Risk Assessment and Risk Perception of Trees: A Review of Literature Relating to Arboriculture and Urban Forestry

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Anonymous

   . 2006. Population Estimates. UK Statistics Directive, Office for National Statistics, Fareham.
2. ↵
   1. Arciniegas, A.,
   2. F. Prieto,
   3. L. Brancheriau, and
   4. P. Lasaygues

   . 2014. Literature review of acoustic and ultrasound tomography in standing trees. Trees 28:1559–1567.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Ball, D.J.

   2007. The evolution of risk assessment and risk management: a background to the development of risk philosophy. Arboricultural Journal 30: 105–112.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Ball, D.J., and
   2. J. Watt

   . 2013a. Further thoughts on the utility of risk matrices. Risk Analysis 33(11):2068–78

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
5. ↵
   1. Ball, D.J., and
   2. J. Watt

   . 2013b. The risk to the public of tree fall. Journal of Risk Research, 16(2):261–269.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Bartens, J.,
   2. P.E. Wiseman, and
   3. E.T. Smiley

   . 2010. Stability of landscape trees in engineered and conventional urban soil mixes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9:333–338.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Bond, J.

   , 2010. Tree condition: Health. Arborist News 19(1):34–38.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Botterill, L., and
   2. N. Mazur

   . 2004. Risk and perception: a literature review. Australian Government: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation 1–22.
9. ↵
   1. Brakken, S.R.

   1995. Group-tree hazard analysis. Journal of Arboriculture 21(3):150–155.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Clark, J.R.,
    2. N.P. Matheney,
    3. G. Cross, and
    4. V. Wake

    . 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1):17–30.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Costello, L.R., and
    2. S.L. Quarles

    . 1999. Detection of wood decay in blue gum and elm: An evaluation of the RESISTOGRAPH® and the portable drill. Journal of Arboriculture 25(6):311–318.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Cox, L.A.T.,
    2. D. Babayev, and
    3. W. Huber

    . 2005. Some limitations of qualitative risk rating systems. Risk Analysis 25(3):651–662.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
13. 1. Cox, L.A.T.

    2008. What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis 28(2):497–512.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. ↵
    1. Dahle, G.,
    2. J. Grabosky,
    3. B. Kane,
    4. J. Miesbauer,
    5. W. Peterson,
    6. F.W. Telewski,
    7. A.K. Koeser, and
    8. G.W. Watson

    . 2014. Tree biomechanics: A white paper from the 2012 international meeting and research summit at The Morton Arboretum (Lisle, Illinois, U.S.). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(6):309–318.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Dahle, G.A,
    2. K.R. James,
    3. B. Kane,
    4. J. Grabosky, and
    5. A. Detter

    . 2017. A review of factors that affect the static load-bearing capacity of urban trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 43(3):89–104.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Davison, A., and
    2. J.B. Kirkpatrick

    . 2014. Risk and the arborist in the remaking of the Australian urban forest. Geographical Research 52(2):115–122.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Dolwin, J.A.,
    2. D. Lonsdale, and
    3. J. Barnett

    . 1999. Detection of decay in trees. Arboricultural Journal 23(2):139–149.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Duryea, M.L.,
    2. G.M. Blakeslee,
    3. W.G. Hubbard, and
    4. R.A. Vasquez

    ., 1996. Wind and trees: A survey of homeowners after Hurricane Andrew. Journal of Arboriculture 22(1):44–50.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Duryea, M.L., and
    2. E. Kampf

    . 2007. Wind and Trees: Lessons Learned from Hurricanes. University of Florida, IFAS Extension.
20. ↵
    1. Dunster, J.A.,
    2. E.T. Smiley,
    3. N. Matheny, and
    4. S. Lilly

    . 2013. Tree risk assessment manual. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 194 pp.
21. ↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. E.G. McPherson,
    3. H.W. Schroeder, and
    4. R.A. Rowntree

    . 1992. Accessing the benefits and the costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227–234.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Ellison, M.J.

    2005a. Quantified tree risk assessment used in the management of amenity trees. Journal of Arboriculture 31(2):57–65.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Ellison, M.J.

    2005b. Quantified Tree Risk Assessment User Manual. Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Ltd.
24. ↵
    1. Ellison, M.J.

    2007. Moving the focus from tree defects to rational risk management—A paradigm shift for tree managers. Arboricultural Journal 30:137–142.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Fay, N.

    2007. Towards reasonable tree risk decision-making. Arboriculture Journal 30:143–161.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Fink, S.

    2009. Hazard tree identification by visual tree assessment (VTA): Scientifically solid and practically approved. Arboricultural Journal 32:139–155.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
27. ↵
    1. Gilbert, E.A., and
    2. E.T. Smiley

    . 2004. Picus sonic tomography for the quantification of decay in white oak (Quercus alba) and hickory (Carya spp.). Journal of Arboriculture 30(5):277–281.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.

    2003. Branch-to-stem diameter ratio affects strength of attachment. Journal of Arboriculture 29(5):291–294.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. F.J. Masters

    . 2010. Effect of tree size, root pruning, and production method on root growth and lateral stability of Quercus virginiana. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36(6):281–291.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. J. Grabosky

    . 2011. Quercus virginiana root attributes and lateral stability after planting at different depths. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10:3–9.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. C. Wiese

    . 2012. Root pruning at planting and planting depth in the nursery impact root system morphology and anchorage. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38(5):229–236.

    OpenUrl
32. 1. Gilman, E.F.,
    2. J. Miesbauer,
    3. C. Harchick, and
    4. R.C. Beeson

    . 2013. Impact of tree size and container volume at planting, mulch, and irrigation on Acer rubrum L. growth and anchorage. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(4):173–181.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Gruber, F.

    2008. Reply to the response of Claus Mattheck and Klaus Bethge to my criticisms on untenable vta-failure criteria, who is right and who is wrong? Arboriculture Journal 31(4):277–296.

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    1. Guglielmo, F.,
    2. S.E. Bergemann,
    3. P. Gonthier,
    4. G. Nicolotti, and
    5. M. Garbelotto

    . 2007. A multiplex PCR–based method for the detection and early identification of wood rotting fungi in standing trees. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103(5):1490–1507.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. ↵
    1. Hauer, R.J.,
    2. A.J. Hauer,
    3. D.R. Hartel, and
    4. J.R. Johnson

    . 2011. Rapid assessment of tree debris following urban forest ice storms. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(4):237–247

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Hauer R.J.,
    2. J.M. Vogt, and
    3. B.C. Fischer

    . 2015. What is the cost of not maintaining the urban forest? Arborist News 24(1):12–19.

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Hauer, R J.,
    2. W. Wang, and
    3. J. O. Dawson

    ., 1993. Ice storm damage to urban trees. Journal of Arboriculture 19(4):184–194.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Hayes, E.

    2002. Tree risk assessment & tree mechanics. Arborist News 33–37.
39. ↵
    1. Helliwell, D.R.

    1990. Acceptable level of risk associated with trees. Arboriculture Journal 14(2):159–162.

    OpenUrl
40. ↵
    1. Hickman, G.W.,
    2. E. Perry, and
    3. R. Evans

    . 1995. Validation of a tree failure evaluation system. Journal of Arboriculture 21(5):233–234.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Health and Safety Executive

    . 2007. Management for risk from falling tree Sector Information Minute, SIM 01/2007/05, HSE Field Operations Directorate, Sudbury. Accessed on 12 May 2015. <www.hse.gov.uk/education/statistics.htm>
42. ↵
    1. Hull IV, R.B.

    1992. How the public values urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 18(2):98–101.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. James, K.R.,
    2. D.A. Dahle,
    3. J. Grabosky,
    4. B. Kane, and
    5. A. Detter

    . 2014. Tree biomechanics literature review: Dynamics. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(1):1–15.

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. James, K.R.,
    2. N. Haritos, and
    3. P.K. Ades

    . 2006. Mechanical stability of trees under dynamic loads. American Journal of Botany 93(10):1361–1369.

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Jim, C.Y., and
    2. H. Zhang

    . 2013. Defect-disorder and risk assessment of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12:585–596.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Johnson, D., and
    2. R. James

    . 1978. Tree hazards: Recognition and reduction in recreation sites. Tech. Rep. R2-1. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 18 pp.
47. ↵
    1. Johnson, D.

    1981. Tree hazards: Recognition and reduction in recreation sites. Tech. Rep. R2-1. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 17 pp.
48. ↵
    1. Johnson, G.R.

    1999. Storms over Minnesota. Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate 2(1):1–12.

    OpenUrl
49. ↵
    1. Johnstone, D.,
    2. P.K. Ades,
    3. G.M. Moore, and
    4. I.W. Smith

    . 2007. Predicting wood decay in eucalypts using an expert system and the IML RESISTOGRAPH® drill. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(2):76–82.

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Johnstone, D.,
    2. G. Moore,
    3. T. Tausz, and
    4. M. Nicolas

    . 2010a. The measurement of wood decay in landscape trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36:121–127.

    OpenUrl
51. ↵
    1. Johnstone, D.,
    2. M. Tausz,
    3. G. Moore, and
    4. M. Nicolas

    . 2010b. Quantifying wood decay in Sydney bluegum (Eucalyptus saligna) trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36(6):243–253.

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Jorgensen, A.,
    2. J. Hitchmough, and
    3. T. Calvert

    . 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning 60:135–150.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
53. ↵
    1. Jorgensen, A., and
    2. A. Anthopoulou

    . 2007. Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands—Does age make a difference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6:267–278.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
54. ↵
    1. Kane, B.,
    2. D. Ryan, and
    3. D.V. Bloniarz

    . 2001. Comparing formulae that assess strength loss due to decay in trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27(2):78–87.

    OpenUrl
55. ↵
    1. Kane, B.

    2008. Tree failure following a windstorm in Brewster, Massachusetts, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7:15–23.

    OpenUrl
56. ↵
    1. Kane, B., and
    2. P. Clouston

    . 2008. Tree pulling tests of large shade trees in the genus Acer. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(2):101–109.

    OpenUrl
57. ↵
    1. Kane, B.,
    2. R. Farrell,
    3. S.M. Zedaker,
    4. J.R. Lofersky, and
    5. D.W. Smith

    . 2008. Failure mode and prediction of the strength of branch attachments. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(5):308–316.

    OpenUrl
58. ↵
    1. Kennard, D.K.,
    2. P.E. Putz, and
    3. M. Niederhofer

    . 1996. The predictability of tree decay based on visual assessments. Journal of Arboriculture 22(6):249–254.

    OpenUrl
59. ↵
    1. Klein, R.W.,
    2. A.K. Koeser,
    3. R.J. Hauer,
    4. G. Hansen, and
    5. F. Escobedo

    . 2016. Relationship between perceived and actual occupancy rates in urban settings. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 19:194–201.

    OpenUrl
60. ↵
    1. Koeser, A.K.

    2009. Trees & Risk Researcher Summit White Paper. Accessed on 02 February 2015. <www.isa-arbor.com/publications/resources/litReview/Trees_and_Risk_White_Paper_EGM.pdf>
61. ↵
    1. Koeser, A.K.,
    2. R.J. Hauer,
    3. R.W. Klein, and
    4. J.W. Miesbauer

    . 2017. Assessment of likelihood of failure using limited visual, basic, and advanced assessment techniques. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 24:71–79.

    OpenUrl
62. ↵
    1. Koeser, A.K.,
    2. R.J. Hauer,
    3. J.W. Miesbauer, and
    4. W. Peterson

    . 2016. Municipal tree risk assessment in the United States: Findings from a comprehensive survey of urban forest management. Arboricultural Journal 38(4):218–229.

    OpenUrl
63. ↵
    1. Koeser, A.K.,
    2. R.W. Klein,
    3. G. Hasing,
    4. R.J. Northrop

    . 2015. Factors driving professional and public urban tree risk perception. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14(4):968–974.

    OpenUrl
64. 1. Koeser, A.K.,
    2. D.C. Mclean,
    3. G. Hasing, and
    4. R.B. Allison

    . 2016. Frequency, severity, and detectability of internal trunk decay of street tree Quercus spp. in Tampa, Florida, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 42(4):217–225.

    OpenUrl
65. ↵
    1. Koeser, A.K., and
    2. E.T. Smiley

    . 2017. Impact of tree care industry credentials and training on urban tree risk assessment ratings and prescribed mitigation measures. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 24:109–115.

    OpenUrl
66. 1. Koeser A.K.,
    2. J.M. Vogt,
    3. R.J. Hauer,
    4. R.J. Northrop, and
    5. W. Peterson

    . 2016. The Cost of not maintaining trees: Findings from an international symposium and summit. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 42(6):377–388.

    OpenUrl
67. ↵
    1. Kuo, F.E.,
    2. M. Bacaicoa, and
    3. W.C. Sullivan

    . 1998. Transforming inner-city landscapes trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior 30(1):28–59.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
68. ↵
    1. Lilly, S., and
    2. T.D. Sydnor

    . 1995. Comparison of branch failure during static loading of silver and Norway maples. Journal of Arboriculture 21(6):302–305.

    OpenUrl
69. ↵
    1. Lohr, V.I.,
    2. C.H. Pearson-Mims,
    3. J. Tarnai, and
    4. D.A. Dillman

    . 2004. How urban residents rate tree benefits and problems. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):28–35.

    OpenUrl
70. ↵
    1. Lonsdale, D.

    2007. Current issues in arboricultural risk assessment and management. Arboricultural Journal 30(2):163–174.

    OpenUrl
71. ↵
    1. Matheny, N., and
    2. J. Clark

    . 1994. A photographic guide to the evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 85 pp.
72. ↵
    1. Matheny, N., and
    2. J. Clark

    . 2009. Tree risk assessment: what we know (and what we don’t know). Arborist News 18(1):28–33.

    OpenUrl
73. ↵
    1. Mattheck, C., and
    2. H. Breloer

    . 1994. Field guide for visual tree assessment (VTA). Arboricultural Journal 18(1):1–23.

    OpenUrl
74. ↵
    1. Mattheck, C., and
    2. H. Breloer

    . 1999. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. TSO.
75. ↵
    1. McPherson, G.,
    2. J.R. Simpson,
    3. P.J. Peper,
    4. S.E. Maco, and
    5. Q. Xiao

    . 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. Journal of Forestry 103(8):411–416.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
76. ↵
    1. Meilleur, G.

    2006. Basic tree risk assessment. Arborist News 15(5):12–17.

    OpenUrl
77. ↵
    1. Miesbauer, J.W.,
    2. E.F. Gilman,
    3. F.J. Masters, and
    4. S. Nitesh

    . 2014. Impact of branch reorientation on breaking stress in Liriodendron tulipifera L. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13(3):526–533.

    OpenUrl
78. ↵
    1. Miller, R.W.,
    2. R.J. Hauer and
    3. L.P. Werner

    . 2015. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces, third edition. Waveland Press, Long Grove, Illinois, U.S. 560 pp.
79. ↵
    1. Mills, L., and
    2. K. Russell

    . 1981. Detection and correction of hazard trees in Washington’s recreation areas. Report 42. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 37 pp.
80. ↵
    1. National Tree Safety Group (NTSG)

    . 2011. Common Sense risk management of trees. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: The Forestry Commission. 102 pp.
81. ↵
    1. Norris, M.

    2007. Tree Risk Assessments – What Works – What Does Not – Can We Tell? A review of a range of existing tree risk assessment methods. ISAAC Conference Perth 2007. pp. 1–31.
82. ↵
    1. Nowak. D.J., and
    2. J.F. Dwyer

    . 2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of an urban forest ecosystem. pp. 25–46. Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
83. ↵
    1. Ow, L.F.,
    2. F.R. Harnas,
    3. I.G.B. Indrawan,
    4. A. Sahadewa,
    5. E.K. Sim,
    6. H. Rahardjo, and
    7. E.C. Leong, et al.

    2010. Tree-pulling experiment: An analysis into the mechanical stability of rain trees. Trees 24:1007–1015.

    OpenUrl
84. ↵
    1. Ozguner, H., and
    2. A.D. Kendle

    . 2006. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning 74:139–157.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
85. ↵
    1. Paine, L.

    1971. Accident hazard: Evaluation and control decisions on forested recreation sites. Res. Pap. PSW-68. Berkeley, C.A.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 1–10.
86. ↵
    1. Papastavrou, V.,
    2. R. Leaper, and
    3. R. Prytherch

    . 2010. Determining pedestrian usage and parked vehicle monetary values for inputs into quantified tree risk assessments—Two case studies from urban parks in Great Britain. Arboricultural Journal 33:43–60.

    OpenUrl
87. ↵
    1. Pokorny, J.D.

    2003. Urban Tree Risk Management, a Community Guide to Program Design and Implementation, USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
88. 1. Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Ltd.

    2015. Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Practice Note Version 5. V5.1.5 (US) 2016-03.
89. ↵
    1. Renn, O.

    2004. Perception of Risks. Toxicology letters 149(1):405–413.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
90. ↵
    1. Rinn, F.,
    2. F.H. Schweingruber, and
    3. E. Schär

    . 1996. RESISTOGRAPH^® and X-ray density charts of wood comparative evaluation of drill resistance profiles and X-ray density charts of different wood species. Holzforschung 50:303–311.

    OpenUrl
91. ↵
    1. Rohde, C.L.E., and
    2. A.D. Kendle

    . 1994. Human Well Being, Natural Landscapes and Wildlife in Urban Areas. ENS No: 22. English Nature, Peterborough, United Kingdom.
92. ↵
    1. Rooney, C.,
    2. H. Ryan,
    3. D. Bloniarz, and
    4. B. Kane

    . 2005. The reliability of a windshield survey to locate hazards in roadside trees. Journal of Arboriculture 31:89–94.

    OpenUrl
93. ↵
    1. Roovers, R.,
    2. B. Dumont,
    3. H. Gulinck, and
    4. M. Hermy

    . 2006. Recreationists’ perceived obstruction of field and shrub layer vegetation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4:47–53.

    OpenUrl
94. ↵
    1. Roy, S.,
    2. J. Byrne, and
    3. C. Pickering

    . 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(4):351–363.

    OpenUrl
95. ↵
    1. Scherer, C.W., and
    2. H. Cho

    . 2003. A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis 23(2):261–267.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
96. ↵
    1. Schmidlin, T.W.

    2009. Human fatalities from wind-related tree failures in the United States, 1995–2007. Natural Hazards 50:13–25.

    OpenUrl
97. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.

    1982. Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of Arboriculture 8(12):317–322.

    OpenUrl
98. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.

    1983. Variations in the perception of urban forest recreation sites. Leisure Science 5(3):221–230.

    OpenUrl
99. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.,
    2. J. Flannigan, and
    3. R. Coles

    . 2006. Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(5):236–246.

    OpenUrl
100. ↵
     1. Slovic, P.

     1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis 19(4):689–701.

     OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
101. ↵
     1. Smardon, R.C.

     1988. Perceptions and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 15:85–106.

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
102. ↵
     1. Smiley, E.T., and
     2. B. Fraedrich

     . 1992. Determining strength loss from decay. Journal of Arboriculture 18(4):201–204.

     OpenUrl
103. ↵
     1. Smiley, E.T.,
     2. A. Key, and
     3. C. Greco

     . 2000. Root barriers and windthrow potential. Journal of Arboriculture 26(4):213–217.

     OpenUrl
104. 1. Smiley, E.T.,
     2. B.R. Fraedrich, and
     3. N. Hendrickson

     . 2002. Tree risk management. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.
105. ↵
     1. Smiley, E.T.

     2008. Root pruning and stability of young willow oak. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(2):123–128.

     OpenUrl
106. ↵
     1. Smiley, E.T.,
     2. N. Matheny, and
     3. S. Lilly

     . 2011. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 86 pp.
107. ↵
     1. V.T. Covello,
     2. L.B. Lave,
     3. A. Moghissi, and
     4. V.R.R. Uppuluri

     1. Spangler, M.B.

     1984. Policy issues related to worst case risk analysis and the establishment of acceptable standards of de minimis risk. pp. 1–26. In: V.T. Covello, L.B. Lave, A. Moghissi, and V.R.R. Uppuluri (Eds.). Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making. Plenum Press, New York City, New York, U.S.
108. ↵
     1. Sreetheran, M.,
     2. M. Adnan, and
     3. A.K. Khairil Azuar

     . 2011. Street tree inventory and tree risk assessment of selected major roads in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(5):226.

     OpenUrl
109. ↵
     1. Stewart, M.G.,
     2. D. O’Callaghan, and
     3. M. Hartley

     . 2013. Review of QTRA and risk-based cost-benefit assessment of tree management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(4):165–172.

     OpenUrl
110. ↵
     1. Talbot, J.F., and
     2. R. Kaplan

     . 1984. Needs and fears: the response to trees and nature in the inner city. Journal of Arboriculture 10(8): 222–228.

     OpenUrl
111. ↵
     1. Terho, M., and
     2. A. Hallaksela

     . 2005. Potential hazard characteristics of Tilia, Betula, and Acer trees removed in the Helsinki city area during 2001–2003. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 3:113–120.

     OpenUrl
112. ↵
     1. Terho, M.

     2009. An assessment of decay among urban Tilia, Betula, and Acer trees felled as hazardous. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 8:77–85.

     OpenUrl
113. ↵
     1. C. Konijnendijk,
     2. K. Nilsson,
     3. T. Randrup, and
     4. J. Schipperijn

     1. Tyrväinen,
     2. L.,
     3. S. Pauleit,
     4. K. Seeland, and
     5. S.D. Vries

     . 2005. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. pp. 81–114. In: C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, and J. Schipperijn (Eds.). Urban Forests and Trees in Europe: A Reference Book. Springer Verlag.
114. ↵
     1. van Wassenaer, P.V., and
     2. M. Richardson

     . 2009. A review of tree risk assessment using minimally invasive technologies and two case studies. Arboriculture Journal 32:275–292.

     OpenUrl
115. ↵
     1. Vogt, J.M.,
     2. R.J. Hauer, and
     3. B.C. Fischer

     . 2015. The costs of maintaining and mot maintaining the urban forest: A Review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41(6):293–323.

     OpenUrl
116. ↵
     1. Wagener, W.W.

     1963 Judging hazard from native trees in California recreational areas: a guide for professional foresters, Berkeley, C.A.: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station 1–29.
117. ↵
     1. Wang, X., and
     2. B.R. Allison

     . 2008. Decay detection in red oak trees using a combination of visual inspection, acoustic testing, and resistance microdrilling. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1):1–4.

     OpenUrl
118. ↵
     1. Wessolly, L.

     1995. Fracture diagnosis of trees—Part 1: Statics–integrated methods—Measurement with tension test. Stadt Grün 6:416–422.

     OpenUrl
119. ↵
     1. Wyman, M.,
     2. F. Escobedo,
     3. T. Stein,
     4. M. Orfanedes, and
     5. R. Northrop

     . 2012. Community leader perceptions and attitudes toward coastal urban forests and hurricanes in Florida. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 36(3):152–158.

     OpenUrl
120. ↵
     1. Zhang, Y.,
     2. A. Hussain,
     3. J. Deng, and
     4. L. Letson

     . 2007. Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior 39(6):797–814.

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
121. ↵
     1. Zheng, B.,
     2. Y. Zhang, and
     3. J. Chen

     . 2011. Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning 99:1–8.

     OpenUrl