Abstract
CTLA methods follow a cost approach to value. Their adherence to DRC* methodology is perhaps fortuitous, but nonetheless confers some authenticity to the methods, in so far as they are grounded upon universal valuation principles. Strength lies in the closeness of fit. However, because CTLA methods were not designed specifically for this purpose, there are anomalies in the system that warrant reconsideration. A common criticism of CTLA methods is that they are overly complicated. DRC theory is complex, but essentially simple by comparison: the lines of process are clean and uncluttered. It is the anomalies within the CTLA methods that complicate matters; stricter realignment with DRC theory could achieve greater simplicity without sacrificing complexity. Specifically, the efficiency of a tree's function (its site suitability) should be considered under the Species factor, not Location, and the Site Rating, within the Location factor, should be altered to Site Occupancy Rating.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
