Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Used in the Management of Amenity Trees

Michael J. Ellison
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 2005, 31 (2) 57-65; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2005.007
Michael J. Ellison
Cheshire Woodlands, 16 Pickwick Road, Poynton, Cheshire, England, SK12
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Quantified tree risk assessment calculator illustrating Example 1.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Vehicular occupation. The probability of impact (P) is calculated D3600 ÷ S1000 = T; TV = H3600; H ÷ 24 = P.

    Road classS
    Average speed (kph)
    D
    Minimum stopping distance plus 6 m vehicle length (m)
    T
    Time that each vehicle occupies length of road ‘D’ (sec)
    V
    No. vehicles/dayz (1 direction only)y
    H
    No. hours for which a point on the road is occupied each day
    P
    Probability of impact with or by a tree/branch
    Motorway1131023.2530,45027.5x1/1
    Trunk road (built-up area)48292.1719,20011.51/2.1
    Trunk road (non-built-up area)64422.3615,50010.11/2.4
    Principal road (built-up area)48292.1715,0009.01/2.7
    Principal road (non-built-up area)64422.367,2004.71/5.1
    Minor road (all classes)64422.361,4000.91/27
    • ↵z Transport Statistics Great Britain (1997).

    • ↵y For the purpose of assessing the probability of impact, the total number of vehicles occupying all lanes of a motorway traveling in a single direction must be considered.

    • ↵x Due to the sheer volume of traffic using motorways and the need to consider stopping distances, the vehicular occupation period is theoretically greater than 24 h.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

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

    Pedestrian frequencyTotal occupation per day (seconds)Probability of occupation
    Constant86,4001/1
    50% occupied43,2001/2
    100 per hour12,0001/7.2
    50 per hour6,0001/14.4
    10 per hour1,2001/72
    5 per hour6001/144
    1 per hour1201/720
    1 per day51/17,280
    1 per week0.711/120,960
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Target ranges for structures, pedestrians, and vehicles. Vehicular, pedestrian, and structural targets are categorized 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 £101–2,000.

    Target rangeStructure (repair value)*Pedestrian frequencyVehicular frequencyProbability ratioz
    1(a) Very high value
    (b) Habitable
    > 36 per hour–constant(a) Motorway
    (b) Trunk road, built-up and non-built-up areas
    (c) Principal road, built-up area
    1/1
    2High value10–36 per hourPrincipal roads, non-built up-area1/20
    3Moderate–high value1–9 per hourMinor roads, moderate use or poor visibility1/100
    4Moderate value< 1 per hourMinor roads, low use and good visibility1/500
    5Low value≤ 1 per dayMinor private roads and tracks (no data available)1/10,000
    6Very low value≤ 1 per weekNone1/120,000
    • ↵* Structure values represent the likely cost of repair or replacement. Very high = £50,001–1,000,000; high = £10,001–50,000; moderate–high = £2,001–10,000; moderate = £101–2000; low = £11–100: very low = ≤£10.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Biomass dry weight estimates (Tritton and Hornbeck [1982]).

    Dbh* (mm)Dry weight (kg) y = axb**Fraction of dry weight (600 mm) as a ratio
    100.112631/23,505.722
    251.07131/2,471.6699
    505.88761/449.74
    10032.3571/81.834
    15087.671/30.203
    200177.821/14.891
    250307.771/8.604
    300481.811/5.496
    350703.81/3.762
    400977.261/2.71
    4501305.51/2.03
    5001691.41/1.566
    55021381/1.24
    60026471/1
    • * Diameter at breast height, 1.37 m (4.5 ft).

    • ↵** x = dbh (mm); y = dry weight estimate; a = allometric coefficient 0.1126294414; b = allometric coefficient 2.458309949.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Impact potential.

    Impact potential rangeSize of part (mm diameter) likely to impact targetImpact potential
    1*> 4501/1
    2251–4501/2
    3101–2501/8.6
    426–1001/82
    5>10–251/2,500
    • ↵* Range 1 is based on a diameter of 600 mm (24 in.).

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Probability of failure. The probability that the tree or selected tree part will fail within a year.

    Probability of failure rangeProbability of failure percentageProbability ratio
    1 Very high51–1001/1
    2 High11–501/2
    3 Moderate1–101/10
    4 Low0.1–0.91/100
    5 Very low< 0.11/1,000
  • Target valueImpact potentialProbability of failureRisk of of harm
    Probability ratio1/120,000× 1/1× 1/1= 1/120,000
  • Target valueImpact potentialProbability of failureRisk of of harm
    Probability ratio1/100× 1/82× 1/1= 1/8,200
  • Target valueImpact potentialProbability of failureRisk of harm
    Probability ratio1/100× 1/450× 1/1= 1/45,000
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 31 (2)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 31, Issue 2
March 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Used in the Management of Amenity Trees
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Used in the Management of Amenity Trees
Michael J. Ellison
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 2005, 31 (2) 57-65; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2005.007

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Used in the Management of Amenity Trees
Michael J. Ellison
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 2005, 31 (2) 57-65; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2005.007
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • DEFINITION OF TERMS
    • HAZARD ASSESSMENT
    • THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
    • CALCULATING RISK OF HARM
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Acknowledgments
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • risk assessment
  • tree hazards
  • safety
  • target
  • quantified risk
  • amenity
  • saproxylic habitat

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire