Chellappa, V and Gunasekaran, A L (2022) Drivers for implementing design for safety in construction: A review. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 177(1), pp. 39-49. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Design for safety is a prominent means of preventing fatalities and injuries at construction workplaces. This concept has recently gained much attention among construction safety domain researchers. A study was undertaken to explore the key drivers for implementing design for safety in construction and to identify research trends. Eighty-four journal articles published by 2020 were extracted from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The influential keywords, articles, sources and authors in the field of design for safety were examined. According to the findings, most of the studies focused on the context of designer knowledge, skill and education. Although the literature suggests that client legislation, influence and motivation were important drivers for implementing design for safety, there was limited research on these areas. The study can help academics and practitioners to understand better the key drivers for implementing design for safety in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; design; safety |
| Index terms: | designer, database, fatalities, injury, legislation, journal, motivation, science, practitioner, design for safety, construction safety |
| Subjects: | profession, health conditions and diseases, data management, environmental health, health risk and incident analysis, psychology, legal systems, research dissemination and communication, practitioner, specialized education, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Education, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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