UKTC Archive

Re: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article

Subject: Re: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article
From: Michael Richardson
Date: Feb 14 2021 11:54:42
What a surprise!!!

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 Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 1:00 PM David Evans <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com> wrote:

<<Although not a perfect system, the content of peer reviewed articles is
generally more trustworthy than those we regularly see referenced with no
such controls.  I had two very astute peer reviewers who made some useful
and valuable suggestions, and the article is much better for it.>>

Hi Jeremy

Thanks for the share.  Unfortunately, there's not much I agree with in the
article, but that's fine.  All we can do is make our best pitch, debate
matters, and let everyone else make their minds up.

I've got a couple of questions of clarification.  The first one is, why is
the 'likelihood of occupancy' not part of your definition of tree risk,
before the Figure 3 risk matrix?  Was this omission not picked up during
the peer review?  Or is there a reason for not including the likelihood of
occupancy in your definition of tree risk?

Cheers

Acer Ventura



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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk




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

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk