Risk Perception and Risk-Taking Behavior of Construction Site Dumper Drivers

• Autorzy: Bohm J. , Harris D.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the UK construction site dumpers cause more serious accidents than any other type of construction plant. Previous research has indicated that driver behavior plays a pivotal role in the vast majority of these accidents. This study used a paired comparison technique to explore dumper drivers’ and subject matter experts’ (SMEs’) risk perception and its relationship to risk-taking behavior. It was found that driver risk perception significantly differed from measures of “objective risk”, derived from accident data and also from SMEs’ risk perception. Furthermore, drivers still engaged in undertaking perceived high risk behaviors. The results suggest that driver risk perception was linked to the “perceived dread” of an accident, rather than its likelihood and that risk-taking behavior was often driven by situational factors, such as site safety rules or the behavior of other personnel on the site, together with an overarching culture that prioritizes production over safety.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

risk perception; hazard awareness; construction site dumper; construction site safety; accidents

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: Vol. 16, No. 1
• Strony: 55--67
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 33 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Bohm J.

• Health and Safety Executive, UK

autor

Harris D.

• Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

Bibliografia

• 1.Health and Safety Executive. Construction site transport safety: safe use of site dumpers (Construction information sheet No. 52, Revision 1). Sudbury, Suffolk, UK: HSE Books; 2006. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis52.pdf.
• 2.Male GE, Corbridge JS. Safety of construction transport. A survey of standards and accidents associated with construction machinery (Specialist inspector report No. 58). London, UK: Health and Safety Executive; 2001.
• 3.Bomel Ltd. The development of an evidence base to reduce the risk of workplace transport accidents (Contract research report). London, UK: Health and Safety Executive; 2004.
• 4.Rundmo T. Employee images of risk. J Risk Res. 2001;4:393–404.
• 5.Renn O. The role of risk perception for risk management. Reliab Eng Syst Safety. 1998;59:49–62.
• 6.International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Risk management—vocabulary—guidelines for use in standards (ISO/IEC Guide No. 73:2002). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2002.
• 7.Weyman AK, Kelly CJ. Risk perception and risk communication: a review of the literature (Contract research report No. 248/1999). Buxton, UK: Health and Safety Laboratory; 1999. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/1999/crr99248.pdf.
• 8.Sjoberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M. Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Anal. 1991;11: 607–18.
• 9.Sjoberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. 2000;20:1–11.
• 10.Petts JP, McAlpine S, Homan J, Sadhra S, Pattison H, MacRae S. Development of a methodology to design and evaluate effective risk messages (Contract research report No. 400). London, UK: Health and Safety Executive; 2002.
• 11.Ayres TJ, Wood CT, Schmidt RA, McCarthy RL. Risk perception and behavioral choice. Int J Cog Erg. 1998; 2:35–52.
• 12.Cox P, Niewohner J, Pidgeon N, Gerrard S, Fischhoff B, Riley D. The use of mental models in chemical risk protection: developing a generic workplace methodology. Risk Anal. 2003;23:311–24.
• 13.Rundmo T. Perceived risk, safety status, and job stress among injured and noninjured employees on offshore petroleum installations. J Safety Res. 1995;26:87–97.
• 14.Flin R, Mearns K, Gordon R, Fleming M. Risk perception by offshore workers on UK oil and gas platforms. Saf Sci. 1996; 22:131–45.
• 15.Mearns K, Flin R. Risk perception and attitudes to safety by personnel in the offshore oil and gas industry: A review. J Loss Prev Process Indust. 1995;8:299–305.
• 16.Knowles DJ. Risk perception leading to risk taking behaviour amongst farmers in England and Wales (Contract research report 404/2002). London, UK: Health and Safety Executive; 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from: http://www.hse .gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02404.pdf.
• 17.Stave C, Pousette A, Torner M. A model of the relations between risk perception and self-reported safety activity. Occup Ergon. 2006;6:35–45.
• 18.Zimolong B. Hazard perception and risk estimation in accident causation. In: Eberts RE, Eberts CG, editors. Trends in ergonomics/human factors II. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 1985. p. 463–470.
• 19.Torner M, Eklof M. Risk perception among fishermen and control of risks through participatory analysis of accidents and incidents. In: Lincoln JM, Hudson DS, Conway GA, Pescatore R, editors. Proceedings of the International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference. Cincinnati, OH, USA: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2002. p. 237–41.
• 20.Pollnac RB, Poggie JJ, Cabral SL. Thresholds of danger: perceived risk in a New England fishery. Hum Organ. 1998; 57:53–9.
• 21.Ostberg O. Risk perceptions and work behavior in forestry: implications for accident prevention policy. Acc Anal Prev. 1980;12:189–200.
• 22.Weyman AK, Clarke DD. Investigating the influence of organisational role on perceptions of risk in deep coal mines. J Appl Psychol. 2003:88;404–12.
• 23.Dunn JG.. Subjective and objective risk distribution. Occ Psychol. 1972;46:183–7.
• 24.Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.
• 25.Flin R, Mearns K, O’Connor P, Bryden R. Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features. Saf Sci. 2000;34:177–92.
• 26.Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1998:7;355–86.
• 27.Macdonald G. Risk perception. Civil Engineering. 2006; 159:51–6.
• 28.Ayres T, Wood C, Schmidt R, Young D, Murray J. Affordance perception and safety intervention. In: Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, San Diego, California, USA. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society; 2000. vol. 6, p. 51–4.
• 29.Health and Safety Executive. The safe use of vehicles on construction sites: a guide for clients, designers, contractors, managers and workers involved with construction transport. sites (Health and Safety Guidance No. 144). Sudbury, Suffolk, UK: HSE Books; 2009.
• 30.Moutrie J. Safety of construction vehicles: a survey of accidents involving site dumpers. Issue 2 (internal report for Health and Safety Executive) [unpublished document]; 2005.
• 31.Sankoh AJ, Huque, MF, Dubey SD. Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustments methods in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1997;16:2529–42.
• 32.Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1127–31.
• 33.Slovic P. The risk game. J Hazard Mater. 2001;86:17–24.