ENH1226

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three

Common Evaluation Forms1
Andrew K. Koeser, Gitta Hasing, Drew McLean, and Rob Northrop2

Introduction • ISA Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practice

(BMP) Method (Dunster et al. 2013; Smiley et al. 2011)
All trees pose some level of risk to nearby people, struc-
Sidebar 1.
tures, and utilities. Typically, this risk is minimal and is far
outweighed by the environmental, social, and economic Quantitative vs. Qualitative Risk Assessment
Although the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form and the USDA Forest
benefits offered by the tree in question. As trees age or Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form both generate a
become weakened by pests, disease, and/or other stresses, numerical rating as a final product of the assessment process, they
this balance may shift, requiring a tree owner or manager to are not quantitative assessment methods. The numeric inputs used
decide what risk level he or she is willing to accept and what to generate a final score are qualitative or subjective ratings of
defect severity, size of defective part, and target. To help eliminate
modifications, if any, are needed. Experienced arborists can this confusion and the false sense of accuracy that was often
aid in this decision process by conducting a professional experienced with these qualitative, mathematical formulas, the
risk assessment that specifies the likelihood of whole or updated International Society of Arboriculture Best Management
Practice method has replaced numerical rankings with descriptive
partial tree failure, the consequences of such a failure, and
categories, such as “improbable,” “possible,” “probable,” and
the potential targets affected. “imminent” for likelihood of failure. Users are guided through a
series of decision matrices to determine the overall risk rating.
A variety of risk assessment methods have been developed If using one of the risk assessment forms that generates a final,
to guide professionals through the tree inspection process. numerical rating, note that this value is intended for assessing
populations of trees. No concrete risk threshold can be applied to
In North America, three risk assessment methods have categorize a single tree as either “safe” or “hazardous” (everything
gained the greatest acceptance among tree care profession- rated greater than seven must be removed). Instead, numerical
als, municipal urban forestry programs, and government ratings allow users to prioritize risk reduction efforts by addressing
agencies. These methods are: the trees that pose the greatest potential threat to people and
property first and, as resources and time permit, working down the
list to lower-rated trees.
• International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree
Hazard Evaluation Method (Matheny and Clark 1994) Each risk assessment method is paired with its own data
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) For- collection form. These forms serve many functions and in
est Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Method particular, they:
(Pokorny 2003)
1. Pull out and summarize key concepts within each assess-
ment methodology

1. This document is ENH1226, one of a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date October 2013.
Reviewed December 2016. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2. Andrew K. Koeser, assistant professor; Gitta Hasing, former senior biological scientist; Drew McLean, biological scientist, Environmental Horticulture
Department, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center; and Rob Northrop, Extension faculty, UF/IFAS Extension Hillsborough County; UF/IFAS
Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to
individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county’s UF/IFAS Extension office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County
Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension.
2. Guide the user through a systematic assessment of root, These evaluations offer practical insights for arborists and
trunk, and crown conditions urban foresters wanting to adopt a tree risk assessment
method to aid in their professional responsibilities.
3. Ensure the collection of standardized data

4. Provide a written record of the assessment and any General Comparison of Data
prescribed risk abatement measures Collected
Sidebar 2.
Throughout this article, we use risk assessment method
Risk vs. Hazard
and form interchangeably because both are closely and Something is considered a hazard if it simply has the potential (no
deliberately linked by their associated developers. This does matter how small) to cause harm. In contrast, risk is the likelihood
not suggest, however, that a potential user can gain all the that a potential hazard will cause harm, and risk is situation
background he or she needs from the form alone. Each risk dependent. For example, even very hazardous waste materials can
pose minimal risk to health and safety, if handled and contained
assessment method included in this review is thoroughly appropriately. Similarly, large trees with compromised structures
documented with its own user manual. These manuals near targets are more likely to cause harm than small trees with the
should be repeatedly referenced until the user becomes same probability of failure in remote areas.
sufficiently experienced in the method used. Face-to-face
training may also be available for the USDA Forest Service Risk Assessment Background,
Community Tree Risk Evaluation method and the ISA Tree
Risk Assessment BMP method.
Perceived Advantages/
Disadvantages, Time
For this article, we field tested the ISA Hazard Evaluation,
the USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation, Requirements, and Applicability in
and the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Arboriculture and Urban Forestry
Practice (BMP) risk assessment processes on three different
trees in a botanical garden (Figure 1). In comparing the
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form (from A
three methods and their data collection forms, we assessed Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of
the: Hazard Trees in Urban Areas)
Background: The ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form, which
• similarities and differences, was developed by Nelda Matheny and James Clark and last
• perceived advantages and disadvantages, updated in the second edition of A Photographic Guide to
the Evaluation of in Urban Areas (1994), has been widely
• time required for completion of a basic visual assessment,
used and modified by municipalities and commercial
and
arborists. Though the ISA (working with Matheny) has
• potential application in commercial arboriculture and since published the ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP, a new
municipal forestry settings. risk assessment approach, the original form is still used by
many in the industry.

Advantages: The ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form sum-

marizes an industry-accepted method for documenting risk
and prioritizing hazard abatement efforts. The level of detail
is suitable for a basic visual assessment of an individual or
small group of trees. When used correctly, the hazard rating
can prioritize pruning, removals, and other mitigation
options.

Disadvantages: The time required to complete this form

makes it difficult to assess large populations of trees in a
municipal setting. However, the final numerical rating used
Figure 1. The three risk assessment processes reviewed all included for comparing the relative risk of trees plays a prominent
data entry forms to facilitate the systematic collection of standardized
information.
role in the process and is a key focal point in the form.
Credits: Gitta Hasing, UF/IFAS As such, the final hazard rating runs the risk of being

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 2

misused by commercial or consulting arborists who inspect defective trees in target areas and determining the defects’
individual trees in a residential setting (see Quantitative vs. severity, the consequences of failure, and the remedial
Qualitative Risk Assessment sidebar). action recommendations intended to reduce tree risk.
Numeric tree risk ratings that are generated as part of this
Time Required to Complete: Approximately 20 minutes process can aid communities by prioritizing the application
for a basic, 360-degree visual assessment, using a diameter of corrective actions.
tape and a digital hypsometer (Figure 2). Time required
should decrease as the user gains greater familiarity with Advantages: The USDA Forest Service Community Tree
the process and form. Risk Evaluation Form is fairly simple to use, concise (10
trees per printed page), and relatively fast to complete com-
pared with the other methods assessed. The risk rating and
tree defect codes standardized data collection and made
paper data entry faster. Similarly, using standard corrective
action codes can prescribe remedial measures for evaluated
trees at the time of assessment. While this nomenclature
can be an initial hurdle, with time its use should further
reduce the time needed to assess each tree.

In our assessment, the time required to complete the USDA

Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form took
about 10 minutes or about half the time required for the
other forms. This factor alone makes this form a compelling
choice for urban foresters and others charged with manag-
ing large populations of trees.

Disadvantages: With the increased efficiency of the USDA

Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form
comes some sacrificed detail, especially with regard to
site history and condition (factors that are provided as
Figure 2. Urban trees can often impact multiple targets. background information, but are largely excluded from the
Credits: Gitta Hasing, UF/IFAS actual ratings produced by either of the ISA forms). Site
Use in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry: The ISA Tree history can be crucial because certain parts of Florida are
Hazard Evaluation Form is best suited for a commercial more prone to hurricanes and thunderstorms. Similarly,
arborist or urban forester working with smaller tree site development is important because rising water tables
populations (e.g., the trees present on a residential lot or a can injure tree roots and predispose them to catastrophic
high-use municipal property). Given the time requirements failure.
and labor costs, its usefulness in assessing large populations
of urban trees will be limited for most cities. Additionally, while the standard codes facilitate the rapid
recording of defects, the user has limited flexibility in
Form: To view the form, see the appendix or visit http:// describing unique problems encountered in the urban en-
www.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/educ_TreeHazard- vironments (e.g., utility conflicts, invasive species prone to
Form.pdf. specific modes of failure, or poor spacing). While including
notes in the optional “Other Risks Factor Ratings” column
USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk alleviates some of this, data consistency may become an
issue. Alternatively, one could add the list of defect codes to
Evaluation Process and Form match typical conditions in a given region.
Background: The USDA Community Tree Risk Evalua-
tion Form was developed by Jill Pokorny et al. (2003) as As with many tools developed in the northern United
part of the USDA Forest Service guide, Urban Tree Risk States, there are species-specific issues that can arise when
Management: A Community Guide to Program Design and using this form in the South. For example, in Florida, live
Implementation. The form summarizes and leads the user oaks (Quercus virginiana) are commonly used in the urban
through a seven-step process, which includes identifying environment. This species typically has branches with sharp

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 3

bends or twists that, given the examples outlined in the called the “TRAQ form,” given its use as part of ISA’s Tree
guide, should be described as Poor Tree Architecture (PTA) Risk Assessment Qualification.
in the list of available defect codes. However, history and Sidebar 3.
research show live oaks are one of the more resilient species Levels of Risk Assessment (as defined by the ANSI A300 Standards for
in high-wind events. Conversely, in cases where a known Tree Care Operations)
defect leads to a greater species failure rate, the “Other Risk • Level 1—Limited Visual: A limited visual risk assessment is
Factor Rating” (0 to 2 points) can be used to increase the sometimes referred to as a walk by or a drive by assessment. It is
most common in urban forest scenarios where trees are abundant
risk rating. This also applies to cases of a tree’s location site and resources for inspection are relatively scarce. A limited visual
that may increase its susceptibility; for example, a laurel oak is not necessarily a complete 360-degree inspection and may
(Quercus laurifolia) that is established in areas where water be employed in situations where access is limited. Professionals
tables are rising. conducting a limited visual assessment identify high-risk trees that
are mitigation priorities.
• Level 2—Basic Visual: A basic visual assessment is a 360-degree
While it’s not considered a disadvantage, the USDA Forest inspection from the ground that is more thorough and typically
Service Form does not include a section for tree height includes height and diameter measurements. An assessor may use
measurements, and the stem diameter is the sole size binoculars for crown inspections, a mallet for sounding hollows, a
probe for inspecting cavities, and other common tools to conduct
measurement. Tree height data combined with DBH can the inspection.
yield important information on a tree’s vulnerability to the • Level 3—Advance Assessment: An advanced assessment can be an
elements (i.e. for calculating wind loading). Also, the form’s aerial assessment or an assessment that includes quantitative decay
layout does not include sufficient space to list all defect detection, health evaluation, wind load assessment, and static load
assessment. Given the more advanced tools and methodologies
codes for trees with multiple issues; thus, increasing this employed, this service is often offered at a premium to the
area would improve the form’s functionality. customer and typically reserved for heritage or high-value trees.

Time Required to Complete: Approximately 10 minutes Advantages: A major innovation in risk assessment
for a basic, 360-degree visual assessment, using a diameter methodology is this form’s listing of multiple targets for a
tape. Time required should decrease as the user gains single tree. The earlier ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form
greater familiarity with the process and form. and the USDA Forest Service Community Tree Form allow
the user to identify multiple defects, but they are both
Use in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry: The USDA For- lumped together with respect to one target rating. Even
est Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form is well though the urban environment can make risk assessment
suited for commercial arborists or urban foresters working a complex endeavor (Figure 3), this form provides a flex-
with key urban tree populations (e.g., downtown street trees ible, yet standardized means of coping with multi-faceted
or trees along evacuation routes). assessment scenarios.

Form: To view the form, see the appendix or visit http://

www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/uf/utrmm/chptr3_sec8.pdf.

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Best

Management Practice Form
Background: The International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Method was developed Figure 3. The final numeric hazard rating plays a prominent role in the
in conjunction with the ISA’s Tree Risk Assessment Best older ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form.
Management Practice (BMP) Manual. The assessment Credits: Gitta Hasing, UF/IFAS
form and the BMP manual, which represent the work of E.
Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, draw on Like the older ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form, this form
insights gained from risk analysis theory. The ISA Tree Risk is two pages and is designed to guide the user through a
Assessment Form is intended for trees receiving a basic thorough, basic visual assessment. It also includes gridded
(level 2) risk assessment is not designed to collect informa- spaces for the user to map targets and draw major trunk
tion from the advanced (level 3) or limited visual (level 1) defects.
tree risk assessments. The form serves as a replacement for
Finally, this new assessment method discards numerical
the older ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form and is often
ratings that were useful for urban foresters assessing tree
populations but were often misunderstood and misused by

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 4

tree care practitioners. Instead, the overall risk ratings are programs. Care must be taken, however, to ensure the
derived from a sequence of decision matrices, which factor speed of data collection does not lead to a loss of accuracy
in target, likelihood of failure, and consequence of failure and consistency, which are integral for an effective risk
with regard to target. rating. It must also be kept in mind that these three risk
assessment methods do not substitute for a more thorough
Disadvantages: The level of detail required to complete this level three assessment or an advanced assessment, where
form significantly increases the time required to complete and when warranted. It is the arborist’s or urban forester’s
an assessment. While replacing numerical ratings makes responsibility to ensure that no unwarranted mitigation,
sense methodologically, reducing the final, cumulative including tree removal, occurs because of his or her assess-
rating to four possible outcomes (low, moderate, high, and ments. All trees are unique, and no set of procedures can be
extreme) could potentially limit one’s ability to prioritize standardized to successfully meet all clients’ specific needs
tree mitigation efforts when dealing with tree populations. and their tree resources. The client, whether it’s a private
As such, this form’s use may be limited in assessing sizeable landowner or municipal government, relies on the arborist’s
tree populations that urban forestry managers administer, or urban forester’s training and experience to use the most
unless individual trees of local or historical significance are appropriate risk assessment tools.
being evaluated.
Finally, as technology advances and becomes less expensive,
Time Required to Complete: Approximately 20–25 minutes all or key parts of the forms can be programed with
for a basic, 360-degree visual assessment, using a diameter off-the-shelf data collection programs. This allows the
tape and a digital hypsometer. Time required should user to use mobile devices, such as an iPad or Android/
decrease as the user gains greater familiarity with the Windows-based tablet, to decrease data entry errors, to
process and form. minimize the time required for data entry, and to increase
organization and updating when the user returns to his or
Use in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry: The ISA Tree her office. Regardless of data collected through paper or
Hazard Evaluation Form is best suited for a commercial electronic means, accurately assessed and collected tree
arborist or urban forester working with individual trees or risk information is critical to minimize injury and property
smaller tree populations. damage when trees fail.

Form: To view the form, see the appendix or visit http://

www.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/BasicTreeRiskAs-
sessmentForm_FirstEdition.pdf.

To view more detailed, step-by-step instructions for this

form, see the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Manual or visit
http://1-www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/education/
resources/ISABasicTreeRiskAssessmentForm_Instructions.
pdf.

Conclusions
All of the methodologies above draw on the same core
risk principal, and assess potential targets, the likelihood
of failure, and the consequences of partial or whole tree
failure. These key similarities serve as an indication that any
method could suit arborists and urban foresters in the field.
The additional site data collected, coding, or refinements to
the final rating derivation process may make a particular
method stand out to a certain user group, depending on the
group’s needs and resources. Figure 4. All three forms include qualitative ratings for size of affected
part and probability of failure (given defect type).
Credits: Gitta Hasing, UF/IFAS
The need for collecting risk assessment data efficiently
is critical to both private arborists and urban forestry

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 5

References
Dunster, J., E.T. Smiley, N. Matheny, and S. Lilly. 2013.
Tree Risk Assessment – Manual. International Society of
Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

Matheny, N. and J. Clark. 1994. A Photographic Guide to the

Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. 2nd Ed. Interna-
tional Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

Pokorny, J. 2003. Urban Tree Risk Management: A Com-

munity Guide to Program Design and Implementation.
USDA-FS NA-TP03-03

Smiley, E.T., N. Matheny, and S. Lilly. 2011. Best Manage-

ment Practices: Tree Risk Assessment. International Society
of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

TCIA. 2011. A300 (Part 9)-2011 Tree Risk Assessment a.

Tree Structure Assessment. Tree Care Industry Association,
Inc., Londonderry, NH.

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 6

Table 1. Comparison of inspection meta-data (inspector, client, date, etc.), location, and site information collected from the ISA
Tree Hazard Evaluation, the USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation, and the ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP forms.
ISA Tree Hazard USDA Forest Service ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP Form
Evaluation Form Community Tree Risk Form
Inspection Data
• Client Information X X X
• Inspector/Assessor X X X
• Date/Time X X X
• Address/Location X X X
• Last Inspection Date X
• Time Frame z
X
• Assessment Tools Used X
Site Condition/
History
• Site Type/Zoning X
• Past Construction Activity X X
• Root Conflicts/Restrictions X X
• Soil Conditions/ Drainage X X
• Wind Conditions/Exposure X X
• Sign obstruction X X
z
Time frame in which assessments of likelihood of failure are made (e.g., the tree has an imminent likelihood of failure in the next five years).

Table 2. Comparison of tree health and defect data collected from the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation, the USDA Forest Service
Community Tree Risk Evaluation, and the ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP forms.
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation USDA Forest Service ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP
Form Community Tree Risk Form Form
Tree Health
• Vigor Rating X X
• Foliar Condition X X
• Woundwood Development X X
• Pest/Disease X X
• Species Failure Profile z
X y
X
Tree Structure
• Height X X
• DBH X X X
• Root/Root Crown Defect List X X X
• Trunk Defect List X X X
• Scaffold Branches/ Limbs Defect List X X X
• Crown/Branches Defect List X X X
z
Observed weaknesses in a given species, variety, or cultivar, given typical and severe weather events
y
Can be incorporated in the optional Other Risk Factors column (1–2 pts)

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 7

Table 3. Comparison of initial ratings, which include Target Assessment, Likelihood of Failure, and Consequences of Failure, with
Final Ratings in the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation, USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation, and ISA Tree Risk Assessment
BMP forms.
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form USDA Forest Service Community ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP
Tree Risk Form Form
Target Assessment
• Form Section Title Target Rating Probability of Target Impact Likelihood of Impacting Target
• Rating Type Numeric (1–4 Points) Numeric (1–3 Points) Descriptive (4 Categories)
• Levels (1) Occasional Use (1) Occasional Use Very Low
(2) Intermittent Use (2) Intermediate Use Low
(3) Frequent Use (3) Frequent Use Medium
(4) Constant Use High

Likelihood of Failure
• Form Section Title Failure Potential Probability of Failure Likelihood of Failure
• Rating Type Numeric (1–4 Points) Numeric (1–4 Points) Descriptive (4 Categories)
• Levels (1) Low (1) Low Improbable; Possible;
(2) Medium (2) Moderate Probable; Imminent
(3) High (3) High
(4) Severe (4) Extremely High

Consequences of Failure
• Form Section Title Size of Part Size of Defective Part(s) Consequences of Failure
• Rating Type Numeric (1–4 Points) Numeric (1–3 Points) Descriptive (4 Categories)
• Levels (in inches) (1) less than 6 (1) less than 4 Negligible
(2) 6–18 (2) 4–20 Minor
(3) 18–30 (3) greater than 20 Significant
(4) greater than 30 Severe

Final Rating
• Form Section Hazard Rating Risk Rating Risk Rating
• Rating Type Numeric (3–12 Points) Numeric (3–10 points + 2 optional Descriptive (4 categories)
points)
• Derived from Sum of “Failure Potential Rating,” Sum of “Probability of Failure,” Size Series of guided decision matrices
“Size of Part,” and “Target Rating” of Defective Part,” and “Probability
of Target”
• Levels Number from 3–12 Number from 3–10 (12) Low; Moderate; High;
Extreme

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 8