ENH1226

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three

Common Evaluation Forms1
Andrew K. Koeser, Gitta Hasing, Drew McLean, and Rob Northrop2

Introduction Quantitative vs. Qualitative Risk Assessment

Although the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form and the USDA Forest
All trees pose some level of risk to nearby people, struc- Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form both generate a
tures, and utilities. Typically, this risk is minimal and is far numerical rating as a final product of the assessment process, they
outweighed by the environmental, social, and economic are not quantitative assessment methods. The numeric inputs used
to generate a final score are qualitative or subjective ratings of
benefits offered by the tree in question. As trees age or
defect severity, size of defective part, and target. To help eliminate
become weakened by pests, disease, and/or other stresses, this confusion and the false sense of accuracy that was often
this balance may shift, requiring a tree owner or manager to experienced with these qualitative, mathematical formulas, the
decide what risk level he or she is willing to accept and what updated International Society of Arboriculture Best Management
Practice method has replaced numerical rankings with descriptive
modifications, if any, are needed. Experienced arborists can
categories, such as “improbable,” “possible,” “probable,” and
aid in this decision process by conducting a professional “imminent” for likelihood of failure. Users are guided through a
risk assessment that specifies the likelihood of whole or series of decision matrices to determine the overall risk rating.
partial tree failure, the consequences of such a failure, and
If using one of the risk assessment forms that generates a final,
the potential targets affected. numerical rating, note that this value is intended for assessing
populations of trees. No concrete risk threshold can be applied to
A variety of risk assessment methods have been developed categorize a single tree as either “safe” or “hazardous” (everything
to guide professionals through the tree inspection process. rated greater than seven must be removed). Instead, numerical
In North America, three risk assessment methods have ratings allow users to prioritize risk reduction efforts by addressing
the trees that pose the greatest potential threat to people and
gained the greatest acceptance among tree care profession- property first and, as resources and time permit, working down the
als, municipal urban forestry programs, and government list to lower-rated trees.
agencies. These methods are:
Each risk assessment method is paired with its own data
• International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree collection form. These forms serve many functions, and in
Hazard Evaluation Method (Matheny and Clark 1994) particular they:

• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) For- 1. Pull out and summarize key concepts within each assess-
est Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Method ment methodology
(Pokorny 2003)
• ISA Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practice 2. Guide the user through a systematic assessment of root,
(BMP) Method (Dunster et al. 2013; Smiley et al. 2011) trunk, and crown conditions

1. This document is ENH1226, one of a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date November
2013. Visit the EDIS website at [Link]

2. Andrew K. Koeser, assistant professor; Gitta Hasing, biological scientist; Drew McLean, biological scientist; Environmental Horticulture Department,
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center; Rob Northrop, Extension faculty, Hillsborough County Extension, UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to
individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, political opinions or affiliations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A&M University Cooperative
Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, Dean for UF/IFAS Extention.
3. Ensure the collection of standardized data These evaluations offer practical insights for arborists and
urban foresters wanting to adopt a tree risk assessment
4. Provide a written record of the assessment and any method to aid in their professional responsibilities.
prescribed risk abatement measures
Risk Assessment Background,
Throughout this article, we use risk assessment method
and form interchangeably because both are closely and Perceived Advantages/
deliberately linked by their associated developers. This does Disadvantages, Time
not suggest, however, that a potential user can gain all the
background he or she needs from the form alone. Each risk Requirements, and Applicability in
assessment method included in this review is thoroughly Arboriculture and Urban Forestry
documented with its own user manual. These manuals
should be repeatedly referenced until the user becomes
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form (from A
sufficiently experienced in the method used. Face-to-face Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of
training may also be available for the USDA Forest Service Hazard Trees in Urban Areas)
Community Tree Risk Evaluation method and the ISA Tree Background: The ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form, which
Risk Assessment BMP method. was developed by Nelda Matheny and James Clark and last
updated in the second edition of A Photographic Guide to
For this article, we field tested the ISA Hazard Evaluation, the Evaluation of in Urban Areas (1994), has been widely
the USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation, used and modified by municipalities and commercial
and the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Best Management arborists. Though the ISA (working with Matheny) has
Practice (BMP) risk assessment processes on three different since published the ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP, a new
trees in a botanical garden (Figure 1). In comparing the risk assessment approach, the original form is still used by
three methods and their data collection forms, we assessed many in the industry.
the:
Risk vs. Hazard
Something is considered a hazard if it simply has the potential (no
• similarities and differences, matter how small) to cause harm. In contrast, risk is the likelihood
• perceived advantages and disadvantages, that a potential hazard will cause harm, and risk is situation
dependent. For example, even very hazardous waste materials can
• time required for completion of a basic visual assessment, pose minimal risk to health and safety, if handled and contained
and appropriately. Similarly, large trees with compromised structures
near targets are more likely to cause harm than small trees with the
• potential application in commercial arboriculture and same probability of failure in remote areas.
municipal forestry settings.
Advantages: The ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form sum-
marizes an industry-accepted method for documenting risk
and prioritizing hazard abatement efforts. The level of detail
is suitable for a basic visual assessment of an individual or
small group of trees. When used correctly, the hazard rating
can prioritize pruning, removals, and other mitigation
options.

Disadvantages: The time required to complete this form

makes it difficult to assess large populations of trees in a
municipal setting. However, the final numerical rating used
for comparing the relative risk of trees plays a prominent
role in the process and is a key focal point in the form.
As such, the final hazard rating runs the risk of being
misused by commercial or consulting arborists who inspect
individual trees in a residential setting (see Quantitative vs.
Figure 1. The three risk assessment processes reviewed all included
data entry forms to facilitate the systematic collection of standardized
Qualitative Risk Assessment sidebar).
information.
Credits: Gitta Hasing

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 2

 Advantages: The USDA Forest Service Community Tree
Risk Evaluation Form is fairly simple to use, concise (10
trees per printed page), and relatively fast to complete com-
pared with the other methods assessed. The risk rating and
tree defect codes standardized data collection and made
paper data entry faster. Similarly, using standard corrective
action codes can prescribe remedial measures for evaluated
trees at the time of assessment. While this nomenclature
can be an initial hurdle, with time its use should further
reduce the time needed to assess each tree.

In our assessment, the time required to complete the USDA

Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form took
about 10 minutes or about half the time required for the
other forms. This factor alone makes this form a compelling
Figure 2. Urban trees can often impact multiple targets. choice for urban foresters and others charged with manag-
Credits: Gitta Hasing ing large populations of trees.
Time Required to Complete: Approximately 20 minutes Disadvantages: With the increased efficiency of the USDA
for a basic, 360-degree visual assessment, using a diameter Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form
tape and a digital hypsometer (Figure 2). Time required comes some sacrificed detail, especially with regard to
should decrease as the user gains greater familiarity with site history and condition (factors that are provided as
the process and form. background information, but are largely excluded from the
actual ratings produced by either of the ISA forms). Site
Use in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry: The ISA Tree history can be crucial because certain parts of Florida are
Hazard Evaluation Form is best suited for a commercial more prone to hurricanes and thunderstorms. Similarly,
arborist or urban forester working with smaller tree site development is important because rising water tables
populations (e.g., the trees present on a residential lot or a can injure tree roots and predispose them to catastrophic
high-use municipal property). Given the time requirements failure.
and labor costs, its usefulness in assessing large populations
of urban trees will be limited for most cities. Additionally, while the standard codes facilitate the rapid
recording of defects, the user has limited flexibility in
Form: To view the form, see the appendix or visit http:// describing unique problems encountered in the urban en-
[Link]/education/resources/educ_TreeHazard- vironments (e.g., utility conflicts, invasive species prone to
[Link]. specific modes of failure, or poor spacing). While including
notes in the optional “Other Risks Factor Ratings” column
USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk alleviates some of this, data consistency may become an
Evaluation Process and Form issue. Alternatively, one could add the list of defect codes to
Background: The USDA Community Tree Risk Evalua- match typical conditions in a given region.
tion Form was developed by Jill Pokorny et al. (2003) as
part of the USDA Forest Service guide, Urban Tree Risk As with many tools developed in the northern United
Management: A Community Guide to Program Design and States, there are species-specific issues that can arise when
Implementation. The form summarizes and leads the user using this form in the South. For example, in Florida, live
through a seven-step process, which includes identifying oaks (Quercus virginiana) are commonly used in the urban
defective trees in target areas and determining the defects’ environment. This species typically has branches with sharp
severity, the consequences of failure, and the remedial bends or twists that, given the examples outlined in the
action recommendations intended to reduce tree risk. guide, should be described as Poor Tree Architecture (PTA)
Numeric tree risk ratings that are generated as part of this in the list of available defect codes. However, history and
process can aid communities by prioritizing the application research show live oaks are one of the more resilient species
of corrective actions. in high-wind events. Conversely, in cases where a known
defect leads to a greater species failure rate, the “Other Risk
Factor Rating” (0 to 2 points) can be used to increase the

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 3

risk rating. This also applies to cases of a tree’s location site Assessment Form is intended for trees receiving a basic
that may increase its susceptibility; for example, a laurel oak (level 2) risk assessment, and it is not designed to collect
(Quercus laurifolia) that is established in areas where water information from the advanced (level 3) or limited visual
tables are rising. (level 1) tree risk assessments. The form serves as a replace-
ment for the older ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form and is
While it’s not considered a disadvantage, the USDA Forest often called the “TRAQ form,” given its use as part of ISA’s
Service Form does not include a section for tree height Tree Risk Assessment Qualification.
measurements, and the stem diameter is the sole size
measurement. Tree height data combined with DBH can Levels of Risk Assessment (as defined by the ANSI A300 Standards for
yield important information on a tree’s vulnerability to the Tree Care Operations)
elements (i.e. for calculating wind loading). Also, the form’s • Level 1 - Limited Visual: A limited visual risk assessment is
sometimes referred to as a walk by or a drive by assessment. It is
layout does not include sufficient space to list all defect most common in urban forest scenarios where trees are abundant
codes for trees with multiple issues; thus, increasing this and resources for inspection are relatively scarce. A limited visual
area would improve the form’s functionality. is not necessarily a complete 360-degree inspection and may
be employed in situations where access is limited. Professionals
conducting a limited visual assessment identify high-risk trees that
Time Required to Complete: Approximately 10 minutes are mitigation priorities.
for a basic, 360-degree visual assessment, using a diameter • Level 2 – Basic Visual: A basic visual assessment is a 360-degree
tape. Time required should decrease as the user gains inspection from the ground that is more thorough and typically
greater familiarity with the process and form. includes height and diameter measurements. An assessor may use
binoculars for crown inspections, a mallet for sounding hollows, a
probe for inspecting cavities, and other common tools to conduct
Use in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry: The USDA For- the inspection.
est Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form is well • Level 3 – Advance Assessment: An advanced assessment can be
suited for commercial arborists or urban foresters working an aerial assessment or an assessment that includes quantitative
decay detection, health evaluation, wind load assessment, and
with key urban tree populations (e.g., downtown street trees
static load assessment. Given the more advanced tools and
or trees along evacuation routes). methodologies employed, this service is often offered at a premium
to the customer and typically reserved for heritage or high-value
Form: To view the form, see the appendix or visit http:// trees.
[Link]/spfo/pubs/uf/utrmm/chptr3_sec8.pdf.
Advantages: A major innovation in risk assessment
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Best methodology is this form’s listing of multiple targets for a
Management Practice Form single tree. The earlier ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form
Background: The International Society of Arboriculture and the USDA Forest Service Community Tree Form allow
(ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Method was developed the user to identify multiple defects, but they are both
in conjunction with the ISA’s Tree Risk Assessment Best lumped together with respect to one target rating. Even
Management Practice (BMP) Manual. The assessment though the urban environment can make risk assessment
form and the BMP manual, which represent the work of E. a complex endeavor (Figure 3), this form provides a flex-
Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, draw on ible, yet standardized means of coping with multi-faceted
insights gained from risk analysis theory. The ISA Tree Risk assessment scenarios.

Figure 3. The final numeric hazard rating plays a prominent role in the older ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form.
Credits: Gitta Hasing

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 4

Like the older ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form, this form failure. These key similarities serve as an indication that any
is two pages and is designed to guide the user through a method could suit arborists and urban foresters in the field.
thorough, basic visual assessment. It also includes gridded The additional site data collected, coding, or refinements to
spaces for the user to map targets and draw major trunk the final rating derivation process may make a particular
defects. method stand out to a certain user group, depending on the
group’s needs and resources.
Finally, this new assessment method discards numerical
ratings that were useful for urban foresters assessing tree
populations but were often misunderstood and misused by
tree care practitioners. Instead, the overall risk ratings are
derived from a sequence of decision matrices, which factor
in target, likelihood of failure, and consequence of failure
with regard to target.

Disadvantages: The level of detail required to complete this

form significantly increases the time required to complete
an assessment. While replacing numerical ratings makes
sense methodologically, reducing the final, cumulative
rating to four possible outcomes (low, moderate, high, and
extreme) could potentially limit one’s ability to prioritize
tree mitigation efforts when dealing with tree populations.
As such, this form’s use may be limited in assessing sizeable
tree populations that urban forestry managers administer,
unless individual trees of local or historical significance are
being evaluated.

Time Required to Complete: Approximately 20-25 minutes

for a basic, 360-degree visual assessment, using a diameter Figure 4. All three forms include qualitative ratings for size of affected
part and probability of failure (given defect type).
tape and a digital hypsometer. Time required should Credits: Gitta Hasing
decrease as the user gains greater familiarity with the
process and form. The need for collecting risk assessment data efficiently is
critical to both private arborists and urban forestry pro-
Use in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry: The ISA Tree grams. Care must be taken, however, to ensure the speed
Hazard Evaluation Form is best suited for a commercial of data collection does not lead to a loss of accuracy and
arborist or urban forester working with individual trees or consistency, which are integral for an effective risk rating. It
smaller tree populations. must also be kept in mind that these three risk assessment
methods do not substitute for a more thorough level three
Form: To view the form, see the appendix or visit http://
assessment or an advanced assessment, where and when
[Link]/education/resources/BasicTreeRiskAs-
warranted. It is the arborist’s or urban forester’s responsibil-
sessmentForm_FirstEdition.pdf.
ity to ensure that no unwarranted mitigation, including tree
removal, occurs because of his or her assessments. All trees
To view more detailed, step-by-step instructions for this
are unique, and no set of procedures can be standardized
form, see the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Manual or visit
to successfully meet all clients’ specific needs and their tree
[Link]
resources. The client, whether it’s a private landowner or
resources/ISABasicTreeRiskAssessmentForm_Instructions.
municipal government, relies on the arborist’s or urban
pdf.
forester’s training and experience to use the most appropri-
ate risk assessment tools.
Conclusions
All of the methodologies above draw on the same core Finally, as technology advances and becomes less expensive,
risk principal, and assess potential targets, the likelihood all or key parts of the forms can be programed with
of failure, and the consequences of partial or whole tree off-the-shelf data collection programs. This allows the

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 5

user to use mobile devices, such as an iPad or Android/
Windows-based tablet, to decrease data entry errors, to
minimize the time required for data entry, and to increase
organization and updating when the user returns to his or
her office. Regardless of data collected through paper or
electronic means, accurately assessed and collected tree
risk information is critical to minimize injury and property
damage when trees fail.

References
Dunster, J., E.T. Smiley, N. Matheny, and S. Lilly. 2013.
Tree Risk Assessment – Manual. International Society of
Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

Matheny, N. and J. Clark. 1994. A Photographic Guide to

the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. 2nd Ed.
International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL. Po-
korny, J. 2003. Urban Tree Risk Management: A Community
Guide to Program Design and Implementation. USDA-FS
NA-TP03-03

Smiley, E.T., N. Matheny, and S. Lilly. 2011. Best Manage-

ment Practices: Tree Risk Assessment. International Society
of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

TCIA. 2011. A300 (Part 9)-2011 Tree Risk Assessment a.

Tree Structure Assessment. Tree Care Industry Association,
Inc., Londonderry, NH.

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 6

General Comparison of Data Collected
Table 1. Comparison of inspection meta-data (inspector, client, date, etc.), location, and site information collected from the ISA
Tree Hazard Evaluation, the USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation, and the ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP forms.
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation USDA Forest Service ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP
Form Community Tree Risk Form Form
Inspection Data
•Client Information X X X
•Inspector/Assessor X X X
•Date/Time X X X
•Address/Location X X X
•Last Inspection Date X
•Time Framez X
•Assessment Tools Used X

Site Condition/History
•Site Type/Zoning X
•Past Construction Activity X X
•Root Conflicts/Restrictions X X
•Soil Conditions/ Drainage X X
•Wind Conditions/ Exposure X X
•Sign obstruction X X

Time frame in which assessments of likelihood of failure are made (e.g., the tree has an imminent likelihood of failure in the next five years).
z

Table 2. Comparison of tree health and defect data collected from the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation, the USDA Forest Service
Community Tree Risk Evaluation, and the ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP forms.
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form USDA Forest Service ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP
Community Tree Risk Form Form
Tree Health
•Vigor Rating X X
•Foliar Condition X X
•Woundwood Development X X
•Pest/Disease X X
•Species Failure Profilez Xy X

Tree Structure
•Height X X
•DBH X X X
•Root/Root Crown Defect List X X X
•Trunk Defect List X X X
•Scaffold Branches/Limbs Defect List X X X
•Crown/Branches Defect List X X X
Observed weaknesses in a given species, variety, or cultivar, given typical and severe weather events
z

Can be incorporated in the optional Other Risk Factors column (1-2 pts)
y

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 7

Table 3. Comparison of initial ratings, which include Target Assessment, Likelihood of Failure, and Consequences of Failure, with
Final Ratings in the ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation, USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Evaluation, and ISA Tree Risk Assessment
BMP forms.
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Form USDA Forest Service Community Tree ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP Form
Risk Form
Target Assessment
•Form Section Title Target Rating Probability of Target Impact Likelihood of Impacting Target
•Rating Type Numeric (1-4 Points) Numeric (1-3 Points) Descriptive (4 Categories)
•Levels (1) Occasional Use (1) Occasional Use Very Low
(2) Intermittent Use (2) Intermediate Use Low
(3) Frequent Use (3) Frequent Use Medium
(4) Constant Use High

Likelihood of Failure
•Form Section Title Failure Potential Probability of Failure Likelihood of Failure
•Rating Type Numeric (1-4 Points) Numeric (1-4 Points) Descriptive (4 Categories)
•Levels (1) Low (1) Low Improbable
(2) Medium (2) Moderate Possible
(3) High (3) High Probable
(4) Severe (4) Extremely High Imminent

Consequences of Failure
•Form Section Title Size of Part Size of Defective Part(s) Consequences of Failure
•Rating Type Numeric (1-4 Points) Numeric (1-3 Points) Descriptive (4 Categories)
•Levels (in inches) (1) less than 6 (1) less than 4 Negligible
(2) 6-18 (2) 4-20 Minor
(3) 18-30 (3) greater than 20 Significant
(4) greater than 30 Severe

Final Rating
•Form Section Hazard Rating Risk Rating Risk Rating
•Rating Type Numeric (3-12 Points) Numeric (3-10 points + 2 optional points) Descriptive (4 categories)
•Derived from Sum of “Failure Potential Rating,” Sum of “Probability of Failure,” Size of Series of guided decision matrices
“Size of Part,” and “Target Rating” Defective Part,” and “Probability of Target”
•Levels Number from 3-12 Number from 3-10 (12) (1) Low
(2) Moderate
(3) High
(4) Extreme

Tree Risk Assessment Methods: A Comparison of Three Common Evaluation Forms 8