QUANTIFIED TREE RISK ASSESSMENT USED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF AMENITY TREES

by Michael J. Ellison

Abstract. A system of tree risk assessment is proposed that expands concepts developed by
others and enables a probability of significant harm to be applied to tree-failure risk.
By evaluating the components of a tree-failure hazard and assigning to them estimates of
probability, the proposed system enables the skilled tree inspector to calculate the product of
those probabilities to produce a numerical estimate of risk. The use of quantification in the
assessment of tree hazards enables property owners and managers to operate, in as far as is
reasonably practicable, to a predetermined limit of reasonable or acceptable risk.
Key words. Risk assessment; tree hazards; safety; target; quantified risk; amenity; saproxylic
habitat.

INTRODUCTION
Tree managers work in a climate of increasing environmental awareness, in which trees are both
greatly valued and potentially hazardous. There is therefore a need to reconcile different
management objectives, especially on sites where old and perhaps structurally unstable trees are
present. As trees age, they increasingly develop features that might compromise their mechanical
integrity whilst providing increasingly diverse wildlife habitats and visual interest. These include
cavities and decaying wood, which together with other niches in the tree, provide habitats for
many rare plants and saproxylic (deadwood) animals and fungi (Kirby and Drake 1993). In
Britain, a large proportion of such trees occur in rural areas, but there are also many on the
streets of our towns and in gardens, churchyards and city parks.
If old trees and their younger successors are to be managed responsibly with regard both to
safety and their value, methods must be developed for the reliable assessment of hazards and
valuable features alike. As far as hazards are concerned, the need is to be able to quantify them
and any associated risk so that the risk can be kept within acceptable or reasonable limits.
This paper introduces 'Quantified Tree Risk Assessment', which is an expansion of concepts
proposed by Paine (1971), Helliwell (1990, 1991) and Matheny and Clark (1994). Quantified Tree
Risk Assessment provides a framework for the assessment of the three components of tree-
failure risk – Target Value, Probability of Failure and Impact Potential. By first assessing the value
or usage of targets upon which trees might fail, tree owners and site managers can establish
whether or not and at what degree of rigour tree inspections are required. By assessing the
probabilities of the three components and calculating their product, it is possible for the skilled
tree assessor to quantify the risk of significant harm from tree failure in a way that enables
owners and managers to balance safety with tree values.

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Hazard. "A hazard is the disposition of a thing, a condition or a situation to produce injury"
(Health and Safety Executive 1995). A tree-failure hazard is present when a tree has potential to
cause harm to people or property.
Probability. Statistical probability is a measure of the likelihood of some event happening.
There are rules of addition and multiplication in probability theory. In tree-failure risk assessment
the probability that the three components will combine in a common outcome is the product of
their independent probabilities.
Risk is the probability of something adverse happening. "Quantified risk assessment is a risk
assessment which incorporates numerical estimates." (Health and Safety Executive 1995).
"There are many forms of risk and therefore of risk assessment. The underlying concept is that of
seeking to identify in some quantitative or at least comparative way the connection between
some hazardous agency, and actual exposure to harm" (op. cit.).
Acceptable Risk. We are constantly exposed to and accept or reject risks of varying degrees.
For example, if we desire the convenience of electric lighting, we must accept that, having
implemented control measures such as insulation, there is a low risk of electrocution; this is an
everyday risk taken and accepted by millions of people.
When evaluating tree-failure hazards, two types of risk must be considered. We must consider
the person upon whom a risk is imposed as with the neighbour of a tree owner, and the person
who accepts some degree of risk in return for a benefit, such as a tree owner or visitor to a
woodland or forest.
 Having considered The British Medical Association Guide "Living with Risk" (Henderson 1987)
and with particular reference to the conclusion "few people would commit their own resources to
reduce an annual risk of death that was already as low as 1/10,000", Helliwell (1990) suggests
that 1/10,000 might be a suitable figure to start with as the limit of acceptable risk. Furthermore,
"For members of the public who have a risk imposed on them 'in the wider interest' HSE (Health
and Safety Executive) would set this limit at 1/10,000 per annum" (Health and Safety Executive
1996). In the management of trees, a property owner or manager might adopt the 1/10,000 limit
of acceptable risk or choose to operate to a higher or lower level.
Cost and Benefit. Trees confer many benefits, being essential to our well being and generally
enhancing our built and natural environments. Removal of all tree hazards would lead to certain
impoverishment in the quality of human life. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a balance
between the benefits of risk reduction and the cost of that risk reduction, not only financially but
also in terms of lost amenity and other tree related benefits.
Value of Statistical Life is a term used in risk assessment to express the monetary value of
an individual life. In the UK, this value is currently in the region of £750,000 - £1,000,000
($1,387,500 - $1,850,600), (Health and Safety Executive 1995) and is proposed here to correlate
the value of damage to property with the value of human life.

HAZARD ASSESSMENT
For a tree-failure hazard to exist, two criteria must be fulfilled. There must be potential for failure
of the tree, and potential for injury or damage to result. The issue that the tree manager must
address is the likelihood, or risk, of a combination of factors resulting in harm, and the likely
severity of harm.
Most tree defects can be identified and assessed by the skilled inspector, but there is no
evaluation methodology currently in general use that enables the inspector to quantify risk in a
way that the risks associated with the retention of trees can be compared with a broadly
acceptable level of risk.
A landowner or manager with responsibility for a diverse tree population, on a site comprising
locations as disparate as a boundary with a busy highway, a children’s play area and a remote
woodland walk, must rely on the subjective judgement of the tree inspector, employed at any
point in time, when formulating management strategies and allocating budgets. Such subjectivity
could result in the implementation of remedial work, perceived by the current tree inspector to be
necessary for the abatement of a hazard and possibly resulting in unnecessary cost and
degradation of both the amenity and conservation value of a site, without having first established
the risk of significant harm arising from the hazard.
Probably the most significant recent development in the field of tree hazard evaluation is the
methodology proposed by Matheny and Clark (1994). Designed primarily to assist the evaluation
of tree-failure hazards in urban areas, the system is relatively easy to apply and enables tree
inspectors and managers to prioritise remedial action in a structured manner. The guide
proposes a system of rating tree-failure hazards by assessing and applying a numerical value of
1-4 to each of the three components that contribute to a tree-failure hazard, 1) failure potential, 2)
size of part, 3) target rating. The sum of the three equally weighted scores is termed the ‘Hazard
Rating’. A Hazard Rating of 12 represents the most severe hazard. The system enables the
broad prioritisation of tree-failure hazards but does not quantify the associated risks.

THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

Quantified Tree Risk Assessment is not a wholesale departure from current practice, but
quantifies risk within a structured framework and utilises, but renames, the three components of
the tree hazard proposed by Matheny and Clark (1994) - 1) Probability of Failure; 2) Impact
Potential, 3) Target Value. The system enables quantification of the independent probabilities of
the three components, enabling their product (Risk of Harm) to be compared with a generally
accepted level of risk. The Quantified Tree Risk Assessment process might, in areas of very high
access, involve the detailed inspection and assessment of every tree, or might, in low access
areas, require only a general overview of trees and targets. To simplify the assessment process,
probabilities are presented in ranges at tables 3, 5 and 6 (e.g. 1/1 to >1/20 and 1/20 to >1/100).
A probability of death or serious injury of 1/10,000 is suggested as the limit of acceptable risk
to the public at large (Helliwell 1990, Health and Safety Executive 1996). Using the 1/10,000 limit,
all risks with a probability exceeding 1/10,000 require remedial action to reduce the risk to an
acceptable level, unless the risk is limited to a selective individual or group - such as a tree owner
- who may choose to accept a greater or lesser risk. Additionally, the hazard could confer benefits
that might be set against the risk of harm.
Target Evaluation. A target is anything of value, which could be harmed in the event of tree
failure. Frequent inspection of trees and assessment of associated risks may be essential in
areas of high public access or where trees are within striking range of valuable or fragile
structures. Conversely, in a location without structures and having very low public access,
assessment of tree hazards may be unnecessary. The Target Value is the most significant and
most easily quantified element of the assessment. In Quantified Tree Risk Assessment,
evaluating the nature of the targets within a survey area before the assessment of trees enables
the tree manager to prioritise inspections and establish whether or not and at what degree of
rigour an inspection is required.
Often the nature of the defect is such that the probability of failure is greater during high winds,
whilst the probability of the site being occupied during such weather conditions is considerably
reduced, e.g. woodland, park or private garden. People may venture beneath trees during high
winds either in the pursuit of recreation, thus voluntarily contributing to their increased exposure
harm from tree failure, or out of necessity such as en route from home to a workplace. Even in
the latter example, weather conditions may be so extreme that the risk of harm from the failure of
not only trees but the collapse of buildings and other storm related hazards is such that to venture
out at all would be foolhardy.
Helliwell (1991) proposed that the probability of a tree falling on to a road actually hitting or
being hit by a vehicle can be established by determining the ratio of the average length of time
the section of road is occupied by vehicles to the total length of time in a day, and calculating the
probability of a vehicle being in, or within the stopping distance of, the target area. Such a
methodology is employed here to assess the probability of target sites being occupied by vehicles
or pedestrians.
The proposed system considers three types of target. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the calculation
of vehicle and pedestrian frequencies. Vehicle and pedestrian targets and the repair value of
damage to structures are combined at Table 3.
Vehicles. The occupation of vehicular targets (Table 1) is evaluated using 1996 vehicle
frequency statistics for standard road classifications (Transport Statistics Great Britain 1997).
Large trees standing adjacent to most classes of road have potential to impact vehicles on both
carriageways. Motorways and some dual carriageways (freeways and interstate highways) are
an exception; trees in Great Britain do not have the potential to fall across both carriageways of a
motorway. Vehicle numbers for motorways are therefore halved (Table 1) as only half of the road
is being considered as the target. In the case of vehicles, probability of impact may relate either
to the tree part striking the vehicle or to the vehicle striking the fallen tree part. Both types of
impact are influenced by vehicle speed. The faster a vehicle travels the less likely it is to be
struck by the falling tree, but the more likely it is to strike a fallen tree. Minimum safe stopping
distances (The Highway Code 1989) and an average vehicle length are used in the calculation of
vehicle occupation (Table 1 column 4). The probability of a vehicle striking a fallen or falling tree
is the ratio of the hours a point in the road is occupied by a vehicle -including safe stopping
distance- to the hours in a day.
 S D T V H P
Road Class Average Minimum stopping Time that each No. of vehicles per No. of hours for Probability
speed distance + 6m vehicle vehicle occupies day † which a point on of impact
(kph) length (metres) length of road ‘D’ * 1 carriageway only the road is with or by
(seconds) occupied each day a tree/branch

Motorway 113 102 3.25 30,450* 27.5** 1/1

(70mph)

Trunk Rd 48 29 2.17 19,200 11.5 1/2.1

Built up (30mph)
area

Trunk Rd 64 42 2.36 15,500 10.1 1/2.4

non built (40mph)
up area

Principal Rd 48 29 2.17 15,000 9.0 1/2.7

built up area (30mph)

Principal Rd 64 42 2.36 7,200 4.7 1/5.1

non built up (40mph)
area

Minor Rd 64 42 2.36 1,400 0.9 1/27

all classes (40mph)

Table 1. Vehicular Occupation. The probability of impact (P) is calculated D3600÷S1000=T, TV=H3600, H÷24=P
*For the purpose of assessing the probability of impact, the total number of vehicles occupying all lanes of a motorway
carriageway (single direction) must be considered.
** Due to the sheer volume of traffic using Motorways and the need to consider stopping distances, the vehicular
occupation is theoretically greater than twenty-four hours.
† (Transport Statistics Great Britain 1997)

Pedestrians. The probability of pedestrians occupying a target (Table 2) is calculated on the

basis that an individual will spend, on average, five seconds occupying the target area, unless a
longer occupation is likely as with a habitable structure or park bench. For example, ten
pedestrians per day each occupying the target area for five seconds is a daily occupation of fifty
seconds, by which the total seconds in a day are divided to give a probability of target
occupation. When evaluating pedestrian and vehicular frequency (events) during daylight hours,
we must consider whether frequency will be significantly reduced during hours of darkness. The
calculation of frequency must in all cases be the total hours in a year divided by the number of
events in a year. Although a tree failing during the day might be more likely to strike a mobile
target than the same tree at night, it is the frequency of the targets that is most significantly
influenced by the time of day and not the failure of the tree. The sum of the higher daytime
occupation and the lower night-time occupation is the daily occupation. Similarly, a single annual
event attracting large numbers of visitors could significantly increase the Target Value and should
be included in the assessment.
Pedestrian frequency Total occupation per day Probability of occupation
(seconds)

Constant 86,400 1/1

50% occupied 43,200 1/2

100 per hour 12,000 1/7.2

50 per hour 6,000 1/14.4

10 per hour 1200 1/72

5 per hour 600 1/144

1 per hour 120 1/720

1 per day 5 1/17,280

1 per week 0.71 1/120,960

Table 2. Pedestrian Frequency. Occupation of the target area calculated from an average occupation of
5 seconds, other than constant and 50% occupied.

Structures. When evaluating a target structure, it is necessary to consider the approximate

value of repairs or replacement that might be required if the tree should fail. The values in Table 3
represent cost of repair or replacement.
The monetary values of structures used in Table 3 are derived from a value of "hypothetical
life" of £1,000,000 ($1,850,000). For example, Target Range 2 represents a probability of
pedestrian occupation up to 1/20; £1,000,000 ÷ 20 = £50,000. Thus, structures likely to incur a
repair cost of £50,000, which is one-twentieth the value of a hypothetical life, are apportioned a
ratio of 1/20.
Individual trees should be selected on the basis that they are within striking distance of a
significant target or that their failure could result in neighbouring trees striking a target. Example 1
illustrates that an individual tree cannot represent an unacceptable risk of significant harm if
within striking distance of only a target within Range 6 (assuming that the tree manager is
operating to an acceptable level of risk of 1/10,000).

Target Structure Pedestrian Frequency Vehicular Frequency Probability Ratio*

Range (repair values)*

1 a) Very high value >£50,00 - £1,000,000 >36 per hour - constant a) Motorway 1/1
(>$92,500 - $1,850,000) † b) Trunk road built up & non
b) Habitable built up areas
c) Principal road built up area

2 High value >£10,000 - £50,000 10 per hour - 36 per hour Principal roads non built up area 1/20

3 Moderate - high value >£2,000 - £10,000 1 per hour - <10 per hour Minor roads moderate use or 1/100
poor visibility

4 Moderate value >£100 - £2,000 < 1 per hour Minor roads low use and good 1/500
visibility

5 Low value >£10 - £100 ≤ 1 per day Minor private roads and tracks 1/10,000
(no data available)

6 Very low value ≤ £10 ≤ 1 per week None 1/120,000

Table 3. Target Ranges for Structures, Pedestrians and Vehicles.

Vehicular, pedestrian and structural targets are categorised by their frequency or monetary value. For example, the
probability of a vehicle or pedestrian occupying a target area in Target Range 4 is between the lower and upper limits of
>1/10,000 and 1/500. Using the value of a "hypothetical life" of £1,000,000 the structure value within the Target Range 4 is
>£100-£2,000.
* Structure values represent the likely cost of repair or replacement.
† Dollar exchange rate at time of going to press.
 Having established that a tree requires assessment, the inspector should assess it according
to current practice. Tree inspection procedure is well documented elsewhere (Lonsdale 1999;
Matheny & Clark 1994; Mattheck and Breloer 1994) and is not discussed here.
Impact Potential. A small dead branch of less than 10millimetres (2/5") diameter is unlikely to
cause significant harm even in the case of direct contact with a target, whilst on average a falling
branch with a diameter greater than 150mm (6") is likely to cause harm in the event of contact
with all but the most robust target. The increased potential for injury in relation to the size of tree
or branch is proportional to a degree, yet the tree or branch will reach a size where the increased
severity of injury is no longer significant. Similarly, most property likely to be affected by tree
failure can incur only a limited level of damage before further damage is likely to be
inconsequential, i.e. when it is beyond economic repair.
The mass of a falling tree or branch contributes to the force that will occur upon impact with a
target but does not alone determine the potential severity of harm. The distance and orientation
when falling will influence the force upon impact. Other trees or branches might impede the path
of a falling tree or branch and it might be predicted that the failure of a branch will result in it being
hung-up without presenting an immediate danger or that it might fall unimpeded. Additionally, a
tree or branch may be decayed to such an extent that it will disintegrate or exert only a minor
force upon impact. For these reasons, it is probably unrealistic to calculate the effect of the height
from which a branch could fall, but it is necessary to be aware of factors other than mass that will
contribute to the force upon impact, although these factors might only be recorded where they are
particularly significant in a given situation.
The system categorises Impact Potential by the diameter of tree stems and branches. An
allometric biomass equation derived from dry weight measurements of trees of different stem
diameters (Tritton & Hornbeck 1982) is used to produce a data set (Table 4) of comparative dry
weight estimates of trees and branches ranging from 10 to 600 mm diameter. An upper limit of
600mm has been selected to represent a 1/1 Impact Potential on the premise that impact from a
tree with a stem diameter of 600mm has a 1/1 probability of causing maximum possible damage
to most frequently encountered targets. From this point, the Impact Potential reduces to 1/23,500
for a 10mm branch or tree. For initial assessments the probabilities are grouped into ranges 1-5,
table 5. Impact Potential range 1 represents a range of diameter greater than 450mm and is
calculated from the estimated dry weight of the 600mm diameter tree. Range 1 has a 1/1
probability of causing significant harm upon impact with a target. Range 5 represents 10-25mm
dia. and has probability 1/2,500 of causing significant harm upon impact with a target. If in
exceptional circumstances, the failure of a branch of less than 10mm diameter is considered
significant it has a probability of 1/23,500.

Dbh (mm) Dry weight (kg) Fraction of dry weight 600mm

y=axb as a ratio

10 0.11263 1/23,505.722
25 1.0713 1/2,471.6699
50 5.8876 1/449.74
100 32.357 1/81.834
150 87.67 1/30.203
200 177.82 1/14.891
250 307.77 1/8.604
300 481.81 1/5.496
350 703.8 1/3.762
400 977.26 1/2.71
450 1305.5 1/2.03
500 1691.4 1/1.566
550 2138 1/1.24
600 2647 1/1

Table 4. Biomass dry weight estimates. Source. Tritton & Hornbeck (1982)
x=dbh (mm); y=dry weight estimate; a=allometric coefficient 0.1126294414; b= allometric coefficient 2.458309949
Dbh (US - diameter measured at breast height – 1.37 metres)
Impact Potential range Size of part likely to impact target Impact Potential

1* > 450mm (18") dia. 1/1

2 > 250mm (10") dia.- 450mm (18") dia. 1/2
3 >100mm (4") dia.- 250mm (10") dia. 1/8.6
4 > 25mm (1") dia.- 100mm (4") dia. 1/82
5 10mm (2/5") dia.- 25mm (1") dia. 1/2500

Table 5. Impact Potential. * Range 1 is based on a diameter of 600mm (24").

Probability of Failure. Accurately assessing the probability that a tree or branch will fail is
highly dependant upon the skill and experience of the assessor. This component of the system
provides five ranges, each range representing a range of Probability of Failure within a year,
expressed as both a percentage and a ratio calculated from the upper value of that range. Having
assessed the tree, the assessor should visualise 100 similar trees in a similar state in the same
environment and estimate how many would be likely to fail during the coming year. If the answer
to this question is none, then consider 1,000 or 10,000 trees. A Probability of Failure range 1-5
(table 6) is then selected. Employing this method of assessing probability, inspectors become
increasingly aware both of features and conditions that lead to tree failure and of the probability of
tree failure. Observing the patterns and frequency of tree failure within this structured framework
and applying scientific knowledge to these observations, can significantly increase the
consistency with which tree inspectors assess the probability of tree failure.

Calculating Risk of Harm

When working in the field, manual calculation of probabilities is impractical. To facilitate field
assessment, a calculator has been developed (Fig. 1) comprising three vanes, which are rotated
to select values from predetermined ranges of probability and calculate the product of the three
component probabilities. The probability ranges are labelled 1-6 (Tables 3, 5 and 6 and Figure 1).
Alternatively, the probabilities in a spreadsheet format can be loaded onto handheld data
collection devices for use with tree inventory software.
Having assessed the hazard and the target, the three component probabilities are selected
from the ranges 1-6 on the calculator and the three vanes are aligned to display the result in a
window. The calculator displays the result as an index (one thousandth of the reciprocal) of
overall probability, which is termed the ‘Risk Index’ For example, if the risk of harm is 1/10,000,
the Risk Index is 10 (10,000 ÷ 1000 = 10).

EXAMPLES
Example 1. A 25.0 metre high, mature pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), stem diameter
900mm (36"), in a low use area of woodland with no frequently used paths within
30.0 metres but with members of the public occasionally entering the target area.
There is extensive heartwood decay within the main stem and primary branches.
A large opening extends to 30% of the stem girth from ground level to a height of
1.5 metres. The sound stem wall thickness averages 100mm (4") and exhibits
signs of longitudinal cracking. The crown of the tree contains extensive large
diameter dead wood. The most significant part likely to strike the target area is
the stem or part of the crown with the weight of the whole tree behind it.

Target Impact Probability Risk of Harm

Value Potential of Failure

Probability ratio 1/120,000 x 1/1 x 1/1 = 1/120,000

The absence of structures and the very low level of public access indicate that
detailed assessment of the tree is not essential. If it could be established that
pedestrians are 10 times less likely to visit the woodland in very windy weather,
when failure is most likely, the overall probability of harm could be reduced to
1/1,200,000 or less.

If the initial assessment places the risk above or close to the acceptable limit, the risk
assessment can be refined using probability 1/1 for any of the components and multiplying the
result by the more accurate probability. For example, if the highway in example 2 (below) had
been accurately surveyed using an electronic traffic counter and it had been established that the
usage was on average seven vehicles per day, it could be stated with confidence that the
probability of target occupation was 1/5,000. The risk would then be calculated thus; Impact
Potential 4 x Probability of Failure 1 x Target Value 1 = Risk of Harm 1/82. ∴ Risk of Harm x
measured Target Value 1/5,000 = revised Risk of Harm 1/410,000.

Example 2a. (before remedial action).

A mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) overhanging a minor road with good visibility.
The crown of the tree contains long unstable dead branches up to 100mm (4")
diameter. The most significant part likely to strike the target area is dead wood up
to 100mm diameter.

Target Impact Probability Risk of Harm

Value Potential of Failure

Probability ratio 1/100 x 1/82 x 1/1 = 1/8,200

To reduce the risk to a broadly acceptable level an overall probability of 1/10,000

must be achieved. Removal of all dead wood is unnecessary. Removal of dead
branches greater than 50mm (2") diameter overhanging the target should reduce
the risk to an acceptable level.

Example 2b (after remedial action).

Target Impact Probability Risk of Harm
Value Potential of Failure

Probability ratio 1/100 x 1/450 x 1/1 = 1/45,000

The predefined ranges used on the calculator are designed to simplify field operation of the
system. If a high value tree is identified as requiring remedial action that will significantly reduce
its value, a more detailed evaluation of the Target Value and Probability of Failure, establishing
probabilities rather than a probability ranges, will provide a more accurate quantification of risk.
Figure 1.
Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Calculator

Illustrating Example 1
DISCUSSION
Property owners and managers have a duty (under English law) to ensure, insofar as reasonably
practicable, that people and property are not exposed to unreasonable levels of risk from the
mechanical failure of trees in their control. To achieve this, prudent owners and managers employ
arborists to advise on the health, mechanical integrity and management of trees.
While our knowledge of tree structure, tree defects and host/pathogen interactions is ever
increasing, the dynamic interactions between a diverse range of tree taxa, wood digesting
organisms and environment are of such complexity that precise quantification of potential for tree
failure is unlikely to be achievable. However, with training and the application of a systematic
approach, reasonable estimates of probability of tree failure can be achieved.
Evaluation of the targets upon which trees might fail can require input from both property
managers and arborists. Reasonable estimates of Target Value can be achieved by assessing
monetary value and the frequency of target occupation.
Stem or branch dry weight is probably the most realistic measure of Impact Potential to apply
in the quantification of tree-failure risk and the relationship between diameter and the mass of the
stem or branch provides a readily measurable estimate of this.
Weather conditions greatly influence tree failure. A walk through woodland and other
recreational areas after a moderate storm will often reveal paths and tracks littered with dead and
recently living branches. The same weather conditions might result in reduced pedestrian access
to recreational areas, substantially reducing the risk of harm from tree-failure. Conversely, the risk
of branch failure in trees susceptible to summer branch drop (Lonsdale 1999) increases during
periods of hot dry weather when pedestrians might seek shade beneath trees. The influence of
weather on tree failure and patterns of pedestrian, equestrian and cyclist access requires further
consideration and research.
The concept of reasonable practicability is a central tenet of English law, which is evident
throughout the English Health and Safety legislation and guidance (e.g. Health and Safety at
Work Act 1974), and in judgements of the higher courts in relation to tree failure. In respect of
trees, this concept should be embraced through the implementation of reasonably practicable
tree safety management. If absolute safety from tree failure were achievable, society would
almost certainly find the cost in terms of tree losses unacceptable. In this regard, Paine (1971)
suggests that "It is high time we admit that we cannot achieve complete safety – and still provide
a desirable product – any more than industry can”.
The use of quantification in the assessment of tree hazards enables property owners and
managers to operate, in as far as is reasonably practicable, to a predetermined level of
acceptable risk. Application in both urban and rural situations over a period of eight years
indicates that when using the proposed system, risk reduction measures required in high value
target areas are broadly comparable with or below the level of remedial action that might be
considered appropriate without the system. In low value target areas, the risks associated with
tree-failure hazards are frequently considerably lower than assumed or perceived prior to
applying the system.
Using the proposed system, the assessment of the same tree by different inspectors not
trained to a unifying standard has produced variable results, comparison of which indicates that a
common standard of training in tree inspection is required. Matheny and Clark (1994) asserted
that "Training of personnel in field assessment is absolutely essential" and "Perhaps the most
important aspect of training is to develop consistent evaluation procedures, amongst individuals
and over time". Experience of the proposed system reinforces the view that the training of
personnel involved in the inspection and assessment of trees is in need of standardisation. Also
lacking standardisation is the vocabulary used by tree inspectors. In the UK, the terms, stem,
trunk, bole and butt are all used to describe the same part of the tree; this example is by no
means isolated. Inconsistent use of terminology can lead to misinterpretation of data by
subsequent inspectors, property owners and managers, and by contractors employed to
implement remedial measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Tree safety management should not seek to minimise the risk of harm resulting from tree
failure, but should balance the benefits of risk reduction with the associated costs in terms of both
lost tree value and financial expenditure.
By allocating quantifiable values to the Probability of Failure and Impact Potential of trees, and
to targets upon which trees might fail, the arborist can, with training, assess tree-failure hazards
with sufficient accuracy that property owners and managers are able to balance the risk of
significant harm from tree failure against a level of reasonable or acceptable risk. Using the
proposed system, it is possible, not only to identify unacceptable risks, but also to identify the
elements of the risk, which when adjusted will effectively reduce the overall risk of harm in the
most cost efficient or appropriate manner.
The proposed system not only significantly reduces the influence of assessor subjectivity upon
the outcome of the risk assessment, but also applies structure to the assessment procedure,
requiring detailed assessment of the tree only where there is a significant likelihood of
unacceptable risk. By first evaluating and mapping both the general nature of the tree population
within an administrative area and the range of targets upon which they could fail, the manager of
a large tree population can identify the interface between trees and targets, thus enabling
prioritisation of risk assessments. A post-mature tree population adjacent to a busy urban
thoroughfare might require biannual assessment, whereas the same tree population in a remote
wilderness might never be assessed in detail. Between these extremes is a range of inspection
frequency, which should be applied as appropriate to the situation.
Use of the system without training leads to misapplication of the data. To ensure, insofar as
practicable, that value of the system is maintained through consistent application, the author
intends to provide training and ongoing development through a licensing programme in the
United Kingdom.
LITERATURE CITED
Henderson, M. 1987. Living with Risk. The British Medical Association Guide. John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester.
Health and Safety at Work Act. 1974. Elizabeth II. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London.
Health and Safety Executive. 1995. Generic Terms and Concepts in the Assessment and
Regulation of Industrial Risks. Discussion Document. HSE. Books, Sudbury, Suffolk. 43pp.
Health and Safety Executive. 1996. Use of Risk Assessment Within Government Departments.
Report prepared by the Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment. HSE. Books,
Sudbury, Suffolk. 48 pp.
Helliwell, D. R. 1990. Acceptable Level of Risk Associated with Trees. Arboric. Jour. Vol. 14 No.
2:159-162.
Helliwell, D. R. 1991. Letters to the Editor, Arboric. Jour. Vol. 15 No. 2:179.
Highway Code. 1989 (Revised edition. Fifth impression.)
Kirby, K. J. and C. M. Drake. 1993. Dead wood matters: the ecology and conservation of
saproxylic invertebrates in Britain. Proceedings of a British Ecological Society Meeting held at
Dunham Massey Park on 24 April 1992. 105 pp.
Lonsdale, D. 1999. Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment. Her Majesty's Stationary Office,
London. 388 pp.
Mattheck, C. and Breloer, H. 1994. The Body Language of Trees. Her Majesty's Stationary Office,
London. 241pp.
Matheny, N. P. and J. R. Clark. 1994 (2nd ed.) A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard
Trees in Urban Areas. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Illinois.85 pp.
Paine, L. A. 1971. Accident Hazard: Evaluation and control decisions on forested recreation sites.
Research paper 68/1971 of the USDA Forest Service. 10 pp.
Transport Statistics Great Britain. 1997. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London.
Tritton, L. M. and Hornbeck, J. W. 1982. Biomass Equations for Major Tree Species. General
Technical Report NE69. United States Department of Agriculture.

Acknowledgements I thank R. Ball, D. R. Helliwell, Dr. D. Lonsdale, S Miall, L. D. Round and

G. Thomas for their critical comments when reviewing the drafts necessary to bring the project to
this stage. I thank S. Coombes, C. Davis, N. Fay, R. Finch, H. Girling and J. Ryan for their critical
comments and valued contributions to a workshop held in 1988 at Alice Holt Lodge, Surrey to
evaluate and trial the system.

Michael J. Ellison
Cheshire Woodlands.
16 Pickwick Road
Poynton, Cheshire
England, SK12 1LD