Evaluating the Reproducibility of Tree Risk Assessment Ratings Across Commonly Used Methods

Literature Cited

1. ↵
   1. Ball DJ,
   2. Watt J.

   2013. 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
2. ↵
   1. Blais AR,
   2. Weber EU.

   2006. A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making. 1(1):33–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000334

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bose J.

   2001. Nonresponse bias analyses at the National Center for Education Statistics. In: Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 2001—Achieving data quality in a statistical agency: A methodological perspective. Statistics Canada Symposium 2001; 2001 October 17–19; Hull, Quebec, Canada. Ottawa (ON, Canada): Statistics Canada. https://nces.ed.gov/FCSM/pdf/IHSNG_StatsCan2_JB.pdf
4. ↵
   1. Carmichael CE,
   2. McDonough MH.

   2019. Community stories: Explaining resistance to street tree-planting programs in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Society & Natural Resources. 32(5): 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Coelho-Duarte AP,
   2. Daniluk-Mosquera G,
   3. Gravina V,
   4. Vallejos-Barra Ó,
   5. Ponce-Donoso M.

   2021. Tree risk assessment: Component analysis of six visual methods applied in an urban park, Montevideo, Uruguay. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 59:127005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127005

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   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.
7. ↵
   1. Ellison MJ.

   2005. Quantified tree risk assessment used in the management of amenity trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 31(2):57–65. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2005.007

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Ellison MJ.

   2019. Quantified Tree Risk Assessment User Manual: Version 5, 3.3. Cheshire (United Kingdom): QTRA. https://www.qtra.co.uk/cms
9. ↵
   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
10. ↵
    1. Pokorny JD

    1. Hauer RJ,
    2. Johnson GR.

    Tree risk management. 2003. In: Pokorny JD, coordinating author. 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. Technical Bulletin NA-TP-03-03. p. 5–10. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/na/NA-TP-03-03.pdf
11. ↵
    1. Hauer RJ,
    2. Peterson W.

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

    OpenUrl
12. IBM Corp. 2022. IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac. Version 29.0. Armonk (NY, USA): IBM Corp.
13. ↵
    1. Judice A,
    2. Gordon J,
    3. Abrams J,
    4. Irwin K.

    2021. Community perceptions of tree risk and management. Land. 10(10):1096–1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10101096

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Klein RW,
    2. Dutton CL,
    3. Koeser AK.

    2022a. Development of a low-cost traffic counter for assessing likelihood of impact for tree risk assessment. Arboricultural Journal. 45(1):49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2022.2030603

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Klein RW,
    2. Koeser AK,
    3. Hansen G,
    4. Warner L,
    5. Dale A,
    6. Watt J.

    2021a. Professional expertise and its role in risk assessment. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 47(6):234–251. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2021.021

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    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
17. ↵
    1. Klein RW,
    2. Koeser AK,
    3. Hauer RJ,
    4. Miesbauer JW,
    5. Hansen G,
    6. Warner L,
    7. Dale A,
    8. Watt J.

    2021b. Assessing the consequences of tree failure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 65:127307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127307

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Klein RW,
    2. McLean DC,
    3. Koeser AK,
    4. Hauer RJ,
    5. Miesbauer JW,
    6. Salisbury AB.

    2022b. Visual estimation accuracy of tree part diameter and fall distance. Journal of Forestry. 120(5):483–490. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvac012

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Smiley ET

    1. Koeser AK.

    2009. Trees and risk researcher summit white paper. In: Koeser AK, Smiley ET, editors. Trees & risk. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. https://wwv.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/educ_Portal_Risk_Whitepaper.pdf
20. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Hasing G,
    3. McClean D,
    4. Northrop RJ.

    2016a. Tree risk assessment methods: A comparison of three evaluation forms. Gainesville (FL, USA): UF-IFAS Extension. ENH1226. https://ohiodnr.gov/static/documents/forestry/uftoolbox/TreeRiskAssessment-MethodsComparison.pdf
21. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Hauer RJ,
    3. Hillman A,
    4. Peterson W.

    2016b. Risk and storm management operations in the United States: How does your city compare? Arborist News. 25(2):20–23.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    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
23. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Hauer RJ,
    3. Miesbauer JW,
    4. Peterson W.

    2016c. 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
24. ↵
    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
25. ↵
    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
26. ↵
    1. Kuhns MR,
    2. Bragg HA,
    3. Blahna DJ.

    2002. Involvement of women and minorities in the urban forestry profession. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2002.004

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Lindner JR,
    2. Murphy TH,
    3. Briers GE.

    2001. Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education. 42(4):43–53. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2001.04043

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. ↵
    1. Lindner JR,
    2. Wingenbach GJ.

    2002. Communicating the handling of nonresponse error in journal of extension research in brief articles. Journal ofExtension. 40(6):6RIB1. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol40/iss6/9

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Matheny N,
    2. Clark J.

    1994. A photographic guide to the evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 85 p.
30. ↵
    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.
31. ↵
    1. Norris MB,
    2. Moore GM.

    2020. How tree risk assessment methods work: Sensitivity analyses of sixteen methods reveal the value of quantification and the impact of inputs on risk ratings. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 46(6):402–431. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.030

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    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. New York (NY, USA): Springer. p. 25–46.
33. 1. O’Henin K,
    2. Wiseman PE,
    3. Day SD,
    4. Hauer RJ.

    2020. Professional identity of urban foresters in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 54:126741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126741

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    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. Technical Bulletin NA-TP-03-03. 204 p. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/na/NA-TP-03-03.pdf
35. ↵
    Quantified Tree Risk Assessment. 2023. Cheshire (England, United Kingdom): Quantified Tree Risk Assessment. https://www.qtra.co.uk
36. ↵
    R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
37. ↵
    1. Reyes de la Barra J,
    2. Ponce-Donoso M,
    3. Vallejos-Barra Ó,
    4. Daniluk G,
    5. Coelho Duarte AP.

    2018. Comparison of four methods of visual risk assessment of urban trees. Colombia Forestal. 21(2):161–173.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Sampaio ACF,
    2. Duarte FG,
    3. Silva EGC,
    4. De Angelis BLD,
    5. Blum CT.

    2010. Risk tree assessment in public street afforestation in Nova Olímpiá, Parana. Magazine of the Brazilian Society of Urban Afforestation. 5(2):82–104. https://revistas.ufpr.br/revsbau/article/view/66278/38151

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Smiley ET,
    2. Matheny N,
    3. Lilly S.

    2017. Tree risk assessment. 2nd Ed. Best Management Practices. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 86 p.
40. ↵
    Trees Are Good. 2023. Find an Arborist. Atlanta (GA, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. [Accessed 2020 October 8]. https://www.treesaregood.org/findanarborist/findanarborist
41. ↵
    1. Vogt J,
    2. Hauer RJ,
    3. Fischer BC.

    2015. The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: A review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 41(6):293–323. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.027

    OpenUrl