UKTC Archive

Re: RE: Statistical Risk vs Ecosystem Services - does this compute?

Subject: Re: RE: Statistical Risk vs Ecosystem Services - does this compute?
From: Julian Morris
Date: Dec 04 2019 14:38:23
Yes I cited this the last time 'random' was discussed on UKTC. Then there was 
some spuriours mentions of determinism. Even random number generators are not 
random, they produce unpredictable numbers but they are generated by 
algorithms that result in distributions that have all the characteristics of 
random numbers. Clever stuff. This can be seen in the Monte Carlo simuations 
that QTRA runs to produce representative numbers for the permutations of 
combinations of target probability of failure and severity. 

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 at 1:13 PM
From: "Michael Richardson" <richardsontreecare@xxxxxx.com>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: RE: Statistical Risk vs Ecosystem Services - does this compute?

I believe that only truly random event in nature is the decay of a
radionucleotide atom.


Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
Richardson Tree Care
Richardsontreecare.ca
613-475-2877
800-769-9183

  <http://www.richardsontreecare.ca/images/Tree_Doc_logo_email.png>



On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 7:53 AM Jim Quaife <jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> 
wrote:

We just have to disagree Julian.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Julian Morris
Sent: 04 December 2019 12:43
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: RE: Statistical Risk vs Ecosystem Services - does this
compute?

Jim, this havse come up before and I explained at length why I disagreed
with your suggestion that tree failures are random. I still disagree with
you. The timing of individual failures can be a result of complex things
and may not always be foreseeable, but it's not random. The whole idea of
tree risk assessment is that the law expects a reasonable person to act on
foreseeable harm or damage, and so people like us are employed to assess
trees to see if all the complex things come together and amount to
'foreseeable'. In those cases the failure is demonstrably not random, and
since it's part of a continuum with an arbitrary acceptable/unacceptable
line marked on it, no unforeseeable tree falures are random either.
I'd give you "The problem with tree incidents is that they are complex,
such that objective quantification and prediction is often so imprecise
that they appear random."


Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 at 12:07 PM
From: "Jim Quaife" <jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Statistical Risk vs Ecosystem Services - does this compute?

Hi Chris,
The problem with tree risk statistics is that in the science of stats
they are not significant - I didn't know this but I have been educated by
someone who does.
I thought that statistical significance was to do with the sample size,
but it is not. Significance is determined by the absence of randomness.
This is not always possible and so stats which contain randomness have to
be adjusted to compensate, and that usually means that the reliance one 
can
put upon them decreases proportionately.
The problem with tree incidents is that they are random.
We like think that our tree surveys are comprehensive and professional
(which they are - hopefully) but accurate prediction of tree failures is
virtually unheard of.  We specify work that requires attention where we 
can
anticipate failure, but we have absolutely no idea whether in so doing we
have actually prevented an incident.  Intuitively we think we have of
course and I do not question the integrity of surveyors (myself 
included!),
but there is no way we can prove it.
Regretfully it follows that any calculations based on a random data are
of questionable worth in actuality.   Interesting yes, but applicable?
We all love numbers as they provide reassurance (particularly to
insurers who hover over all this), but I would be very wary of basing any
sort of policy or programme on such calculations.
Although it may sound "woolly", tree risk assessments are justifiable
because the alternative of not conducting them is not.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Corder, Chris
Sent: 04 December 2019 11:43
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Statistical Risk vs Ecosystem Services - does this compute?

Dear all,

I am a sad case. I only have numbers to comfort me.
So I was wondering where the risk-benefit of trees might lie.
Maybe someone has already done this?
If not, does the following compute?

For arguments sake...lets agree that the background of risk of death in
'public spaces' in the UK seems to be in the order of 1/10,000,000
Lets also assume/agree that the Value of Statistical Life is £2M
6 deaths per year = value of risk of £12M per year
“A value of statistical life of £1,000,000 is just another way of saying
that a reduction in risk of death of 1/100,000 per year has a value of £10
per year” (HSE, 1996)"
Therefore, divide £12M by 1/10,000,000 = risk value of £1.20
The i-Tree Eco London study found that 8,421,000 trees provided
£132,700,000 per year of ecosystem services i.e. £15 per tree per year (or
near as damn it). So lets assume £15 per tree might be about right.
£15 eco value per tree/£1.20 risk value = 12.5
So...is it right to say that the background risk from trees would need
to be 12.5 times greater before the ecosystem benefits start to become
outweighed?
If so, then presumably the background risk from trees could increase to
somewhere in the region of 1/800,000 before the risk starts to outweigh
ecosystem benefits?
(Which is sort of where the Tolerable/Broadly Acceptable region of the
ToR Framework lies...is this coincidence?)

Does this compute or have I gone start raving mad?

p.s. I get the daily digest...so I won't see any replies in real time.
So thanks in advance. And sorry in advance for delay in reply.

All the best,
Chris

Christopher Corder PDArb (RFS), BSc (Hons) in arboriculture, MArborA
Assistant Arboricultural Manager
Hampshire Highways
Tel: 0300 XXX XXXX
Web: www.hants.gov.uk/roads
@Hantshighways

© Hampshire County Council 2017 | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Alastair Durkin
Sent: 03 December 2019 08:56
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Replacement trees in an area TPO

Hi Jon the situation is this:

If you have an area TPO and allow a tree to be removed, subject to
replacement planting then you MUST either make a new TPO on the 
replacement
OR formally 'vary' the TPO to include the new individual tree. Otherwise
the tree is not protected.

The 'C' business is for giving effect to planning conditions under s197,
it's not for TPO app conditions. See section 4 of the model order.

Hope this helps.

Alastair


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Jon Heuch
Sent: 01 December 2019 14:14
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Replacement trees in an area TPO

Good folk of uktc



Remind me what should happen if the removal of a protected tree covered
by an area order is allowed, but a condition is given to plant a
replacement tree? The order may or may not contain separate individual
protected trees.



The order can't be altered to include an individual tree shown within
the protected area, can it?



The tree officer who gave permission will remember but what is there on
record to show a protected replacement tree? The replacement tree will
clearly be younger than the order, so not seemingly protected to 
subsequent
tree officers.



Do area orders get conditional replacement trees? Do they get Tree
Replacement Notices?



Is this just a failing of the Area order?



Jon








--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/