Horne, K A; Gibb, A G F; Pavitt, T C and Haslam, R A (2003) D4h: Influences on designing for health: Results from interviews and questionnaires. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
Designing for Health (D4h) is a two-year UK Government-funded research project developing a strategy for best practice in designing construction projects to account for the occupational health of construction workers. For many years, health has been the 'poor relative' of safety in 'health and safety' considerations. This is an important issue where little in-depth work exists although it is rapidly becoming a key issue for many European countries. The European Temporary and Mobile Construction Sites Directive, leading to CDM in the UK, has stimulated a change in design culture in many states with designers being expected to explicitly acknowledge health and safety in their designs and seek to reduce or remove risk to construction workers. However, all the concentration so far has been on safety, to the exclusion of occupational health, except for issues surrounding hazardous substances. Twenty three semi-structured interviews of experienced design practitioners and managers regarding design phase provision for occupational health of construction workers were undertaken. In addition a nineteen question questionnaire was completed by each of the interviewees. Findings indicate that health design is influenced by a number of factors but is still overshadowed by safety when it comes to inclusion in the design process.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cdm; European tmcs directive; healthy design; risk assessment |
| Index terms: | construction site, strategy, occupational health, designer, interview, manager, becoming, design process, health and safety, construction worker, healthy design, risk assessment, construction project, best practice, questionnaire, practitioner, design phase |
| Subjects: | financial risk, health safety and environment, production management, management, design practice, philosophical process, occupational health and safety management, design methods, practitioner, business, profession, data collection methods, professional practice, work location |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Site Management, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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