UKTC Archive

RE: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article

Subject: RE: Peer reviewed tree risk management Research Article
From: David Evans
Date: Feb 19 2021 09:31:20
Hi Jeremy

<<In any event, the evidence seems to indicate that too much technical 
discussion is boring some UKTC'ers>>

Is this 'emerging' evidence? :-)

Seriously, this would surprise me given the raison d'etre of the UKTC is 
technical discussion, but you're under no obligation to participate in the 
debate.  As you say, you've set your stall out in an article, and no doubt 
you were looking to stimulate debate like this by getting it published.  But 
it's an opinion piece and not really research, is it?  Though you don't 
disclose it in the article, you were an expert witness in the court case and 
the two inquiries that you explore, and co-wrote the LANTRA Highway Tree 
Inspection training manual that's promoted in it.  It could be argued you've 
researched yourself.

Sure, I'd be up for a coffee and a chat after Covid.  From what you've 
written so far we have little common ground but one objective we share is to 
take the complexity out of tree risk.  Risk modelling is inherently 
complicated and much more than adding words or blending colours.  It's why I 
worked with a Risk Professor on VALID.  The challenge is to make it 
uncomplicated for the duty holder and assessor.  That means not just removing 
the unnecessary numberwang, but the bafflegab of words like 'high' or 'low' 
or 'medium', which unless clearly defined are an illusion of communication.  
Besides, I'm always up for talking about tree risk.  I find how people think 
about tree risk just as interesting as the subject itself.


Acer Ventura

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits