The Politics of Risk
by Mark Duntemann,
Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants
August, 1996
There are two fundamental conflicts that I confront on a regular basis while assisting municipalities develop and implement progressive tree-risk management policies. The first arises when municipal vegetation managers identify and initiate the removal of high-risk trees on public property, only to have their professional judgements compromised by political pressures to retain the trees. The second occurs when municipalities or park departments are ill-prepared to defend their hazard policies in court because the concept of "reasonable care" has not been well defined well. The second conflict will be examined in a future article; here I will address only the first, which I call "the politics of risk."
In the implementation of a municipal tree-risk reduction program conflict naturally arises between the city foresters, who are trained to identify potentially hazardous trees, and homeowners, who have little or no knowledge about tree risk potential but who may have a strong emotional attachments to trees. The conflict may escalate when homeowners prevail upon elected officials, such as the mayor, board members, or council persons, to reverse removal decisions.
Hazard tree risk reduction policies are established to protect not only residents, but all users of the public space where city trees reside. On average, a home in the United States acquires a new owner every seven years; government administrations may change even more frequently. Policy is not written with only the current residents or administrations in mind, but to guarantee a consistency of response spanning such fluctuations in political climate. Veering from an established risk reduction policy to avoid short-term conflicts with homeowners thus destroys the very reason for having a policy in the first place and can place government agencies in a difficult legal position.
One the greatest difficulties faced by urban foresters in implementing tree-risk management strategies is the reluctance of many communities to take full responsibility for the trees on public property. In fact, however, there are few legal routes for communities to avoid such responsibility. To manage risk effectively communities must address difficult questions. While fear of liability may ultimately be the force driving the formation of risk management policy, professional assessment and correction of hazardous situations should be its foundation. As urban foresters, our abilty to defend our mitigation decisions depends heavily on our comfort level in identifying hazards, and this in turn is largely determined by our training and experience.
To make effective management decisions one must understand -- and be prepared to confront -- all the pertinent issues, both positive and negative. This I regard as the first major step in grappling with the question of what constitutes "reasonable care" for any community.
Strategy to Minimize the Politics of Risk
Toward the end of minimizing political interference in the risk mitigation process, I propose the following strategy:
1. Establish a clear hazard-tree risk management policy. This policy should be developed after carefully assessing not only the vegetation you manage, but your fiscal, equipment, and personnel resources. A clear policy should state its goals, the parameters in which the goals are defined, and who will administer the policy.
EXAMPLE: Hazard-tree risk management policy
The City of Metropolis has an active policy to maintain the safety of public lands from potentially hazardous trees. The City will strive to eliminate, in a timely fashion, any tree deemed hazardous. When available fiscal and human resources limit the ability of the city to remove high risk trees, priority shall be placed on trees deemed to carry the highest risk. The standard for rating the hazardousness of a tree will be the International Society of Arboriculture's twelve-point hazard evaluation system. The Superintendent of Forestry will administer this program and have final judgment in all matters concerning the mitigation measures taken for any tree deemed hazardous.
2. Have the agency you work for sign off on the policy. If elected officials agree in writing to the policy, they are more likely to back you up. You should feel comfortable that officials will support your decisions.
3. Resolve conflicts with the homeowners directly, if possible. Discuss the issues associated with hazard tree abatement in a professional manner. We have learned from Plant Health Care studies that clients react more favorably when they feel that they feel they are being given unbiased information. Homeowners may also exhibit strong personal feelings about particular trees that foresters must learn to respect.
Copyright © Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants. All rights reserved.
