Tam, C M; Fung, I W H; Yeung, T C L and Tung, K C F (2003) Relationship between construction safety signs and symbols recognition and characteristics of construction personnel. Construction Management and Economics, 21(7), pp. 745-753. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between the characteristics of construction personnel and their degree of recognition of safety signs and symbols. The safety signs and symbols are split into categories of mandatory action signs, prohibition signs and warning symbols. Thirty safety signs and symbols printed in colour and in Chinese were distributed to 560 construction personnel working in eight different construction sites in Hong Kong. The results drawn from 388 respondents indicate that substantial problems exist in comprehending the signs and symbols that are posted in construction sites. The percentages of construction personnel who correctly identified mandatory action signs, prohibition signs and warning symbols are 90%, 61% and 55% respectively. Drinking habits, involvement in on-site safety promotion activities and their job positions play a determinant role in their ability of comprehending these construction safety symbols. These findings provide meaningful implications to the industry in the design, selection and positioning of safety symbols on site.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; personnel; recognition; safety; signs; symbols |
| Index terms: | construction safety, determinant, promotion, Hong Kong, construction personnel, construction site, personnel, habit |
| Subjects: | environmental health, risk assessment, Geography, workforce, work location, health behaviours and lifestyles, management |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Human Resources, Sustainability, Site Management, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| 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