Professional Expertise and Its Role in Risk Assessment

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Adams J

   . 1995. Risk. London (UK): University College London Press. 228 p.
2. ↵
   1. Alexander PA

   . 1997. Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. Advances in Motivation and Achievement. 10:213-250.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Alexander PA

   . 2003. The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher. 32(8):10-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. ↵
   1. Alexander PA,
   2. Sperl CT,
   3. Buehl MM,
   4. Fives H,
   5. Chiu S

   . 2004. Modeling domain learning: Profiles from the field of special education. Journal of Educational Psychology. 96(3):545-557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.545

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. ↵
   1. Anderson NE,
   2. Slark J,
   3. Gott M

   . 2019. Unlocking intuition and expertise: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis to explore clinical decision making. Journal of Research in Nursing. 24(1-2):88-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987118809528

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Aven T

   . 2016. Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research. 253(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Ball DJ,
   2. Ball-King L

   . 2014. Public safety and risk assessment: Improving decision making. Abingdon-on-Thames (UK): Routledge. 224 p.
8. ↵
   1. Ball DJ,
   2. Watt J

   . 2013a. Further thoughts on the utility of risk matrices. Risk Analysis. 33(11):2068-2078. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12057

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
9. ↵
   1. Ball DJ,
   2. Watt J

   . 2013b. The risk to the public of tree fall. Journal of Risk Research. 16(2):261-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.737827

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Bjerke T,
    2. Ostdahl T,
    3. Thrane C,
    4. Strumse E

    . 2006. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 5(1):35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.006

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. ↵
    1. Cho H,
    2. Reimer TO,
    3. McComas KA

    1. Bodemer N,
    2. Gaissmaier W

    . 2014. Riskchaptertion. In: Cho H, Reimer TO, McComas KA, editors. The SAGE handbook of risk communication. Thousand Oaks (CA, USA): SAGE Publications. p. 10-23.
12. 1. Cambridge University Press

    . 2020. Professional. In: Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. [Accessed 2020 September 29]. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/professional
13. ↵
    1. Goldstein WM,
    2. Hogarth RM

    1. Camerer CF,
    2. Johnson EJ

    . 1997. The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? In: Goldstein WM, Hogarth RM, editors. Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 342-364.
14. ↵
    1. Collins H

    . 2014. Are we all scientific experts now? Hoboken (NJ, USA): John Wiley & Sons. 140 p.
15. ↵
    1. Collins H,
    2. Evans R

    . 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago (IL, USA): University of Chicago Press. 176 p.
16. ↵
    1. Dillard AJ,
    2. McCaul KD,
    3. Kelso PD,
    4. Klein WM

    . 2006. Resisting good news: Reactions to breast cancer risk communication. Health Communication. 19(2):115-123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1902_3

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. ↵
    1. Douglas M,
    2. Wildavsky A

    . 1982. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Oakland (CA, USA): University of California Press. 224 p. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt7zw3mr
18. ↵
    1. Dreyfus HL,
    2. Dreyfus SE

    . 2005. Peripheral vision: Expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies. 26(5):779-792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605053102

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. ↵
    1. Dunster JA,
    2. Smiley ET,
    3. Matheny N,
    4. Lilly S

    . 2017. Tree risk assessment manual. 2nd Ed. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 194 p.
20. ↵
    1. Eduljee GH

    . 2000. Trends in risk assessment and risk management. Science of the Total Environment. 249(1-3):13-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00507-0

    OpenUrlPubMed
21. ↵
    1. Ellison MJ

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

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Ellison MJ

    . 2019. Quantified Tree Risk Assessment User Manual: Version 5, 3.3. Macclesfield (UK): Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Ltd.
23. ↵
    1. Elmendorf W,
    2. Watson T,
    3. Lilly S

    . 2005. Arboriculture and urban forestry education in the United States: Results of an educators survey. Journal of Arboriculture. 31(3):138-149.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Ericsson KA,
    2. Charness N,
    3. Feltovich PJ,
    4. Hoffman RR

    1. Ericsson KA

    . 2006. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In: Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR, editors. Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York (NY, USA): Cambridge University Press. p. 683-704.
25. ↵
    1. Ericsson KA,
    2. Charness N

    . 1994. Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist. 49(8):725-747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. ↵
    1. Ericsson KA,
    2. Krampe RT,
    3. Tesch-Romer C

    . 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review. 100(3):363-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
27. ↵
    1. Fay N

    . 2007. Towards reasonable tree risk decision-making? Arboricultural Journal. 30(2):143-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2007.9747489

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Feigenbaum EA,
    2. McCorduck P

    . 1983. The fifth generation: Artificial intelligence and Japan’s computer challenge to the world. Reading (MA, USA): Addison-Wesley. 275 p.
29. ↵
    1. Finucane ML,
    2. Slovic P,
    3. Mertz CK,
    4. Flynn J,
    5. Satterfield TA

    . 2000. Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society. 2(2):159-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/713670162

    OpenUrlCrossRef
30. ↵
    1. Fischhoff B,
    2. de Bruin WB,
    3. Parker AM,
    4. Millstein SG,
    5. Halpern-Felsher BL

    . 2010. Adolescents’ perceived risk of dying. Journal of Adolescent Health. 46(3):265-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.06.026

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. ↵
    1. Franklin CL II.

    . 2013. Developing expertise in management decision-making. Academy of Strategic Management Journal. 12(1):21-38.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Galesic M,
    2. Garcia-Retamero R,
    3. Gigerenzer G

    . 2009. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology. 28(2):210-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014474

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. ↵
    1. Garcia-Retamero R,
    2. Galesic M

    . 2010. How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 25(12):1323-1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
34. ↵
    1. Gerstenberg T,
    2. Hofmann M

    . 2016. Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 15:103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.004

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. ↵
    1. Gilbert M,
    2. Brack CL

    . 2007. Changes in public requests to remove significant urban trees after severe bushfires in Canberra, Australia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 6(1):41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.10.001

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Glaser R,
    2. Chi MT,
    3. Farr MJ

    . 1988. The nature of expertise. East Sussex (UK): Psychology Press. 470 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315799681
37. ↵
    1. Goldberg LR

    . 1968. Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments. American Psychologist. 23(7):483-496. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026206

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
38. ↵
    1. Goldman AI

    . 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 63(1):85-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x

    OpenUrlCrossRef
39. ↵
    1. Griffin K

    . 1967. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin. 68(2):104-120. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024833

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
40. ↵
    1. Haas GE

    . 2002. Visitor capacity on public lands and waters: Making better decisions. A report of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands for the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, US Department of the Interior. Ashburn (VA, USA): National Recreation and Park Association.
41. ↵
    1. Haas GE

    . 2003. Restoring dignity to sound professional judgment. Journal of Forestry. 101(6):38-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/101.6.38

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Hauer RJ,
    2. Peterson W

    . 2016. Building and growing professionals for trees: Arboricultural standards and credentials. Arborist News. 25(1):42-46.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Haynes AS,
    2. Derrick GE,
    3. Redman S,
    4. Hall WD,
    5. Gillespie JA,
    6. Chapman S,
    7. Sturk H

    . 2012. Identifying trustworthy experts: How do policymakers find and assess public health researchers worth consulting or collaborating with? PLoS One. 7(3):e32665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032665

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
44. ↵
    1. Hermand D,
    2. Mullet E,
    3. Rompteaux L

    . 1999. Societal risk perception among children, adolescents, adults, and elderly people. Journal of Adult Development. 6(2):137-143. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021676909857

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Hovland CI,
    2. Janis IL,
    3. Kelley HH

    . 1953. Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven (CT, USA): Yale University Press. 315 p.
46. ↵
    1. Hull RB IV

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

    OpenUrl
47. ↵
    1. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council)

    . 2005. Risk governance: Towards an integrative approach. Geneva (Switzerland): IRGC. White Paper No. 1. 157 p.
48. ↵
    1. IRGC (International Risk Governance Council)

    . 2019. IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Geneva (Switzerland): IRGC. [Accessed 2020 July 14]. https://irgc.org/risk-governance/irgc-risk-governance-framework
49. ↵
    1. Jansson M,
    2. Fors H,
    3. Lindgren T,
    4. Wistrom B

    . 2013. Perceived personal safety in relation to urban woodland vegetation—A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 12(2):127-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.01.005

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Jones RM,
    2. Instone L,
    3. Mee KJ

    . 2014. Making risk real: Urban trees and the ontological politics of risk. Geoforum. 56:211-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.009

    OpenUrl
51. ↵
    1. Jorgensen A,
    2. Anthopoulou A

    . 2007. Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands—Does age make a difference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 6(4):267-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.004

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

    . 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape & Urban Planning. 60(3):135-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00052-X

    OpenUrl
53. ↵
    1. Kahan DM,
    2. Braman D,
    3. Gastil J,
    4. Slovic P,
    5. Mertz CK

    . 2007. Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. 4(3):465-505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x

    OpenUrlCrossRef
54. ↵
    1. Kahan DM,
    2. Braman D,
    3. Slovic P,
    4. Gastil J,
    5. Cohen G

    . 2009. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology. 4(2):87-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341

    OpenUrl
55. ↵
    1. Kahneman D

    . 1991. Article commentary: Judgment and decision making: A personal view. Psychological Science. 2(3):142-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00121.x

    OpenUrlCrossRef
56. ↵
    1. Kahneman D

    . 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York (NY, USA): Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 499 p.
57. ↵
    1. Kahneman D,
    2. Klein G

    . 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist. 64(6):515-526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
58. ↵
    1. Kenney WA,
    2. van Wassenaer PJ,
    3. Satel AL

    . 2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(3):108-117.

    OpenUrl
59. ↵
    1. Kirkpatrick JB,
    2. Daniels GD,
    3. Davison A

    . 2011. Temporal and spatial variation in garden and street trees in six eastern Australian cities. Landscape & Urban Planning. 101(3):244-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.029

    OpenUrl
60. ↵
    1. Kirkpatrick JB,
    2. Davison A

    . 2017. Arborists and arguments in the urban forest: A synthesis. In: TREENET Proceedings of the 18th National Street Tree Symposium; 2017 September 7–8; Adelaide, South Australia. Myrtle Bank (South Australia): TREENET. p. 34-40.
61. ↵
    1. Kirkpatrick JB,
    2. Davison A,
    3. Daniels GD

    . 2012. Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landscape & Urban Planning. 107(2):147-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.015

    OpenUrl
62. 1. Kirkpatrick JB,
    2. Davison A,
    3. Harwood A

    . 2013. How tree professionals perceive trees and conflicts about trees in Australia’s urban forest. Landscape & Urban Planning. 119:124-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.009

    OpenUrl
63. ↵
    1. Klein G,
    2. Shneiderman B,
    3. Hoffman RR,
    4. Ford KM

    . 2017. Why expertise matters: A response to the challenges. IEEE Intelligent Systems. 32(6):67-73. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2017.4531230

    OpenUrl
64. ↵
    1. Klein RW,
    2. Koeser AK,
    3. Hauer RJ,
    4. Hansen G,
    5. Escobedo FJ

    . 2016. Relationship between perceived and actual occupancy rates in urban settings. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 19:194-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.030

    OpenUrl
65. ↵
    1. Klein RW,
    2. Koeser AK,
    3. Hauer RJ,
    4. Hansen G,
    5. Escobedo FJ

    . 2019. Risk assessment and risk perception of trees: A review of literature relating to arboriculture and urban forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 45(1):23-33. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2019.003

    OpenUrl
66. ↵
    1. Koeser AK

    . 2009. Trees and risk researcher summit white paper. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. https://www.isa-arbor.com/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/research/educ_Portal_Risk_Whitepaper.pdf
67. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Hauer RJ,
    3. Klein RW,
    4. Miesbauer JW

    . 2017. Assessment of likelihood of failure using limited visual, basic, and advanced assessment techniques. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 24:71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.024

    OpenUrl
68. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Hauer RJ,
    3. Miesbauer JW,
    4. Peterson W

    . 2016. Municipal tree risk assessment in the United States: Findings from a comprehensive survey of urban forest management. Arboricultural Journal. 38(4):218-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2016.1221178

    OpenUrl
69. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Klein RW,
    3. Hasing G,
    4. Northrop RJ

    . 2015. Factors driving professional and public urban tree risk perception. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 14(4):968-974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.004

    OpenUrl
70. 1. Koeser AK,
    2. Smiley ET

    . 2017. Impact of assessor on tree risk assessment ratings and prescribed mitigation measures. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 24:109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.027

    OpenUrl
71. 1. Krosnick JA

    . 1990. Expertise and political psychology. Social Cognition. 8(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1990.8.1.1

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
72. ↵
    1. Lohr VI,
    2. Pearson-Mims CH

    . 2006. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior. 38(5):667-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506287355

    OpenUrlCrossRef
73. ↵
    1. Lohr VI,
    2. Pearson-Mims CH,
    3. Tarnai J,
    4. Dillman DA

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

    OpenUrl
74. ↵
    1. Matheny NP,
    2. Clark JR

    . 1994. A photographic guide to the evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 85 p.
75. ↵
    1. Mattheck C,
    2. Breloer H

    . 1994. Field guide for visual tree assessment (VTA). Arboricultural Journal. 18(1):1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.1994.9746995

    OpenUrl
76. 1. Mayer JD,
    2. Salovey P,
    3. Caruso DR,
    4. Sitarenios G

    . 2003. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion. 3(1):97-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
77. ↵
    1. McGinnies E,
    2. Ward CD

    . 1980. Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 6(3):467-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728063023

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
78. ↵
    1. McPherson EG

    . 1984. Employer perspectives on arboriculture education. Journal of Arboriculture. 10(5):137-142.

    OpenUrl
79. ↵
    1. Millstein SG,
    2. Halpern-Felsher BL

    . 2002. Judgments about risk and perceived invulnerability in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 12(4):399-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00039

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
80. ↵
    1. Mitchell M

    . 1993. Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85(3):424-436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
81. ↵
    1. Mortimer MJ,
    2. Kane B

    . 2004. Hazard tree liability in the United States: Uncertain risks for owners and professionals. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2(3):159-165. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00032

    OpenUrl
82. ↵
    1. National Research Council

    . 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington (DC, USA): National Academies Press. 205 p. https://doi.org/10.17226/366
83. ↵
    1. National Tree Safety Group (NTSG)

    . 2011. Common sense risk management of trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. Edinburgh (Scotland): Forestry Commission. 104 p.
84. ↵
    1. Nelson T,
    2. Johnson T,
    3. Strong M,
    4. Rudakewich G

    . 2001. Perception of tree canopy. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21(3): 315-324. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0223

    OpenUrl
85. ↵
    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; 2007 May 1; Perth (Australia). p. 1-31.
86. ↵
    1. Kuser JE

    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Dwyer JF

    . 2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser JE, editor. Urban and community forestry in the northeast. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer. p. 25-46.
87. ↵
    1. Penn-Del Chapter

    . 2001. Arboriculture: The state of the industry. Bedminster (PA, USA): The Pennsylvania Delaware Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 10 p.
88. ↵
    1. Peters E,
    2. Västfjäll D,
    3. Slovic P,
    4. Mertz CK,
    5. Mazzocco K,
    6. Dickert S

    . 2006. Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science. 17(5):407-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
89. ↵
    1. Pidgeon N,
    2. Hood C,
    3. Jones D,
    4. Turner B,
    5. Gibson R

    . 1992. Risk perception. In: Risk: Analysis, perception and management. London (UK): Royal Society. p. 89-134.
90. ↵
    1. Pokorny JD

    . 2003. Urban tree risk management: A community guide to program design and implementation. St. Paul (MN, USA): USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-03-03. 194 p.
91. ↵
    1. Quadrel MJ,
    2. Fischhoff B,
    3. Davis W

    . 1993. Adolescent (in)vulnerability. American Psychologist. 48(2):102-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.102

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
92. ↵
    1. Reilly BA,
    2. Doherty ME

    . 1989. A note on the assessment of self-insight in judgment research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 44(1):123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90038-1

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
93. ↵
    1. Renn O,
    2. Klinke A

    . 2013. A framework of adaptive risk governance for urban planning. Sustainability. 5(5):2036-2059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5052036

    OpenUrl
94. ↵
    1. Renn O,
    2. Schweizer PJ

    . 2009. Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance. 19(3):174-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.507

    OpenUrl
95. ↵
    1. Reyna VF,
    2. Nelson WL,
    3. Han PK,
    4. Dieckmann NF

    . 2009. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin. 135(6):943-973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
96. ↵
    1. Ricard RM,
    2. Bloniarz DV

    . 2006. Learning preferences, job satisfaction, community interactions, and urban forestry practices of New England (USA) tree wardens. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 5(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.03.004

    OpenUrl
97. ↵
    1. Rikers RM,
    2. Paas F

    . 2005. Recent advances in expertise research. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 19(2):145-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1108

    OpenUrl
98. ↵
    1. Roovers R,
    2. Dumont B,
    3. Gulinck H,
    4. Hermy M

    . 2006. Recreationists’ perceived obstruction of field and shrub layer vegetation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 4(2):47-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.09.001

    OpenUrl
99. ↵
    1. Roy S,
    2. Byrne J,
    3. Pickering C

    . 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006

    OpenUrl
100. ↵
     1. Salas E,
     2. Rosen MA,
     3. Diaz Granados D

     . 2010. Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. Journal of Management. 36(4):941-973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350084

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
101. ↵
     1. Schroeder H

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

     OpenUrl
102. ↵
     1. Schroeder H

     . 1983. Variations in the perception of urban forest recreation sites. Leisure Science. 5(3):221-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490408309513004

     OpenUrl
103. ↵
     1. Schroeder H,
     2. Anderson LM

     . 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research. 16(2): 178-194.

     OpenUrl
104. ↵
     1. Schroeder HW,
     2. Green TL,
     3. Howe TJ

     . 2003. Community tree programs in Illinois, U.S.: A statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(4):218-225.

     OpenUrl
105. ↵
     1. Backman CW,
     2. Secord PF

     1. Schweitzer D,
     2. Ginsberg GP

     . 1966. Factors of communicator credibility. In: Backman CW, Secord PF, editors. Problems in social psychology. New York (NY, USA): McGraw-Hill Book Co. p. 94-102.
106. ↵
     1. Shaffer G,
     2. Anderson LM

     . 1985. Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 5(4):311-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80001-3

     OpenUrlCrossRef
107. ↵
     1. Shanteau J,
     2. Stewart TR

     . 1992. Why study expert decision making? Some historical perspectives and comments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 53(2):95-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90057-E

     OpenUrlCrossRef
108. ↵
     1. Shrader-Frechette KS

     . 1990. Perceived risks versus actual risks: Managing hazards through negotiation. Risk. 1:341.

     OpenUrl
109. ↵
     1. Simonet S,
     2. Wilde GJ

     . 1997. Risk: Perception, acceptance and homeostasis. Applied Psychology. 46(3):235-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01228.x

     OpenUrl
110. ↵
     1. Sjöberg L

     . 1998. Risk perception: Experts and the public. European Psychologist. 3(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.3.1.1

     OpenUrl
111. ↵
     1. Sjöberg L,
     2. Moen BE,
     3. Rundmo T

     . 2004. Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde publikasjoner Rotunde. 84:55-76.

     OpenUrl
112. ↵
     1. Skjong R,
     2. Wentworth BH

     . 2001. Expert judgment and risk perception. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; 2001 June 17–22; Stavanger, Norway. Cupertino (CA, USA): International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers. p. 537-544.
113. ↵
     1. Slovic P

     . 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis. 19(4):689-701. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007041821623

     OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
114. ↵
     1. Slovic P,
     2. Fischhoff B,
     3. Lichtenstein S

     . 1981. Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A. 376(1764):17-34. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1981.0073

     OpenUrlCrossRef
115. ↵
     1. Smiley ET,
     2. Matheny N,
     3. Lilly S

     . 2017. Best management practices: Tree risk assessment. 2nd Ed. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 86 p.
116. ↵
     1. Stewart MG,
     2. O’Callaghan D,
     3. Hartley M

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

     OpenUrl
117. ↵
     1. Summit J,
     2. Sommer R

     . 1999. Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment and Behavior. 31(4):550-576. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972236

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
118. ↵
     1. Talbot JF,
     2. Kaplan R

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

     OpenUrl
119. 1. Virginia Tech

     . 2020. Career and Professional Development. [Accessed 2020 September 29]. https://career.vt.edu/develop/professionalism.html
120. ↵
     1. Vogt J,
     2. Fischer BC,
     3. Hauer RJ

     . 2016. Urban forestry and arboriculture as interdisciplinary environmental science: Importance and incorporation of other disciplines. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 6(2):371-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0309-x

     OpenUrl
121. ↵
     1. Watt J

     . 2007. The management of risk with respect to cultural heritage—A case study. Arboricultural Journal. 30(2):175-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2007.9747491

     OpenUrl
122. ↵
     1. Wiseman PE,
     2. Hoffman JW,
     3. Day SD,
     4. Clements TL

     . 2011. A syllabus-based review of collegiate arboriculture course content in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(2):51-59.

     OpenUrl
123. ↵
     1. Wyman M,
     2. Escobedo F,
     3. Stein T,
     4. Orfanedes M,
     5. Northrop R

     . 2012. Community leader perceptions and attitudes toward coastal urban forests and hurricanes in Florida. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 36(3):152-158. https://doi.org/10.5849/sjaf.10-022

     OpenUrl
124. ↵
     1. Zheng B,
     2. Zhang Y,
     3. Chen J

     . 2011. Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning. 99(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.006

     OpenUrl