Development of a low-cost traffic counter for assessing likelihood of impact for tree risk assessment

Klein, Ryan W.; Dutton, Christopher L.; Koeser, Andrew K.

doi:10.1080/03071375.2022.2030603

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, arborists with risk assessment training were significantly more likely to assign lower likelihood of impact and likelihood of failure ratings, as well as lower overall risk ratings. Klein et al (2016) compared the perceived occupancy rates with actual occupancy rates as measured by traffic counters (Klein et al 2022a). In this study, likelihood of impact ratings among participants with experience and credentialing were less variable than those without.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

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

Klein,

Koeser,

McBride

et al. 2023

isa

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTree risk assessment methods have been developed to assist arborists in conducting thorough and systematic inspections of trees and the threat they pose to people or property. While these methods have many similarities, they also have a few key differences which may impact the decisions of those employing them. Moreover, arborists specify the associated timeframe for their risk assessment, which can range from months to years. How this impacts risk assessment reproducibility is unknown.MethodsTo assess the impact of risk assessment methodology, we sent videos depicting trees in urban settings to arborists holding the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ;n= 28) or Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA;n= 21) training. These assessments were compared to those prepared by North American arborists lacking the TRAQ credential (ISA BMP;n= 11). ISA BMP arborists were also asked to assess trees using both a 1-year and a 3-year timeframe.ResultsWhile a direct comparison between the QTRA and TRAQ assessments is not possible given differences in terminology, arborists with the latter training were less likely to rate trees as having “high” or “extreme” risk compared to their ISA BMP counterparts. Moreover, we found that switching to a longer timeframe did not increase the variability of risk assessments.ConclusionsThese results give further insights into how different risk assessment methods compare when assessing the same group of trees as well as the impact of training efforts and specified timeframe.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

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

Klein,

Koeser,

McBride

et al. 2023

isa

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have demonstrated the subjectivity associated with each component of risk assessment, including proximity to targets [13][14], observed structural weaknesses that increase likelihood of failure [15], and severity of consequences of impacting a target [16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defective or Just Different? Predicting Storm Failure in Four Urban Tree Growth Patterns

Koeser¹,

Klein²,

Hauer³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners who assess the risk associated with urban trees often factor in the presence or absence of visual tree defects when determining whether a tree may fail. While these defects are a main fixture in many tree risk assessment systems and best management practices, the research supporting their usefulness in predicting tree failure during storms is limited. When looking at past research involving populations of storm-damaged trees, there are several defects that have never predicted failure (or have been associated with reduced rates of failure). In this study, we took a closer look at four such defects: codominant branches; branch unions with included bark; multiple stems originating from the same point; and overextended branches. After Hurricane Ian, we revisited 1519 risk assessed trees where one of these four defects was identified as the primary condition of concern. Fourteen of these trees experienced branch failure during the storm (which hit the study area as a downgraded tropical storm). Upon closer inspection, none of these failures occurred at the defect of concern. Our findings indicate that none of the defects assessed appeared to increase the likelihood of tree failure in the species tested. Our results are in line with past research on these defects derived from post-storm assessments and analysis.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have demonstrated the subjectivity associated with each component of risk assessment, including proximity to targets [13,14], observed structural weaknesses that increase the likelihood of failure [15], and severity of consequences of impacting a target [16,17]. One aspect of tree risk assessment has received more experimental scrutiny than the others: assessing the likelihood of failure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defective or Just Different? Observed Storm Failure in Four Urban Tree Growth Patterns

Koeser

Klein

Hauer

et al. 2023

Forests

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners who assess the risk associated with urban trees often factor in the presence or absence of visual tree defects when determining whether a tree may fail. Although these defects are a main fixture in many tree risk assessment systems and best-management practices, the research supporting their usefulness in predicting tree failure during storms is limited. When looking at past research involving populations of storm-damaged trees, several defects have never predicted failure (or have been associated with reduced rates of failure). In this study, we took a closer look at four such defects: codominant branches; branch unions with included bark; multiple stems originating from the same point; and overextended branches. After Hurricane Ian, we revisited 1518 risk-assessed trees where one of these four defects was identified as the primary condition of concern. Fourteen of these trees experienced branch failure during the storm (which hit the study area as a downgraded tropical storm). Upon closer inspection, none of these failures occurred at the defect of concern. Our findings indicate that none of the defects assessed appeared to increase the likelihood of tree failure in the species tested. Our results are in line with past research on these defects derived from post-storm assessments and analysis.

show abstract

Development of a low-cost traffic counter for assessing likelihood of impact for tree risk assessment

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

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

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

Defective or Just Different? Predicting Storm Failure in Four Urban Tree Growth Patterns

Defective or Just Different? Observed Storm Failure in Four Urban Tree Growth Patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About