Looking at Life in a Vacuum…The Allocation of Scarce Resources
By Marvin N. Miller
From time to time I give a lecture that begins with a one-line definition of economics: the study of the allocation of scarce resources. I note that we often think of capital as being the scarcest of resources, but in a broader sense, time, land or other assets, labor, and any other commodity for which we wish there was a greater supply might also be considered scarce. For many of our cities, scarcities may include tax revenues, residents, adequate infrastructure, and employers that provide jobs.
A few days after my most recent presentation of this lecture, I found myself reading an article about a community that decided to spruce up its city hall as part of a city-wide improvement effort to attract more tourists. The city began by removing all of its existing vegetation including four trees, beds full of shrubs, and the turf which surrounded the building. When it came time to install the new landscape, the city’s planning director argued that installing artificial turf, though initially more expensive than real turf with a lawn sprinkling system, would be cheaper. Artificial turf was guaranteed for nine years and would never need mowing, fertilizing, or watering.
Artificial turf for municipal buildings is the latest in a barrage of efforts various cities have undertaken, purportedly to cut costs. I have seen cities which have been long known for their hanging basket programs switch to plastic or silk flowers using the same arguments about being more economical. I have seen plantings at city entrances disappear, tree circles in sidewalks replaced by concrete, and planters go in any number of directions from total removal to artificial plantings to being replaced by animal figurines labeled art projects. All of these efforts were sanctioned in the name of being better economics.
With every such effort, I have thought some decision-making body operated in a vacuum. Certainly, if only dollars and cents related to purchase price and maintenance were tabulated, one could see an argument for savings being made if the shorter life of some real plants was compared to the longer life of synthetic alternatives or if maintenance costs were the only variable considered. Yet, one of the advantages of real plants is the opportunity of a continually-changed appearance due to their continual growth or in the case of annuals, even their death. Change often has been called the lifeblood of retail marketing, for if it weren’t for changing tastes and preferences and changing styles, little economic activity would be generated, other than when obsolescence or failure occurred. A constantly-changing landscape, filled with all kinds of living plants, may by itself become a tourist attraction.
Annuals provide the opportunity to put a “fresh face” on a planting on an annual basis. Perennials offer a different look as they go through the growing season, as anticipation of their bloom window is followed by the bloom itself, followed by an interesting seed head or more interesting fall foliage. And trees and shrubs might offer a spring bloom followed by beautiful summer shade, handsome fall foliage, and even winter interest, depending upon the bark, the tree’s skeletal structure, seed pods or other fruit, or other attributes. Yes, these plants might require some maintenance, but their seasonality does offer the advantage of a changed landscape, which by itself might generate economic activity in the form of shoppers or tourists.
Additionally, I’d like to offer the suggestion that real plants offer environmental advantages that artificial plants never will. Beginning with the manufacturing of oxygen, the use of carbon dioxide, and finishing with the sequestration of carbon, real plants act as “wonder machines,” improving our environment. Real plants offer temperature modulation, helping to cool cities in summer and providing windbreaks to help reduce the winter chill. Real plants can help reduce noise, dust, water, air, and light pollution, advantages that artificial plants cannot provide. You see, plants are more than just pretty, and as challenging as it might be, all of their attributes should be considered. In one U.S. Forest Service study of all of the benefits plants provided, it was found that for every $1 invested in planting, mulching, pruning, or watering of a tree, $2.70 worth of environmental benefits were recouped.
The development of an economic model certainly requires that all costs be considered. It also requires that all benefits be incorporated. Life in a cost comparison vacuum might be cozy, but it is far from an accurate vision of the true meaning of life.
By Marvin N. Miller
From time to time I give a lecture that begins with a one-line definition of economics: the study of the allocation of scarce resources. I note that we often think of capital as being the scarcest of resources, but in a broader sense, time, land or other assets, labor, and any other commodity for which we wish there was a greater supply might also be considered scarce. For many of our cities, scarcities may include tax revenues, residents, adequate infrastructure, and employers that provide jobs.
Artificial turf for municipal buildings is the latest in a barrage of efforts various cities have undertaken, purportedly to cut costs. I have seen cities which have been long known for their hanging basket programs switch to plastic or silk flowers using the same arguments about being more economical. I have seen plantings at city entrances disappear, tree circles in sidewalks replaced by concrete, and planters go in any number of directions from total removal to artificial plantings to being replaced by animal figurines labeled art projects. All of these efforts were sanctioned in the name of being better economics.
With every such effort, I have thought some decision-making body operated in a vacuum. Certainly, if only dollars and cents related to purchase price and maintenance were tabulated, one could see an argument for savings being made if the shorter life of some real plants was compared to the longer life of synthetic alternatives or if maintenance costs were the only variable considered. Yet, one of the advantages of real plants is the opportunity of a continually-changed appearance due to their continual growth or in the case of annuals, even their death. Change often has been called the lifeblood of retail marketing, for if it weren’t for changing tastes and preferences and changing styles, little economic activity would be generated, other than when obsolescence or failure occurred. A constantly-changing landscape, filled with all kinds of living plants, may by itself become a tourist attraction.
Annuals provide the opportunity to put a “fresh face” on a planting on an annual basis. Perennials offer a different look as they go through the growing season, as anticipation of their bloom window is followed by the bloom itself, followed by an interesting seed head or more interesting fall foliage. And trees and shrubs might offer a spring bloom followed by beautiful summer shade, handsome fall foliage, and even winter interest, depending upon the bark, the tree’s skeletal structure, seed pods or other fruit, or other attributes. Yes, these plants might require some maintenance, but their seasonality does offer the advantage of a changed landscape, which by itself might generate economic activity in the form of shoppers or tourists.
The development of an economic model certainly requires that all costs be considered. It also requires that all benefits be incorporated. Life in a cost comparison vacuum might be cozy, but it is far from an accurate vision of the true meaning of life.
Posts
Excellent one, Marvin!