Smallwood, J J and Haupt, T C (2009) Construction ergonomics: Perspectives of female and male production workers. In: Dainty, A R J (ed.) Proceedings of 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
Construction is by its very nature a physical process. This is further aggravated by its reliance on labour and a low level of mechanisation. Construction requires, inter alia, bending, working in awkward or cramped positions, reaching away from the body, and overhead, repetitive movements, handling heavy materials and equipment, use of body force, exposure to vibration and noise, and climbing and descending. Furthermore, there are a diverse range of health and safety (H&S) issues, and given the transient and temporary nature of construction, welfare facilities constitute a challenge. Poor ergonomics and H&S results not only in injury and disease to persons, but impacts on their well being, and compromises cost, productivity, quality, and schedule. A study conducted among female and male production workers in a better practice health and safety general contractor investigated a number of issues: the frequency at which ergonomics problems are encountered; the suitability of various aspects which affect performance and wellness on site; the extent to which various activities and interventions could contribute to an improvement in construction ergonomics, and gender differences relative to the aforementioned. Findings include: construction activities constitute an ergonomic problem; various aspects, in particular welfare facilities, are not suitable, and various aspects would make workers working lives easier, in particular mechanisation and lighter materials. Conclusions include: certain construction activities constitute more of an ergonomic problem than others; construction activities constitute more of an ergonomics problem to females than males; females find many work related aspects less suitable than males; welfare facilities are not deemed suitable by both females and males, and certain activities / interventions would make females and males working lives easier, however, more so relative to females.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; ergonomics; worker |
| Index terms: | movement, general contractor, ergonomics, well-being, suitability, injury, productivity, construction activity, vibration, exposure, low level, health and safety |
| Subjects: | mechanical systems, mental health and wellbeing, management, health safety and environment, practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, measurement and scaling, public and environmental health, health conditions and diseases, design criteria, occupational health and safety management, construction operations |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Site Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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