We all have our own shit and that’s the beauty of it all. We come from different backgrounds, have different values and beliefs. Identical twins aren’t even identical in their thoughts. Why is it that when people believe in a cause, they feel the solution is to convert the “others”?

Tree Analogy: Information, Frameworks, and Methodologies 

As I was researching the valuation of ecosystem services this past summer I had an idea to think about appropriate valuation as a tree. The roots can be thought of as information (i.e. objectives, definitions, needs, stakeholders, audience, etc.). This information flows into the trunk which is the “framework”. My favorite definition of “framework”, so far, is “a logical structure for classifying and organizing complex information” – The Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework. Finally, the branches of the tree are the methodologies. There can be many methodologies and a variety of information that belong to one framework.

A framework is a way of organizing different information. It is not a way of converting information inputs into something that the information is not. A framework has the ability to make a connection between diverse inputs so the inputs can “work together” to create one, or many methodologies that accomplish a specific goal. The challenge with the valuation of ecosystem services is that the value of these services simply cannot only be expressed in monetary terms. They also can’t only be expressed in terms of emergy (the amount of energy consumed in direct and indirect transformations to make a product or a service). Therefore, the final value can’t be a conversion of other types of value. In the conversion process, the ecosystem service will lose value that can’t be expressed with money if its emergy value is converted to units of money, for example.

MY purpose isn’t the same as YOUR purpose, but that doesn’t mean we can’t accomplish a common goal.

It could be a long shot, but maybe the tree analogy can work for people working together to make changes. That would mean that the roots are people, with all their differences in beliefs and expertise. The framework, then, would be working together (i.e. organizing different people to create a logical structure for accomplishing a goal). Finally, the branches would be making changes (i.e. a change as big as world peace).

People want to improve the world, they want to change the world for the better. It’s clear in how our societies have evolved and how we’ve developed countless organizations and initiatives devoted to helping people, animals, and the planet. So let’s say there is a common goal of making our home a better place. There are many “methodologies” that can satisfy this goal. For example, one “methodology” could be as simple as caring for a garden or house so it is more comfortable to live in, whereas another “methodology” could be as complex as CARE, which “works around the globe to save lives, defeat poverty, and achieve social justice.”

Guess what both of these methodologies require: working together. Working together is the framework to organize complex people in a way that allows them to make changes to achieve the common goal of making our home a better place. You might be thinking, “you don’t need to work together with anyone to do yard or housework.” Maybe you’re right if you’re living alone and don’t have any friends, but if you are working on your home it’s probably a place where your friends and family gather. A home isn’t a home when other people aren’t also comfortable, so their input and perspective are just as important as yours. I dare you to challenge that.

 

There are many frameworks that have many methodologies in the study of valuation of ecosystem services. Some can partially get the job done, but none are perfect. Maybe working together isn’t the perfect framework for making our home a better place, but I’d like to see if it can get the job done.