Our industry

[Bundle 2]

Not without being able to promote the case for tree management in the same way.

Its been vocalised before on here,,are there any figures to show that we are doing a neccessary job, reducing accidents and mitigating risk whilst promoting tree health and sustainability r=etc etc...?

'Cos if you read this rather self satisfied tome from a govt commissioned authority, they are doing a good job at congratulating themselves for doin' sweet F.A.

Risky business.pdf

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I think I am going to have to print that off as a bit of bedtime reading and get back to you on that one.

 

Its great having so many people to talk to, all with their own interests in certain areas.

 

makes you look at things you wouldnt normaly think about.

 

i get so wrapped up in mycology i dont even consider all the wider issues in arboriculture half the time.

 

A quality thread mr sorensen

[Andy Clark]

But that's just it Bundle..... those that are seen as "Industry leaders", don't! Those that SHOULD be coming up with the strategies, aren't!

 

Just look at the recent ho-ha that came off the back of "Trees in Towns 2", between the AA and Mark Johnston...... Trees in Towns II author Mark Johnston slams Arboricultural Association for missing 'heaven-sent opportunity' | Horticulture Week

 

Don't get me wrong, i don't wanna turn this into yet another AA bashing, but the pure and simple fact i that it all boils down to leadership, and unfortunately this industry doesn't have any.

[Andy Clark]

i have to ask does anybody know the figures for estimated output contibutions from forestry versus Arboriculture?

 

is the new bias toward biomass going to further enhance the FC position?

 

What generates more jobs, forestry or arboriculture?

 

with these facts we can begin to wonder and ask questions as to why there is such inbalance in funding and support

 

It's an old doc. now, but in A critical analysis of the role of trees in damage to low rise buildings, M Lawson and D O'Callaghan mention that between 1988 and 1992, the cost in the london boroughs alone in relation to insurance claims for tree related subsidence, exceeded £23 million.

 

The same costs on a national level, were put at £16 billion!!!!

 

 

And you wonder why your house insurance is so expensive.

[Bundle 2]

Its unrealistic to suppose that what is characteristic of London with respect certainly, to subsidence, should be so childishly extrapolated to include the uk and arrive at £16 billion....i simply dont believe it!!

To some extent, I have similar reservations with regards the TIT2. An important document no doubt but if nothing else, it makes clear that there is a considerable "area" variation. Both in terms of tree cover and L.A structure,policy and funding strategies.

I agree however that this ought to be reason enough, logically, to inspire a degree of conference. Something that I think Mark Johnston has himself had to highlight.

[Andy Clark]

Its unrealistic to suppose that what is characteristic of London with respect certainly, to subsidence, should be so childishly extrapolated to include the uk and arrive at £16 billion....i simply dont believe it!!

To some extent, I have similar reservations with regards the TIT2. An important document no doubt but if nothing else, it makes clear that there is a considerable "area" variation. Both in terms of tree cover and L.A structure,policy and funding strategies.

I agree however that this ought to be reason enough, logically, to inspire a degree of conference. Something that I think Mark Johnston has himself had to highlight.

 

How so with the "childish extrapolation"?

[Bundle 2]

Are you being coy Andy...? I am not familiar with the document but given the climatic history of the 70's and the rise in subsidence claims (in particular from London's housing stock placed on clay soils), it was perhaps a leap of logic to either,( or both ) assume this level of claim across the uk as a whole and so arrive at 16 billion or to have assumed that this estimated figure was infact a projected sum derived from Londons' claims alone.

A lack of data is frustrating.

edit-Although Im not sure how you explain the steep rise in claims shown in the early nineties...!

Edited January 1, 2010 by Bundle 2

[Andy Clark]

How so with the "childish extrapolation"?

 

In relation to the figures, the doc. makes reference to a 1994 publication by the Institute of Structural Engineers.......

 

I'd hardly call that childish.

[Andy Clark]

Are you being coy Andy...? I am not familiar with the document but given the climatic history of the 70's and the rise in subsidence claims (in particular from London's housing stock placed on clay soils), it was perhaps a leap of logic to either,( or both ) assume this level of claim across the uk as a whole and so arrive at 16 billion or to have assumed that this estimated figure was infact a projected sum derived from Londons' claims alone.

A lack of data is frustrating.

 

No, not at all.

 

Just confused at how a publication written by two of our industries leading consultants could be apportioned as "childish extrapolation".

 

The data is there chap, but you just need to look in the right places to find it.

[Bundle 2]

here an excerpt from the first para...Thanks for the link btw...I will read it.

 

"The existing data do not adequately explain the problem. A review

of the situation as related to trees, biology, soil, water relations,

and the effects of climate is presented. The published data are

shown to be inadequate."

 

"£16 billion"...i think you mean £1.6 billion dont you?

Edited January 1, 2010 by Bundle 2