Danso, F O; Agyekum, K; Manu, P; Adinyira, E; Ahadzie, D K and Badu, E (2024) Examining the perception of site workers of their risk-taking behaviours on construction sites in Ghana. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(8), pp. 2997-3023. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Although many health and safety (H&S) studies have widely examined safety risk perception in the construction industry, few studies have explored how this perception influences site workers' risk-taking behaviours during construction. This study aims to examine how construction site workers perceive and judge safety risks in risk-taking behaviours of site workers for intervention safety policy framework that may encourage safe work. Design/methodology/approach: The study employed Pictorial-based Q-Methodology, which documented 63 picture scenarios of risk-taking behaviours from building sites and submitted them for validation from H&S inspectors. In total, 33 pictures emerged as having great potential to cause harm. After using these 33 pictures to elicit data from randomised site workers, the study used Frequency Tabulation, Relative Importance Index (RII) and Kruskal–Wallis Test to analyse the collected data. To fully explain the analysed data for deeper understanding, the study conducted Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with these site workers to share the thoughts of site workers on these pictures. Findings: Two distinctive pictures emerged from these analyses: one showing risk-taking behaviour likely to contract internal and skin disease and the other likely to fall from height. One of the implications is that construction site workers are unfamiliar with the dangerous contaminants in the materials the site workers use to work, which can potentially harm the site workers' skin and internal organs. Hence, site workers continue engaging in risk-taking behaviours. The other is that site workers are aware of and can mention catastrophic physical injuries attached to site workers' jobs. However, site workers continue engaging in risk-taking behaviours because of site workers' safety plights and rely on the favour and mercies of a supreme being as coping strategies to escape from these physical injuries. Originality/value: This study is original in that the study uses picture scenarios of risk-taking behaviours to amass an empirical-based understanding of how site workers perceive and respond to H&S risks during construction. This piece of evidence is missing in the numerous research studies in this area. Again, the findings contribute to the state-of-the-art literature regarding risk-taking behaviours on construction sites.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; construction site workers; Ghana; q-methodology; risk-taking behaviours; safety risk perception |
| Index terms: | escape, state of the art, evidence, validation, methodology, construction site, strategy, building site, relative importance index, risk perception, injury, focus group, health and safety, risk taking, construction industry, coping, Ghana |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, risk assessment, work location, decision-making and reasoning, research methods, management, professional development, site and location studies, Geography, health safety and environment, health conditions and diseases, emergency and crisis management, environmental hazards, behavioral psychology, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Risk Management, Sustainability, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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