Is the construction site a safer place under the usace or local government guidelines? The case of Afghanistan

Ibrahimkhil, M H and Hadidi, L (2023) Is the construction site a safer place under the usace or local government guidelines? The case of Afghanistan. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(4), pp. 1379-1400. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to assess the safety level of construction sites in Afghanistan following the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) safety practices and compare this with other construction sites in Afghanistan that follow local government safety guidelines. The USACE oversees and funds many infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, and these projects are supposed to follow the same standards implemented in the USA, including safety standards. The local government of Afghanistan also funds infrastructure projects in Afghanistan; however, these do not follow USACE best practices. This research explores the question of whether the USACE standards provide a safer construction site. The effect of the USACE standards on safety practices in construction projects is also investigated in the Afghanistan construction industry. Design/methodology/approach: A literature review and other safety checklists were used to develop a safety checklist containing 104 items (questions) in 17 categories. Subsequently, the checklist was used to assess the safety performance of 57 construction projects (25 USACE projects, and 32 governmental projects). Utilizing quantitative analysis, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Rho) and Mann–Whitney tests were carried out for correlation and statistical disparity between USACE and governmental projects. Findings: The safety performance level of Afghan government projects was found to be poor in relation to other developing countries, while in USACE projects it was excellent. In addition, fire prevention, safety administration, PPE, heavy equipment, and handling and storage of materials for all types of contractors were the most overlooked aspects of Afghan Government projects. Practical implications: The findings clearly demonstrate the deficiencies in construction sites observed during this study and also support the adoption of USACE standards in Afghanistan projects. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the safety of construction sites in Afghanistan. The study also demonstrates the benefits of adopting international standards (USACE) to improve the safety of construction sites in a developing country such as Afghanistan. The findings provide evidence of the safety of the Afghanistan construction industry compared to other developing countries. These findings will contribute to the Afghan Government's efforts to track injury statistics.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Afghanistan; construction site; safety; safety performance
Index terms: literature review, construction site, injury, developing country, local government, safety performance, quantitative analysis, safety standards, evidence, construction project, methodology, government project, engineer, disparity, Afghanistan, statistics, infrastructure project, construction industry, prevention, best practice
Subjects: research methods, financial risk, development economics, Geography, production management, social justice, health conditions and diseases, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, mathematical modelling, business, profession, evaluation and assessment methods, work location, data analysis and analytics
Topics: Site Management, Ethics, International Construction, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here