A cognitive analysis of why Chinese scaffolders do not use safety harnesses in construction

Zhang, M and Fang, D (2013) A cognitive analysis of why Chinese scaffolders do not use safety harnesses in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 31(3), pp. 207-222. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

Chinese scaffolders not using safety harnesses is commonplace, despite scaffolders being constantly exposed to fall hazards on construction sites and the use of safety harnesses being required by law. The causes of Chinese scaffolders not using safety harnesses are explored through theoretical analyses and empirical tests. In theoretical analyses, based on Surry's model, the major cause of scaffolders not using safety harnesses was identified as their personal decisions not to do so. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) was used to analyse why scaffolders decided not to use safety harnesses. In empirical tests, scaffolders on seven sites completed questionnaires developed based on TPB, and nine safety officers participated in a focus group meeting to collect their views on scaffolders' use of safety harnesses. In addition, two scaffolders, one gangmaster, one safety officer, and one foreman were interviewed to verify the results of the questionnaire survey. Empirical tests results show that the inconvenience and discomfort of using safety harnesses, underestimating the risk of not using safety harnesses, negative pressures from gangmasters, foremen, and safety officers, and lack of safety lines are causes of scaffolders deciding not to use safety harnesses. Measures enhancing the use of safety harnesses are proposed based on the results of empirical tests.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: China; cognitive model; safety harness; scaffolder; theory of planned behaviour
Index terms: discomfort, planned behaviour, construction site, survey, focus group, China, fall hazard, scaffolder, questionnaire
Subjects: practitioner, data collection methods, work location, Geography, health risk and incident analysis, behavioral psychology
Topics: Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Site 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