On 06/09/2007 07:02, John Flannigan wrote:
Secondly, and you have already alluded to it is that the industry
doesn't
need dozens of systems. It needs a unified voice. Its
customers/communities
need to understand what the hell Arborists talk about and if we all
disagree
on basic methodology or use idiosyncratic systems this simply cannot
happen.
John
I would whole heartedly agree that the industry needs to work towards an
industry accepted framework for managing risk in populations of trees.
As I've said, this was a point that came across strongly from Richard
Stead's presentation - do this and we have every chance of it leading
the law.
I'm not sure that QTRA is it. I certainly think QTRA moves our
understanding of tree risk on by orders of magnitude. It can and should
play a part, but I would be very concerned about the industry adopting,
lock, stock and barrel, what is, in effect, a proprietary system.
I believe an agreed standard will need to be broad brush, to lay down
basic principles. These should include a structured assessment of risk
that accounts for likelihood of failure, occupation of target and likely
severity of damage. They should include a concept of balancing effort
against risk - of different types of inspection (eg drive-by / walk-by,
detailed), perhaps carried out by inspectors at different levels of
competence, with decisions on what gets inspected how informed largely
by target. They should include a concept of different return periods and
how those are decided. Of prioritising resources in taking action. Of
recording information. They should consider the process by which we come
to decide to inspect trees as much as how we inspect them when we get
there. They should, in as far as is possible, be evidence based and
reference published, peer reviewed material.
What they absolutely must not do is to prescribe excessive detail or tie
the industry into a particular commercial product. They should not
prescribe whether QTRA, Matheney or Clarke or The Magic Risk Crystal
Pendulum™ is used to assess risk. They should not prescribe which
software package data are stored in (unless, of course, it's one I've
written :) They should not prescribe return periods for particular
situations, nor should they prescribe action periods - these are local
decisions that are influenced by local constraints and can only be made
by local managers.
Chris Hastie
--
Find a tree surgeon at
http://www.findtreesurgeons.com/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
