Matete, R; Emuze, F and Smallwood, J (2024) Controlling the risk of site dust exposures in South African construction. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
This paper aims to report on the aspects of exposure to site dust. The result shared in the paper is based on semi-structured interviews of construction operatives. The data were analysed thematically after transcription. The findings confirmed that dust is a major site hazard that should be assessed. Site processes, such as the removal of rubble, use of plants and tools, such as earth-moving machines, and materials, such as cement grout, lead to exposure to dust hazards. While the data shows that several tools could be used for assessment, there is a gap in the communication of risk exposure by employers to the workers. This marginalises any control attempts on sites. The concern is that employers do not encourage workers to avoid risky, dust-related work conditions when the collective on-site knows the health-related dangers of such exposures. Workers ' complaints of health-related risks are reported to be limited or non-existent. It is crucial to highlight the importance of worker training in recognising and mitigating dust hazards.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; exposure; control; dust; health and safety; South Africa |
| Index terms: | exposure, health and safety, site process, construction operative, South Africa, interview, complaint |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, conflict resolution, operations management, Geography, data collection methods, practitioner, public and environmental health |
| Topics: | Site Management, Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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