Baradan, S and Usmen, M A (2006) Comparative injury and fatality risk analysis of building trades. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(5), pp. 533-539. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Occupational injury and fatality risk analysis was performed on 16 building trades in the study reported herein. The approach was based on defining risk fundamentally as the product of probability (frequency) and severity, and using the risk plane concept to evaluate and rank the trades in terms of nonfatal injury rates. A parameter named index of relative risk was then used for fatality rate based ranking, and the results separately obtained from these analyses were integrated into a combined risk score for arriving at final rankings. Bureau of Labor Statistics data was used in the study. The risk analysis methodology included both frequency and severity considerations associated with nonfatal injuries. It was observed that simultaneous consideration of frequency and severity gives more comprehensive results than performing risk analysis based exclusively on either frequency or severity. The findings of the study indicated that ironworkers and roofers were the highest risk trades. The information derived from the methodology presented in this paper should be particularly valuable for risk managers, legal and liability experts, and project managers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accidents; fatalities; injuries; occupational safety; risk management |
| Index terms: | risk management, risk analysis, injury, economic indicator, occupational safety, building trade, fatalities, project manager, methodology, liability, roofer, risk manager |
| Subjects: | liability law, occupational health and safety management, health risk and incident analysis, research methods, data analysis and analytics, environmental hazards, profession, health conditions and diseases, practitioner, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Health and Safety, Research Practice |
| 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