UKTC Archive

RE: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article

Subject: RE: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article
From: David Evans
Date: Feb 15 2021 15:46:37
Hi Jeremy

Here's the next query for clarification.

In both your decision-making frameworks, at Figures 4 and 5, you have low 
occupancy as 'no check' or 'no visit'.  So, low occupancy = low risk.  Or low 
occupancy is an acceptable risk, no matter how high the consequences or how 
high the likelihood of failure. You say further.

"The assessment of the level of occupancy needed to trigger a check is a 
matter of judgement for each individual duty holder"

As you don't know what a duty holder will judge to be low occupancy, and you 
give no guidance as to what a low occupancy is, how do you work out the risk 
must be acceptable no matter how big or bad the tree?

This particularly stood out on first reading because, in VALID's risk model, 
low likelihood of occupancy is clearly defined.  It's not a decision the duty 
holder is expected to make.  Importantly, there are several circumstances 
with red consequences and red likelihood of failures where the risk is Not 
Acceptable or Not Tolerable where the likelihood of occupancy is low.  
There's also one where the Validator has to decide whether the risk is 
Tolerable? or not (attached).

Cheers

Acer Ventura



-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> 
On Behalf Of Jeremy Barrell
Sent: 13 February 2021 16:15
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article

I can now confirm that Taylor and Francis have corrected the spelling error 
in the title of the Research Article The implications of recent English legal 
judgments, inquest verdicts, and ash dieback disease for the defensibility of 
tree risk management regimes, and the updated version can be downloaded free 
here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071375.2020.1854996?src=. 
 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.  This article 
deals with strategic tree risk management, and I am currently working on the 
next one in the series that will focus on the checking process to help 
inspectors feel more comfortable with the decisions that they make.

Jeremy Barrell
01425 XXXXXX
Jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.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



-- 
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

Attachment: Jeremy Barrell Low Occupancy Acceptable Risk.png
Description: PNG image