that would have been consumed to "manufacture" Capitol Park. Similarly, the
dollar amount is thought to represent the cost of "manufacturing" Capitol
Park. As calculated, those values and costs are 30 to 140 billion Btu's and
$0.4 billion to $2 billion. Similarly, the value of the services provided
annually by the park (Table 1) are thought to represent the fossil fuel consumed
(900 to 4,700 million Btu's per year and dollar costs C$14,000 to $70,000
per year) of providing the functions with technology which Capitol Park
currently provides with vegetation. The range of values is due to the range
of energy quality conversion factors of organic matter to its equivalent in
fossil fuel units.

 Table 2 presents the results of the second kind of assessment using
economic methods. Four kinds of services are "broken out" and the dollar cost
of and fossil fuel consumed in providing those services with a replacement
technology is evaluated. For each service, a range of values is given. The
actual value of the work provided depends on how well interfaced the park system
is with the buildings, e.g., positioning of trees for climate and pollution
controls. The low values represent a minimum and the high values represent
a maximum where trees and shrubbery are planted with climate and pollution
control functions in mind. It was not possible to determine how well interfaced
the park vegetation and buildings are. The park is providing the four kinds of
services listed in Table 2 as well as others such as mentioned before which were
not evaluated.

 Total fossil fuel saved for these four services alone, as calculated,
ranges from 2.6 to 19.3 billion Btu's per year (Table 2). This is the equivalent
of 464 to 3,450 barrels of oil per year. The savings in economic costs
attributable to the work of Capitol Park vegetation range from $10,000 to
$137,300 per year. In comparison, the energy analysis assessment (Table 1)
suggests the savings predicted'by the energy analysis of between 1 and 5 billion
Btu's and $14,000 to $70,000. This dollar amount falls entirely within the low
to high range calculated using economic methods. The quantity of energy given
in Table 1 (1 to 5 billion Btu's per year) overlaps, but is not entirely within
the range calculated using economic methods (2.6 to 19.3 billion Btu's from
Table 2). While there may be other explanations, two reasons for that difference
are offered here. First, nature's designs may be, on the whole, more efficient
than people's designs of systems which provide the services analyzed. Secondly,
the minimum predicted value uses the conservative quality conversion factor
of 5 for net primary production to fossil fuel. If that quality conversion
factor is 3, then the fuel savings predicted are in the range of that calculated.


 Discussion and Conclusions


 Using a theory proposed and developed by H.T. Odum, we evaluated the energy
value of the services that Capitol Park in Sacramento, California provides to
the Capitol Park complex and city. Capitol Park uses solar energy to provide
these services. This solar energy as embodied in biomass was expressed in fossil
fuel equivalent units and in dollars. The fossil fuel equivalent energy value
is believed to represent the amount of fossil fuel that would be consumed if
technology were invoked to provide the same services now provided by Capitol
Park. Similarly, the dollar amount is believed to represent the cost of providing
those services with technology.