, a pleasant view that 500 people stopped to look at each weekend and so on. Suppose further that the economists have a crack at valuing the alternative and come up with something like that this might be worth $1.1 million a year if people reckon they would be willing to pay that much to stop it or have that added to next years' tax bill. Sounds rational because it seems like we are clearly being asked to choose between $1 million gain and $1.1 million loss. However, it always seems to me - silly perhaps - that this is a nonsense because beyond the rubbery figures (how many decimal places do you want) the thing we would be actually giving up is not $0.1 million (net) but rather a nice stream with fishing opportunity for the anglers, some rare habitat for numbat fanciers and what used to be a nice view - plus hopefully a few forest roads for the 4X4 folks. This is the real choice and aggegating it into money just blurs its real dimensions.

G'day Again S3Ute,

It is really ironic that you mentioned forests because my wife Leeann were talking about this just this morning. It was to do with the Land Care movement and their needed to provide the economic values for the project as part of the submission for funding. Leeann raised the question - "how do you state the economic value of something like a tree?" Having studied Arboriculture - the study of the growth and management of trees - while I was at Queensland Agriculture (QAC) this was a perspective I could provide.

I also remembered trawling through the QAC library I happened upon a book from around 1920 and it happened to include a comparison between the yield of dairy cows where one mob had access to the shelter and shade provided by mature trees. The other group had no access to shade and were left out in the open. So at the end of the trial the authors could state that the group of cows which had access the shade and shelter of trees produced in terms of the era so many gallons of milk compared to the shelter deprived herd. So each tree could be valued per year for the productive life of each cow. What disturbed me was that this research was performed in the 1920s and just sat on the dusty shelf of the library. Go figure!

BTW the trial was done on the same property, same soil type, same food/pasture/dietary additives same natural climate; same herd, same farmer ... same ... same... the only factor which was different was one paddock had trees while the other paddock did not.

Kind Regards
Lionel

Takes me back to uni days. Once spent a sociology tutorial wandering a few areas on chuck out days comparing rubbish to census income declarations. It was a bit of an eye opener.

Lionelgee, please do not apoligize as my heart goes out to any body who goes through natural disasters and as you know I have family who live in the Bundaberg area and have been directly affected by the floods there. I have been monitoring the situation very closely and the destruction that has happened is absolutely mindboggling. I went through the Newcastle Earthquake in 1989 and I still remember the destruction and disruption this caused to the city.

To S3ute, the Hunter Valley coalmining and destruction of this beautiful valley is testamount to what you are saying. You have to visit this valley to see the devastation that is going on. When a westerly wind blows the dust can be seen going over our house and we are miles away. Coal dust has even been reported at Tea Gardens on the coast of Port Stephens which is probobably (at a guess) 150 k's from the nearest open cut mine.

My heart goes out to anybody in the Bundaberg area and any other (Grafton, ) area effected by the floods.

G'day S3Ute,

After a number of years of studying; which was done as a result of misadventure - I had to leave my trade Landscaper Parks & Gardens due to my eyes; I am still coming to terms with the concept that I am indeed an academic wa-ker. One of my brothers who is a fitter machinist called me an "academic" recently and I admit that the term made my skin crawl a bit. I am beginning to accept that I am indeed verging on the realms of having to accept the term as applying to myself - an academic that is . Possibly I am an accidental academic

Kind Regards
Lionel

An excellent read, and excellent follow up posts as well...

I like what you observed and your thoughts around it all...

I think to add a bit more to these sort of things one must look at any potential that these are not first occurrences for some people.
Many have weathered similar events before.

In this regard, some come to value life and family over possessions.

I have been through a few events which changed views.

I have been victim to a house break-in, a home invasion and a house robbery (all in Adelaide metro)
I have had 2 vehicles stolen and written off (Adelaide Metro)

What this has taught me is not to get to attached to possessions but rather to just enjoy them whilst I have them.
And to have damn good insurance cover on everything!

A possession is just that, a memory is far more powerful and soothing.

I guess also, being in my job (DIDO) I sleep away from 'my bed' for nearly 60% of my year. There is no comfort taken in being in 'my' bed - the comfort for me is holding my wife...

I am sure I have struggled to get my feelings across in this post, I hope can understand what I am trying to say.

Originally Posted by Lionelgee

G'day S3Ute,

After a number of years of studying; which was done as a result of misadventure - I had to leave my trade Landscaper Parks & Gardens due to my eyes; I am still coming to terms with the concept that I am indeed an academic wa-ker. One of my brothers who is a fitter machinist called me an "academic" recently and I admit that the term made my skin crawl a bit. I am beginning to accept that I am indeed verging on the realms of having to accept the term as applying to myself - an Academic that is . Possibly I am an Accidental Academic

Kind Regards
Lionel

Perhaps you could try an AA meeting.... Academics Anonymous