Risk and Reward Perception and Risk-Taking: Applicability, Relationship, and Implication in Construction Safety

While safety improvements have been made in the construction industry, construction still experiences one of the highest numbers of fatalities annually compared to other industries in the United States with over 970 fatalities in 2016 alone. This number of fatalities drives researchers and safety managers to improve safety measures and practices, and to gain a better understanding of why accidents happen. One of the main hurdles facing safety managers across the United States is workers’ risk taking. While risk perception and risk taking have been studied extensively in construction, there is a general lack of research that factors in the impact of risk taking or the biases in risk perception. Most prior studies have considered workers’ risk perception of the hazards present in their work as an accurate assessment of safety risk. Biases in risk perception were rarely examined. Furthermore, the factors influencing workers’ risk perception were often studied individually. While that approach might provide an explanation of the impact of a certain factor (e.g., the amount and quality of training) on safety risk perception, this approach often fails to examine the bigger picture and does not give a clear transition for the implications of that single factor on overall risk taking. Therefore, a need for a holistic approach directed at a worker’s risk taking has risen. This study addresses this knowledge gap by conducting an all-inclusive approach to safety risk perception, the factors influencing it, and how it impacts a worker’s decision making. By conducting a very detailed literature review in construction safety, occupational safety, and decision-making literature, the main factors influencing perception and risk aking were highlighted. This study utilized multiple forms of data collection, both at the national level and at the state level, to conduct the various analyses that were carried out in the research. Throughout the four manuscripts of this dissertation, new and unstudied biases in workers’ risk perception are presented and discussed, occupational rewards are defined, the connections between the perception of risk and reward are established, and the implications of all of those issues on worker’s risk taking are investigated and outlined. The findings of this study indicate that workers’ risk perception is influenced by many factors that have not been examined in prior studies. Workers were found to assess the same risk differently depending on the person that might be impacted by that risk. This bias has not previously been studied in construction safety research. Furthermore, this study presents a modern definition of occupational rewards that reflects what workers perceive as being a reward in their job. The study also presents the perceived rewards as indicated by the construction workers in four different categories (financial, developmental, social, and personal) and illustrates the impact of the rewards on attracting new workers to the industry, as well as retaining and motivating the existing workforce. The study also establishes the presence of a connection between the perceptions of risk and reward in construction workers’ assessment even though workers failed to directly identify the connection. Finally, the study utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine construction workers’ risk taking that took into consideration multiple factors highlighted throughout the previous steps. The findings of this study provide the foundation for future research in this field, and can have a great impact on improving safety outcomes in practice if addressed properly in a company’s safety plan

A Review of Safety Risk Theories and Models and the Development of a Digital Highway Construction Safety Risk Model

This study conducts a systematic review of safety risk models and theories by summarizing and comparing them to identify the best strategies that can be adopted in a digital ‘conceptual’ safety risk model for highway workers’ safety. A mixed philosophical paradigm was adopted (that used both interpretivism and post-positivism couched within inductive reasoning) for a systematic review and comparative analysis of existing risk models and theories. The underlying research question formulated was: can existing models and theories of safety risk be used to develop this proposed digital risk model? In total, 607 papers (where each constituted a unit of analysis and secondary data source) were retrieved from Scopus and analysed through colour coding, classification and scientometric analysis using VOSViewer and Microsoft Excel software. The reviewed models were built on earlier safety risk models with minor upgrades. However, human elements (human errors, human risky behaviour and untrained staff) remained a constant characteristic, which contributed to safety risk occurrences in current and future trends of safety risk. Therefore, more proactive indicators such as risk perception, safety climate, and safety culture have been included in contemporary safety risk models and theories to address the human contribution to safety risk events. Highway construction safety risk literature is scant, and consequently, comprehensive risk prevention models have not been well examined in this area. Premised upon a rich synthesis of secondary data, a conceptual model was recommended, which proposes infusing machine learning predictive models (augmented with inherent resilient capabilities) to enable models to adapt and recover in an event of inevitable predicted risk incident (referred to as the resilient predictive model). This paper presents a novel resilient predictive safety risk conceptual model that employs machine learning algorithms to enhance the prevention of safety risk in the highway construction industry. Such a digital model contains adaptability and recovery mechanisms to adjust and bounce back when predicted safety risks are unavoidable. This will help prevent unfortunate events in time and control the impact of predicted safety risks that cannot be prevented

Preliminary human safety assessment (PHSA) for the improvement of the behavioral aspects of safety climate in the construction industry

Occupational safety in the construction industry still represents a relevant problem at a global level. In fact, the complexity of working activities in this sector requires a comprehensive approach that goes beyond normative compliance to guarantee safer working conditions. In particular, empirical research on the factors influencing the unsafe behavior of workers needs to be augmented. Thus, the relationship between human factors and safety management issues following a bottom-up approach was investigated. In particular, an easy-to-use procedure that can be used to better address workers' safety needs augmenting the company's safety climate and supporting safety management issues was developed. Such an approach, based on the assessment of human reliability factors, was verified in a real case study concerning the users of concrete mixer trucks. The results showed that the majority of human failures were action and retrieval errors, underlining the importance of theoretical and practical training programs as a means to improve safety behavior. In such a context, information and communication activities also resulted beneficially to augment the company's safety climate. The proposed approach, despite its qualitative nature, allows a clearer understanding of workers' perceptions of hazards and their risk-taking behavior, providing practical cues to monitor and improve the behavioral aspects of safety climate. Hence, these first results can contribute to augmenting safety knowledge in the construction industry, providing a basis for further investigations on the causalities related to human performances, which are considered a key element in the prevention of accidents

A scientometric analysis and review of fall from height research in construction

Fall from height (FFH) in the construction industry has earned much attention among researchers in recent years. The present review-based study introduced a science mapping approach to evaluate the FFH studies related to the construction industry. This study, through an extensive bibliometric and scientometric assessment, recognized the most active journals, keywords and the nations in the field of FFH studies since 2000. Analysis of the authors’ keywords revealed the emerging research topics in the FFH research community. Recent studies have been discovered to pay more attention to the application of Computer and Information Technology (CIT) tools, particularly building information modelling (BIM) in research related to FFH. Other emerging research areas in the domain of FFH include rule checking, and prevention through design. The findings summarized the mainstream research areas (e.g., safety management program), discussed existing research gaps in FFH domain (e.g., the adaptability of safety management system), and suggests future directions in FFH research. The recommended future directions could contribute to improving safety for the FFH research community by evaluating existing fall prevention programs in different contexts; integrating multiple CIT tools in the entire project lifecycle; designing fall safety courses to workers associated with temporary agents and prototype safety knowledge tool development. The current study was restricted to the FFH literature sample included the journal articles published only in English and in Scopus

Heat Strain in Road Construction Workers During the Summer, An Observational Study

Road construction workers perform physically demanding, typically including building frames, laying concrete and asphalt, and operating heavy machinery. These activities result in high metabolic demands, leading to significant internal heat production. When combined with environmental heat stress during warmer periods of the year, road construction workers may experience substantial heat strain, making them susceptible to heat-related illnesses and ultimately heat-related deaths. In fact, construction workers are 13 times more likely to die from heat related illness compared to other occupations. Despite these statistics, no studies have assessed heat strain in road construction workers during the summer. PURPOSE: To quantify heat strain in road construction workers during a typical workday in the summer. METHODS: Seven male road construction workers were monitored for markers heat strain during a typical work day in the summer. Core and skin temperatures were continuously monitored on participants throughout the day, and hydration was assessed via changes in urine specific gravity (USG) and body weight from the beginning to end of the workday. Heat index (HI) was calculated from dry bulb temperature and humidity continuous measurements for the duration of the workday. RESULTS: Two of the seven workers (29%) reached a peak core temperature of greater than 38.0°C, which is a threshold used by OSHA to identify heat exhaustion. Peak values for core temperature were 37.89 ± 0.16°C, with average values being 37.42 ± 0.36°C. Peak values for skin temperature were 36.71 ± 0.62°C, with average values being 34.21 ± 1.43°C. The peak heat index was 34.1°C, with a peak dry bulb temperature of 36.1°C. There were no significant changes in USG (p=0.30), however workers had a significant decrease in body weight (0.85 ± 1.0%) from pre to post-work (p=0.02). There was a moderate, positive correlation between heat index and core temperature (p=0.001, r2=0.38) CONCLUSION: Road construction workers experience significant heat strain while working in the summer, even when working in moderately hot dry conditions. This heat strain is likely dependent upon changes in environmental heat. Introduction Road construction workers perform many different tasks including laying concrete or asphalt, repaving previously built roads, and operating heavy machinery6. Many of these tasks require a considerable degree of physical exertion, resulting in significant metabolic stress15. Previous research indicated that the average energy expenditure of road construction workers corresponds to a level III category of “hard work” according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) “work heaviness classification.”16. These researches further demonstrates that road construction workers experience substantial cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and metabolic demand, often resulting in fatigue and musculoskeletal work-related injuries15. While these musculoskeletal injuries resulting from mechanical stress of physical labor have been documented, 5,16 less is known about the potential detrimental effects of heat stress associated with the high rates of metabolic demand. In addition to metabolic heat stress, road construction workers are frequently exposed to the challenges of working in outdoor, uncovered environments, with the challenge overcoming excessive heat during warmer periods of the year7. Since road construction workers perform their job task in outdoor spaces, they are exposed to environmental heat stress during summer months. Environmental heat stress is composed of heat radiation, air temperature, humidity, and air velocity,8which likely all fluctuate throughout a typical work shift outdoors. Furthermore, road construction workers are required to wear protective clothing while working, 2 which may contribute to an impaired ability to dissipate heat 9,19. These factors combined contribute as risk factor for increased heat strain, which is considered the physiological responses to heat stress. 13 Elevated core temperature, a common measure of heat strain, 10,13 is considered a risk factors for heat-related illness18. In fact, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists1 has established threshold limits, including recommending that workers maintain a core temperature of less than 38°C 2,17. It is, therefore, not surprising that construction workers as a whole have been found to be thirteen times more likely to die from heat-related illnesses compared to workers of other occupations11. Shockingly, despite these concerns, no previous research has assessed the heat strain experienced by road construction workers experience in the summer. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to report heat strain and heat stress in road construction workers during work in the summer. Methods Seven male road construction workers in New Mexico agreed to participate in this study. Workers were consented and screened for health risks prior to participating in this study. All data was collected during a single work day, at a single job site in July of 2023. Immediately prior to their work day, workers met with researchers for measurements, including height and weight. Urine was then collected to assess urine specific gravity (USG). Next, workers were given a Polar heart rate chest strap to wear, and an iButton skin temperature device was applied to the chest for continuous heart rate and skin temperature recording, respectively. An ingestible core temperature pill, which continuously recorded core temperature every minute, was given to participants to ingest. Following these initial procedures and measurements, workers engaged in their usual work routines for approximately eight hours and minimal disturbance by researchers occurred during the work shift. At the end of the shift, body weight was measured again in order to calculate percent change in body weight. Urine sample was collected again to measure USG, and all research equipment was removed from subjects. Finally, workers were surveyed to identify their peak and average values throughout the work shift of rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on a scale of 6- “no exertion at all” to 20- “maximal exertion” (Borg, 1982), thermal sensation (TS) on the ASHRAE 9-point scale ranging from “-4-very cold” to “+4-very hot”2 and thermal comfort (TC) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1-Comfortable to 5-Intolerable 13. Heat index, dry bulb temperature, wet bulb temperature, and relative humidity were monitored and recorded continuously in the area which workers were primarily working. Statistical Analysis: Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation. Paired samples T-test were conducted to assess differences in USG and body weight between pre- and post-work time points. A Pearson correlation was generated to compare the relationships of heat index and peak core temperature. Significance levels were set at p\u3c0.05. Results Seven male construction workers (age = 38.9 ± 13.7 years, height = 169.1 ± 6.0 cm, body weight = 86.1 ± 25.4 kg) completed this descriptive study. All workers were engaged in outdoor activities, in an uncovered environment with limited opportunities for shade. Tasks varied from building forms, pouring concrete, and operating machinery. The maximal heat index was 34.1°C with an average of 28.1 ± 3.7°C. The maximum dry bulb temperature was 36.5°C, and the average was 30.0 ± 4.1°C. The maximum wet bulb temperature was 22.2°C with an average of 15.3 ± 1.1°C. Relative humidity peaked at 50.4 with an average of 24.4 ± 8.3%. Heat Strain Figure 1A displays core temperature of all seven workers. Figure 1B presents the average peak core temperature, which was 37.89 ± 0.16°C. Two of seven subjects (29%) reached a peak core temperature greater than 38°C, and the highest value recorded was 38.1°C. The average core temperature throughout the workday was 37.42 ± 0.36°C. The average peak skin temperature was 36.71 ± 0.62°C, and the average skin temperature throughout the workday was 34.21 ± 1.43°C. A B [A1] Figure 1. Core temperature of road construction workers displayed as A) average core temperature (red line) ± standard deviation (black line) throughout a work shift and B) individual peak core temperature (N=7). Hydration There was no significant difference between USG before (1.020 ± 0.01) and after (1.024 ± 0.01) the work shift (p= 0.30). However, there was a significant decrease in body weight from pre-shift (86.1 ± 25.4 kg) to post-shift (85.3 ± 25.2kg) (p=0.023), with an overall percent body weight loss of 0.85 ± 1.0%. Perceptions of Exertion, Comfort, and Thermal Environment The reported peak RPE was 14.1 ± 2.5, corresponding to a perceived exertion just between than “somewhat hard” and “hard (heavy).” The average RPE was 11.6 ± 1.9 corresponding to a perceived exertion of “light.” The peak TC in workers was 2.7 ± 0.8 just below “uncomfortable”, with an average of 2.0 ± 0.6 corresponding to “slightly uncomfortable.” Finally, the peak TS was 3.1 ± 0.4 “hot”, with average TS being 2.2 ±0.5 “warm”.[A2] Heat Index and Core Temperature Correlation Figure 2 demonstrates a moderate, positive correlation between heat index and core temperature (p=0.0010, r2=0.3792). The generated equation, core temperature = 36.74 + 0.0256*(heat index), indicates that for every one-degree Celsius increase in heat index, there is an associated increase of 0.0256°C in core temperature in road construction workers[A3] [A4] . Figure 2. Linear regression between heat index and average core temperature. Core temperature = 36.74 + 0.0256*(heat index). Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate heat strain in road construction workers during work in the summer and provide novel insight about heat strain measuring core temperature. Our primary finding was that approximately 29% of workers reached a peak core temperature exceeding the 38.0°C threshold recommended by ACGIH1. This finding provides evidence that some road construction workers experience significant heat strain during work in the summer, which puts them at increased risk for heat-related illnesses 18. Additionally, we demonstrated a moderate, positive correlation between heat index and core temperature, indicating that environmental heat is likely related to these elevated peak core temperature values. An evaluation of exposure limits by 19 suggested based off of their findings that a threshold value of 29.4°C for heat index may be an effective threshold to identify increased risk in outdoor workers for heat-related illness. The peak heat index of 34.1°C recorded in our study was much higher (4.7°C) than this recommended threshold, suggesting that the road workers in this study were at a significant risk for heat-related illness. This elevated risk was reflected by the 29% of the workers reaching a core temperature greater than 38.0°C. Workers appeared to sense this heat strain, as reflected by an average peak TS of 3.1 (“hot”), and the average peak TC was 2.2 (“warm”). These findings indicate that road construction workers may appropriately sense heat stress in relation to heat strain. Conversely, previous research by Runkle et al. (2019) found a mismatch between perception of heat strain and heat strain risk in outdoor workers during the summer. Interestingly, we found that road construction workers had a lower average RPE (11.6 ± 1.9) compared to research done by Roja et al. (2006), who found an average RPE of 15 ± 2. These contrasting values represent a difference of “light” work compared to “hard (heavy)” work, which may be influenced by factors such as workday variation, job sites, environmental conditions and worker population. This is a notable finding, as this difference in perceived exertion may also be indicative of differences in workload, and therefore potentially metabolic heat production. A limitation of this study was that we had a small sample size of seven workers. Future research is needed in road construction workers on a larger scale is warranted to further quantify their work-related heat strain, explore possible cooling strategies, and identify appropriate risk factors for heat-related illness. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that some road construction workers experience significant heat strain while working in the summer, with heat strain positively correlated to environmental heat index. References 1. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents-Heat Stress and Heat Strain. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 2016. ASHRAE. (1968). Handbook of fundamentals. New York: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers. 3. Baral, P., & Koirala, M. P. (2022). Assessment of Safety and Health Practices in Road Construction. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 12(04), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojsst.2022.124008 4. Borg, G. A. (1982). Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14(5), 377–381. 5. Bovenzi, M. (2005). Health effects of mechanical vibration. Giornale Italiano Di Medicina Del Lavoro Ed Ergonomia, 27(1), 58–64. 6. Burstyn, I., Kromhout, H., & Boffetta, P. (2000). Literature review of levels and determinants of exposure to potential carcinogens and other agents in the road construction industry. AIHAJ: A Journal for the Science of Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety, 61(5), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660008984582 7. Calvache Ruales, M. F., Westerhausen, S., Zapata Gallo, H. A., Strehl, B., Naza Guzman, S. D., Versteeg, H., Stöppelmann, W., & Wittlich, M. (2022). UVR Exposure and Prevention of Street Construction Workers in Colombia and Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7259. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127259 8. Gao, C., Kuklane, K., Östergren, P.-O., & Kjellstrom, T. (2018). Occupational heat stress assessment and protective strategies in the context of climate change. International Journal of Biometeorology, 62(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-017-1352-y 9. Glitz, K. J., Seibel, U., Rohde, U., Gorges, W., Witzki, A., Piekarski, C., & Leyk, D. (2015). Reducing heat stress under thermal insulation in protective clothing: Microclimate cooling by a “physiological” method. Ergonomics, 58(8), 1461–1469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1013574 10. Gonzalez, R. R., McLellan, T. M., Withey, W. R., Chang, S. K., & Pandolf, K. B. (1997). Heat strain models applicable for protective clothing systems: Comparison of core temperature response. Journal of Applied Physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985), 83(3), 1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1997.83.3.1017 11. Gubernot, D. M., Anderson, G. B., & Hunting, K. L. (2015). Characterizing occupational heat-related mortality in the United States, 2000-2010: An analysis using the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries database. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 58(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22381 12. Ioannou, L. G., Gkikas, G., Mantzios, K., Tsoutsoubi, L., & Flouris, A. D. (2021). Risk assessment for heat stress during work and leisure. In Toxicological Risk Assessment and Multi-System Health Impacts from Exposure (pp. 373–385). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85215-9.00004-0 13. Ioannou, L. G., Tsoutsoubi, L., Mantzios, K., Vliora, M., Nintou, E., Piil, J. F., Notley, S. R., Dinas, P. C., Gourzoulidis, G. A., Havenith, G., Brearley, M., Mekjavic, I. B., Kenny, G. P., Nybo, L., & Flouris, A. D. (2022). Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 3: Multi-country field evaluation and consensus recommendations. Temperature, 9(3), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2022.2044739 ISO 10551. (1995). Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Assessment of the influence of the thermal environment using subjective judgement scales. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland. 15. Meerding, W. J., IJzelenberg, W., Koopmanschap, M. A., Severens, J. L., & Burdorf, A. (2005). Health problems lead to considerable productivity loss at work among workers with high physical load jobs. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(5), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.016 16. Roja, Z., Kalkis, V., Vain, A., Kalkis, H., & Eglite, M. (2006). Assessment of skeletal muscle fatigue of road maintenance workers based on heart rate monitoring and myotonometry. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 1(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-1-20 17. Seo, Y., Powell, J., Strauch, A., Roberge, R., Kenny, G. P., & Kim, J.-H. (2019). Heat stress assessment during intermittent work under different environmental conditions and clothing combinations of effective wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 16(7), 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2019.1612523 18. Spector, J. T., Krenz, J., & Blank, K. N. (2015). Risk Factors for Heat-Related Illness in Washington Crop Workers. Journal of Agromedicine, 20(3), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2015.1047107 19. Tustin, A. W., Lamson, G. E., Jacklitsch, B. L., Thomas, R. J., Arbury, S. B., Cannon, D. L., Gonzales, R. G., & Hodgson, M. J. (2018). Evaluation of Occupational Exposure Limits for Heat Stress in Outdoor Workers—United States, 2011-2016. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(26), 733–737. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6726a1 [A1]Remove the lines from the border. [A2]Is this correct? 2 is warm and 3 is hot [A3]These number of core were captured at the same time of the HI measurement, correct? [A4]Correc

DETERMINANTS OF CONSTRUCTION FIRMS' COMPLIANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

The management of health and safety issues is very significant in the construction industry in South Africa in terms of accident rates and cost to contractors. The costs arise from both the cost of compliance with regulations and the cost of accidents and injuries. In spite of the fact that available evidence shows that construction-related accidents and injuries are on the increase in South Africa, many designers and contractors regard the cost of complying with regulations as unnecessary additional financial burdens. It is against this background that this study investigated the statutory regulations relating to health and safety in construction in South Africa and the level of compliance with the regulations and motivation for compliance by contractors. Data obtained from contractors in a questionnaire survey the Western Cape Province of South Africa were analysed using percentage scores and mean score analysis with the aid of the SPSS software. Although the validity of the findings is limited by sample size used in the survey, it is hoped that the findings will provide empirical basis for a more inclusive survey of H&S in the construction industry in South Africa. Keywords: health and safety, regulations, enforcement & compliance, construction industry, South Africa