"The implications of recent English legal judgments, inquest verdicts, and ash dieback disease for the defensibility of tree risk management regimes"
We've had several requests for a better quality image that's part of a discussion about this article on the UKTC (attachments on this group have to be below 180kb). You can download the article here. Click the image to download it.
This is the text from the post.
I'm genuinely surprised the article has been peer-reviewed let alone published in a journal. It's not research. Some obvious key points of fact don't make sense, even within the questionable logic of its own risk ecosystem. I've sketched them out in the attached image and described them below. I'm surprised they weren't picked up in the peer review.Tree Risk Matrix
The article's got a tree risk matrix that doesn’t include the likelihood of occupancy. The matrix has high risk, low risk, and medium risk outputs.
Risk Spectrum It's got a risk spectrum that has high risk and low risk, but no medium risk.Risk Frameworks
There are two risk frameworks where low occupancy means low risk, no matter how high the likelihood of failure or how high the consequences.
In the risk matrix
High & High = High Risk
High & Low = Medium Risk
Yet, in the risk frameworks, when another 'High' is added to a 'High & Low = Medium Risk', the risk is then LOWER.
High & High & Low = Low Risk
And that's before we consider the really important stuff.