Aksorn, T and Hadikusumo, B H W (2007) The unsafe acts and the decision-to-err factors of Thai construction workers. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 12(1), pp. 1-25. ISSN 1823-6499
Abstract
The unsafe acts of workers are considered as major contributors of work-related accidents and injuries on construction sites. However, not much work has been done to address the reasons why unsafe acts of workers occur particularly in construction industry. The aim of this paper therefore, is to investigate the major unsafe acts (i.e., at-risk behavior), and the decision-to-err factors causing unsafe acts. A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from a total of 214 workers from 20 building construction projects in Thailand. The findings revealed that the failure of workers to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), improper lifting or handling of materials, and keeping sharp objects in dangerous locations, are the major unsafe acts which frequently occur on construction sites in Thailand. In addition, the paper reported that the top three most frequent unsafe acts are statistically associated with several decision-to-err factors, including lack of management support, management pressure, group norms, overconfidence, being uncomfortable, past experience and laziness. © 2012 by Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Accident; Construction; Decision-to-err; Human factor; Safety; Unsafe behavior |
| Index terms: | risk behaviour, questionnaire, lifting, human factor, norms, injury, unsafe behaviour, construction site, building construction, survey, personal protective equipment, Thailand, construction worker, construction industry, Malaysia |
| Subjects: | decision-making and reasoning, financial risk, Geography, health conditions and diseases, building construction, sociology, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, data collection methods, practitioner, work location |
| Topics: | Site Management, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Cost 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