Well, by taking into account all of the potential value judgments, then utilizing the ones most relevant to your decision, acknowledging the short-comings of your decision and making good on them.
Acknowledge - 100 values that Tree A brings. 85 values that Tree B brings.
Judge - 12 values from Tree A are relevant to our decision. 8 values from Tree B are relevant to our decision.
Cons - 3 values are really important that we should rectify for Tree A. 5 values for Tree B.
Make Good - 1 value of Tree A cannot be replicated. All values of Tree B can be replicated.
Conclusion - Cut down Tree B. Benefit from it. Make good on 5 values that are important.
I literally made up this decision-making on the spot, but if I put more than 30 seconds into it, I think I can refine it and make it applicable to a lot of spots. Yes, they would require qualitative thinking and are more complicated than a simple monetary equation, but it considers all of the externalities of our decisions beyond financial gain/loss and that was my initial point.
Acknowledge - 100 values that Tree A brings. 85 values that Tree B brings. Judge - 12 values from Tree A are relevant to our decision. 8 values from Tree B are relevant to our decision. Cons - 3 values are really important that we should rectify for Tree A. 5 values for Tree B. Make Good - 1 value of Tree A cannot be replicated. All values of Tree B can be replicated. Conclusion - Cut down Tree B. Benefit from it. Make good on 5 values that are important.
I literally made up this decision-making on the spot, but if I put more than 30 seconds into it, I think I can refine it and make it applicable to a lot of spots. Yes, they would require qualitative thinking and are more complicated than a simple monetary equation, but it considers all of the externalities of our decisions beyond financial gain/loss and that was my initial point.