Articles 1

Ambulatory Mobility Disabilities This subcategory includes people who can walk but with difficulty or who have a disability that affects gait. It also includes people who do not have full use of their arms or hands or who lack coordination. People who use crutches, canes, walkers, braces, artificial limbs, or orthopedic shoes are included in this category. Activities that may be difficult for people with mobility disabilities include walking, climbing steps or slopes, standing for extended periods of time, reaching, and fine finger manipulation. Generally speaking, if a person cannot physically negotiate, use, or operate some part or element of a standard building egress system, like stairs or the door locks or latches, then that person has a mobility impairment that affects his or her ability to evacuate in an emergency unless alternatives are provided. Respiratory Impairments People with a respiratory impairments can generally use the components of the egress system but may have difficulty safely evacuating due to dizziness, nausea, breathing difficulties, tightening of the throat, or difficulty concentrating. Such people may require rest breaks while evacuating. Visual Impairments This category includes people with partial or total vision loss. Some people with a visual disability can distinguish light and dark, sharply contrasting colors, or large print but cannot read small print, negotiate dimly lit spaces, or tolerate high glare. Many people who are blind depend on their sense of touch and hearing to perceive their environment. For assistance while in transit, walking, or riding, many people with visual impairments use a white cane or have a service animal. There is a risk that a person with a visual impairment would miss a visual cue, such as a new obstruction that occurred during the emergency event, that could affect egress. Generally speaking, if a person cannot use or operate some part or element of a standard building egress system or access displayed information, like signage, because that element or information requires vision in order to be used or understood, then that person has a visual impairment that could affect his or her ability to evacuate in an emergency unless alternatives are provided. Hearing Impairments People with partial hearing often use a combination of speech reading and hearing aids, which amplify and clarify available sounds. Echo, reverberation, and extraneous background noise can distort hearing aid transmission. People who are Emergency Evacuation Planning Guide for People with Disabilities Sign up free NFPA “e-ACCESS” newsletter @ www.nfpa.org/disabilities 11 deaf or hard of hearing and who rely on lip reading for information must be able to clearly see the face of the person who is speaking. Those who use sign language to communicate may be adversely affected by poor lighting. People who are hard of hearing or deaf may have difficulty understanding oral communication and receiving notification by equipment that is exclusively auditory, such as telephones, fire alarms, and public address systems. There is a risk that a person with a hearing loss or deafness would miss

an auditory cue to the location of a dangerous situation, affecting his or her ability to find safe egress. Generally speaking, if a person cannot receive some or all of the information emitted by a standard building egress system, like a fire alarm horn or voice instructions, then that person has a hearing impairment that could affect his or her ability to evacuate in an emergency unless alternatives are provided. Speech Impairments Speech impairments prevent a person from using or accessing information or building features that require the ability to speak. Speech impairments can be caused by a wide range of conditions, but all result in some level of loss of the ability to speak or to verbally communicate clearly. The only “standard” building egress systems that may require a person to have the ability to speak in order to evacuate a building are the emergency phone systems in areas of refuge, elevators, or similar locations. These systems need to be assessed in the planning process. Cognitive Impairments Cognitive impairments prevent a person from using or accessing building features due to an inability to process or understand the information necessary to use those features. Cognitive impairments can be caused by a wide range of conditions, including but not limited to developmental disabilities, multiple sclerosis, depression, alcoholism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson disease, traumatic brain injury, chronic fatigue syndrome, stroke, and some psychiatric conditions, but all result in some decreased or impaired level in the ability to process or understand the information received by the senses. All standard building egress systems require a person to be able to process and understand information in order to safely evacuate a building. Other Impairments and Multiple Impairments In addition to people with permanent or long-term disabilities, there are others who have temporary conditions that affect their usual abilities. Broken bones, illness, trauma, or surgery can affect a person’s use of the built environment for a short time. Diseases of the heart or lungs, neurological diseases with a resulting lack of coordination, arthritis, and rheumatism can reduce a person’s physical stamina or cause pain. Other disabilities include multiple chemical sensitivities and seizure disorders. Reduction in overall ability is also experienced by many people as they age. People of extreme size or weight often need accommodation as well. It is not uncommon for people to have multiple disabilities. For example, someone could have a combination of visual, speech, and hearing disabilities. Evacuation planning for people with multiple disabilities is essentially the same process as for those with individual disabilities, although it will require more steps to develop and complete more options or alternatives.

STANDARD BUILDING EVACUATION SYSTEMS A standard building evacuation system has three components: 1. The circulation path 2. The occupant notification system(s) 3. Directions to and through the circulation paths Circulation Path A circulation path is a continuous and unobstructed way of travel from any point in a building or structure to a public way. The components of a circulation path include but are not limited to rooms, corridors, doors, stairs, smoke proof enclosures, horizontal exits, ramps, exit passageways, escalators, moving walkways, fire escape stairs, fire escape ladders, slide escapes, alternating tread devices, areas of refuge, and elevators. A circulation path is considered a usable circulation path if it meets one of the following criteria: u A person with disabilities is able to travel unassisted through the circulation path to a public way. u A person with disabilities is able to travel unassisted through that portion of the circulation path necessary to reach an area of refuge. (See 7.2.12 of NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, for more information.) An area of refuge serves as a temporary haven from the effects of a fire or other emergency. The person with disabilities must have the ability to travel from the area of refuge to the public way, although such travel might depend on the assistance of others. If elevation differences are involved, an elevator or other evacuation device might be used, or the person might be moved by other people using a cradle carry, a swing (seat) carry, or an in-chair carry or by a stair descent device. (See 7.2.12 of NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, for more information.) BUILDING AN EVACUATION PLAN FOR A PERSON WITH A MOBILITY IMPAIRMENT OCCUPANT NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS No Special Requirements. People with mobility impairments can hear standard alarms and voice announcements and can see activated visual notification appliances (strobe lights) that warn of danger and the need to evacuate. No additional planning or special accommodations for this function are required. WAY FINDING Is There a Usable Circulation Path? A circulation path is considered a usable circulation path if it meets one of the following criteria: u A person with disabilities is able to travel unassisted through it to a public way. u A person with disabilities is able to travel unassisted through that portion of the circulation path necessary to reach an area of refuge. An area of refuge serves as a temporary haven from the effects of a fire or other emergency. A person with a severe mobility impairment must have the ability to travel from the area of refuge to the public way, although such travel might depend on the assistance of others. If elevation differences are involved, an elevator or other evacuation

device might be used, or others might move the person by using a wheelchair carry on the stairs. Special Note 1 People with mobility impairments need to know if there is a usable circulation path from the building they are in. If there is not a usable circulation path, then their plans will require alternative routes and methods of evacuation to be put in place. Which Circulation Paths Are Usable Circulation Paths? Exits, other than main exterior exit doors that obviously and clearly are identifiable as exits, should be marked by approved signs that are readily visible from any direction of approach in the exit access. Emergency Evacuation Planning Guide for People with Disabilities Sign up free NFPA “e-ACCESS” newsletter @ www.nfpa.org/disabilities 15 Where not all circulation paths are usable by people with disabilities, the usable circulation path(s) should be clearly identified by the international symbol of accessibility: Locations of exit signs and directional exit signs are specified by model codes. Usually the signs are placed above exit doors and near the ceiling. Supplemental directional exit signs may be necessary to clearly delineate the route to the exit. Exit signs and directional exit signs should be located so they are readily visible and should contrast against their surroundings. Special Note 2 People with mobility impairments should be provided with some form of written directions, a brochure, or a map showing all directional signs to all usable circulation paths. For new employees and other regular users of the facility it may be practical to physically show them the usable circulation paths as well as provide them with written information. In addition, simple floor plans of the building that show the locations of and routes to usable circulation paths should be available and given to visitors with mobility impairments when they enter the building. A large sign could be posted at each building entrance stating the availability of written directions or other materials and where to pick them up. Building security personnel, including those staffing entrance locations, should be trained in all the building evacuation systems for people with disabilities and be able to direct anyone to the nearest usable circulation path. Which Paths Lead to Usable Circulation Paths? Any circulation paths that are not usable should include signs directing people to other, usable paths. People with mobility impairments should be provided with written directions, a brochure, or a map showing what those signs look like and where they are. Special Note 3 Where such directional signs are not in place, people with mobility impairments should be provided with written directions, a brochure, or a map showing the locations of all usable circulation paths. Emergency Evacuation Planning Guide for People with Disabilities Sign up free NFPA “e-ACCESS” newsletter @ www.nfpa.org/disabilities 16 USE OF THE WAY Can People with Mobility Impairments Use the Usable Circulation Path by Themselves? Is There a Direct Exit to Grade (or a Ramp)? A circulation path is considered a usable circulation path if it meets one of the following criteria:

u A person using a wheelchair is able to travel unassisted through it to a public way (if elevation differences are involved, there are usable ramps rather than stairs). u A person using a wheelchair is able to travel unassisted through that portion of the usable circulation path necessary to reach an area of refuge. An area of refuge serves as a temporary haven from the effects of a fire or other emergency. People with mobility impairments must be able to travel from the area of refuge to the public way, although such travel might depend on the assistance of others. If elevation differences are involved, an elevator or other evacuation device might be used, or the person might be moved by another person or persons using a cradle carry, a swing (seat) carry, or an in-chair carry. Training, practice, and an understanding of the benefits and risks of each technique for a given person are important aspects of the planning process. Special Note 4 Not all people using wheelchairs or other assistive devices are capable of navigating a usable circulation path by themselves. It is important to verify that each person using any assistive device can travel unassisted through the usable circulation path to a public way. Those who cannot must have the provision of appropriate assistance detailed in their emergency evacuation plans. Additionally, the plans should provide for evacuation of the device or the availability of an appropriate alternative once the person is outside the building. Otherwise, the person with the mobility impairment will no longer have independent mobility once he or she is out of the emergency situation. Can the Person with a Mobility Impairment Use Stairs? Not all people with mobility impairments use wheelchairs. Some mobility impairments prevent a person from using building features that require the use of one’s arms, hands, fingers, legs, or feet. People with mobility impairments may be able to go up and down stairs easily but have trouble operating door locks, latches, and other devices due to impairments of their hands or arms. The evacuation plans for these people should address alternative routes, alternative devices, or specific provisions for assistance. Emergency Evacuation Planning Guide for People with Disabilities Sign up free NFPA “e-ACCESS” newsletter @ www.nfpa.org/disabilities 17 Are There Devices to Help People with Mobility Impairments Evacuate? Emergency Evacuation Planning Guide for People with Disabilities Sign up free NFPA “e-ACCESS” newsletter @ www.nfpa.org/disabilities 18 g experts have Can the Elevators Be Used? Although elevators can be a component of a usable circulation path, restrictions are imposed on the use of elevators during some types of building emergencies. Elevators typically return to the ground floor when a fire alarm is activated and can be operated after that only by use of a “firefighters” keyed switch. This may not be true in the event of non-fire emergencies requiring an evacuation. In the last several years, however, building increasingly joined forces to carefully consider building elevators that are safer for use in the event of an emergency. In October 2003, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began working with the elevator industry to develop and test more reliable emergency power systems and waterproof components. Under consideration are software and sensing systems that adapt to changing smoke and heat conditions, helping to maintain safe and

reliable elevator operation during fire emergencies. Such changes could allow remote operation of elevators during fires, thus freeing fire fighters to assist in other ways during an emergency. The topic was further examined in March 2004 during the Workshop on the Use of Elevators in Fires and Other Emergencies co-sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International), NIST, the International Code Council (ICC), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the U.S. Access Board, and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). The workshop provided a forum for brainstorming and formulating recommendations in an effort to improve codes and standards. http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Forms/EvacuationGuide.pdf Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2, No. 3 (2007) 271 - 279 c School of Engineering, Taylor ﾁ fs University College 271 PERCEPTION OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WORKERS TOWARDS SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT C.R. CHE HASSAN*, O.J. BASHA, W.H. WAN HANAFI Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, MALAYSIA. *Corresponding Author: [email protected] Abstract The construction industry is known as one of the most hazardous activities. Therefore, safety on the job site is an important aspect with respect to the overall safety in construction. This paper assesses the safety level perception of the construction building workers towards safety, health and environment on a construction job site in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The above study was carried out by choosing 5 selected large building construction projects and 5 small building construction projects respectively in and around Kuala Lumpur area. In the present study, an exhaustive survey was carried out in these 10 project site areas using a standard checklist and a detailed developed questionnaire. The checklist comprised 17 divisions of safety measurements which are considered and perceived to be important from the safety point of view and was assessed based on the score obtained. The questionnaire comprised the general information with 36 safety attitude statements on a 1-5 Likert scale which was distributed to 100 construction workers. The results of the checklist show the difference of safety levels between the large and small projects. The study revealed that the large projects shown a high and consistent level in safety while the small projects shown a low and varied safety levels. The relationship between the factors can be obtained from the questionnaire. They are organizational commitment, factor influencing communication among workmates, worker related factors, personal role and supervisors ﾁ f role factors, obstacles to safety and safe behavior factors and management commitment at

all levels in line with the management structure and risk taking behavioral factors. The findings of the present study revealed invaluable indications to the construction managers especially in improving the construction workers ﾁ f attitude towards safety, health and environment and hence good safety culture in the building construction industries. Keywords: Construction Building Workers, Construction Job Site, Safety, Health and Environment, SPSS. 272 C.R. Che Hassan et al Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) 1. Introduction Developing a proactive safety culture may take long time and require spending of large sum of money for planning, investigating and implementing into each level within the organization. However, it is worthy of being compared with invaluable health and life of human beings. Once it succeeds, the relative rewards will be achieved in terms of competitive advantage, quality, reliability and profitability within organisation. Hinze [1] advocated the idea that safety is no luxury but a necessity. In recent years, many construction companies have recognised this importance that the establishment of good safety culture can help controlling and reducing the construction costs and increase the efficiency of their ongoing operations in long term. Unfortunately, many of them not really known as to establish a form of safety culture same as the culture of a country or a society [2]. Safety culture relates to the humanitarian aspects as well as safety as an integral component. The interactive relationships between people ﾁ fs behavior, their attitudes and perceptions they hold, and the situation or environment in work place should be taken into account [3]. Safer behaviour is reflected by good attitude. Many accidents/incidents that occurred in the workplace especially in the building construction sites were due to inadequate adherence of workers to work procedures. The workers must realize that they play an important role contributing in the accomplishment of the building construction. The awareness and perception of the workers toward safety, health and their working environment are important aspects to enhance the building construction to the better condition to the workers themselves. This paper describes the findings from a structured questionnaire survey, observations and interviews on the safety level and perception of building construction worker towards safety, health and environment. The concept of worker safety climate and how workers perceive the safety climate of their workplace was raised as an issue about 25 years ago [4]. At that time, it was recognized that successful injury control programs are based on a strong management commitment to safety, including the status of safety officers within the organization, worker training, regular communication between management and workers, general housekeeping, and a stable workforce. Safety climate, considered a subset of overall organization climate, is one way of identifying characteristics that might distinguish between employers with high or low injury rates. Psychological climate has been identified as yet another dimension of employees ﾁ f perception of the organization in which they work, though the dimensions of this measure include items such as trust, cohesion,

pressure, innovation, and fairness, among others [5]. Dedobbeleer and Beland [6] studied the workplace safety climate measurements in various industrial sectors including construction. The term ﾁ gsafety culture ﾁ h has many definitions according to the past researchers and they are summarised as follows: 1. Perception and beliefs, behaviour and management systems are the elements which combine to form an organization ﾁ gsafety culture ﾁ h [7]. 2. ﾁ gSafety culture ﾁ h is the ﾁ gcollective behaviours of people in the organization that over time becoming patterns, typical or habit ﾁ h. Employees always behave Perception of Construction Workers towards Safety, Health & Environment 273 Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) in ways that the company requires them to, without considering why they need to do [8]. 3. Safety culture is an environment in which people do their tasks safely and for the right reasons [9]. Gellor [10] investigated a safety triad theory (see Fig. 1) in which he thought that a ﾁ gTotally Safety Culture ﾁ h should maintain a continuous monitoring process to three domains which are ﾁ genvironment ﾁ h, ﾁ gperson ﾁ h and ﾁ ebehaviour ﾁ h. The ﾁ gperson ﾁ h reflects the competency of a worker where as the ﾁ gbehaviour ﾁ h illustrates the attitudes of workers in carrying out job safely in a ﾁ gspecific environment ﾁ f. Those three domains are dynamics and interactive and the change in either one factor will eventually influence the other one. Once people choose to act safety, they act themselves into safe thinking and the corresponding behaviours often result in some environmental change. Fig.1. Gellor ﾁ fs Safety Triad 2. Research Methodology The current study was conducted using a checklist and questionnaire that are developed as discussed below. 2.1 Check List The projects for the survey were selected at random in Kuala Lumpur area, based on the fact that they were under construction at the time of the survey. The survey included 2 types of projects which are 5 of large building construction projects and 5 of small building construction projects. The large building construction projects included several offices and commercial buildings whereas the small building construction projects consisted mainly of residential buildings and housings. A standard checklist used in the observation survey included items which are perceived to be important from a safety point of view on the construction site. The checklist consists of 17 divisions and 96 items distributed among the different divisions. Each item within a division was evaluated as `yes' or `no' depending on its existence in the job site. Each `yes' was given a score of 100 and each `no' was given a score of 0. The division score was calculated using the following expression: SAFETY CULTURE

PERSON ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOR Knowledge, Skill, Abilities, Intelligence, Motives and Personality Equipment, Tools, Physical Layout, Procedures, Standards, and Temperature Complying, Coaching, Recognizing, Communicating, Demonstrating, ﾁ gActively Caring ﾁ h 274 C.R. Che Hassan et al Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) [] no of applicable items ƒ° no of 'Yes'ﾁ~100 + no of ' No'ﾁ~0 Items not applicable for a particular project were ignored and not used in the calculation. Each project was scored by obtaining the average of the applicable division scores within that project The projects were then assessed based on the following scale: 0-59% as poor, 60-69% as fair, 70-79% as good, 80-89% as very good, 90-100% as excellent. 2.2 Questionnaire A questionnaire survey was developed for construction personnel who had been selected randomly from 5 different construction sites. The questionnaires are divided into 2 parts; Part 1 which consists of general information and Part 2 which consists of 36 attitude statements on a 1-5 Likert scale. The elements highlighted in the questionnaire cover the historical factor (F1), organizational commitment and communication (F2), reporting of accidents and near misses (F3), line management commitment (F4), supervisor ﾁ fs role (F5), personal role (F6), workmates' influence (F7), risk taking behaviour and some contributory influence (F8) and obstacles to safe behaviour (F9). All the data collected from the survey were analysed using a Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 10.0 (SPSS 10.0). 3. Results and Discussions 3.1 Checklist The checklist tries to assess the safety of the site by considering only the unsafe conditions existing in the work site irrespective of either small or large projects. Table 1 shows the safety levels, average safety scores, variance and standard deviation of large and small projects in respectively. It is obvious that the safety level in large projects is high. This could be due to the fact that most of the projects surveyed were constructed by large well known firms which apply their own safety codes and practices. In addition, most of these construction companies have a safety administration department as an important part of their organizational structure. Safety assessment scores in small projects varied widely with the maximum safety score of 71.88% (good) and the minimum of 55.63% (poor). These

differences could be due to not implementing the Standard Safety Code and the lack of set rules and regulations for contractors to be followed. All safety measures were taken at the initiative of the contractors. It is clear that the safety level in large projects is higher than the safety level in small projects. The safety level among small projects showed wide variation with some projects showing good scores and others having a dismal performance. The large projects, however, showed a consistent level in safety. Table 2 shows the divisions ﾁ f average score and their ranks for both large and small projects. From the survey it was found that the following divisions had low safety levels in small project areas: (1) cartridge operated tools, (2) concrete formwork, (3) sandblasting and (4) fire prevention. Perception of Construction Workers towards Safety, Health & Environment 275 Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) Table 1. The Safety Level, Average Safety Score, Variance and Standard Deviation in Large and Small Projects. Project no Large projects Small projects Safety score Rating Safety score Rating 1 84.17 very good 64.79 Fair 2 92.08 Excellent 57.50 Poor 3 75.83 Good 71.88 Good 4 81.25 very good 55.63 Poor 5 87.50 very good 62.50 Fair Average safety score 83.46 59.97 Variance 33.16 842.38 Standard deviation 5.76 29.02 Table 2. Division Safety Average Scores and Ranks for Large and Small Projects Large project Small project Division no Divisions Average score Rank Average score Rank 1 Fire prevention 80.57 11 64.57 12 2 Housekeeping 88.00 4 85.33 3 3 Scaffold/mobile tower 89.50 3 84.50 5 4 Sandblasting 84.80 9 54.40 13 5 Cartridge operated tools 73.60 17 12.00 15 6 Power tools/machine 76.80 14 NA NA 7 Excavation 87.00 7 87.00 2 8 Heavy equipment 92.00 1 88.00 1 9 Concrete formwork 76.00 15 36.00 14

10 Gas/electric welding 80.00 12 65.33 11 11 Health and welfare 84.00 10 79.33 6 12 Compressed gas 74.00 16 NA NA 13 Transportation 86.40 8 68.00 8 14 Air compressors 87.20 6 75.20 7 15 Cranes and lifting 91.00 2 85.00 4 16 Safety administration 88.00 4 66.86 10 17 Temporary electric 80.00 12 68.00 8 NA = Not Applicable A ranking of the division provides a valuable input to managers in deciding the risk level reduction of building construction from the proper perspective and perception of construction workers. 3.2 Questionnaire 3.2.1 Reliabilities of the worker ﾁ fs perception survey Before examining the results of the findings, the internal consistency reliability of the safety culture survey was tested. Referring to Table 3, almost all of the coefficient alphas (where ƒ¿ . 0.5) regarding the perceptions were acceptable except perception of line management commitment (F4, ƒ¿ = 0.4423). One of the reasons for low reliability results for ﾁ e ﾁ eline management commitment ﾁ f ﾁ f may be due to insufficient number of statements in the questionnaire for the reliability 276 C.R. Che Hassan et al Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) analysis. Moreover, distractions and misunderstandings would increase people ﾁ fs tendencies to make random errors and simple mistakes, which affected the reliability of the survey. However, the acceptably high ƒ¿ for all scales show that the instrument used has demonstrated high reliability. Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for all Factors Factors Alpha, ƒ¿ Mean scores Standard deviation F1 0.8534 2.0100 0.6154 F2 0.6831 3.4719 0.5529 F3 0.8035 3.9200 0.6806 F4 0.4423 2.9267 0.9108 F5 0.8931 3.8400 0.8671 F6 0.5709 2.8843 0.6148 F7 0.7316 3.6080 0.5287 F8 0.8204 3.0760 0.8044 F9 0.7979 2.6080 0.8336 3.2.2 Factor analysis Factor analysis refers to a variety of statistical techniques whose common objective is to represent a set of variables in terms of a smaller number of hypothetical variables. In this paper, factor analysis was used to identify and interpret non-correlated clusters of routine management variables that dominate the workplace safety. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS v.10) was utilized to conduct factor analysis and other statistical analysis. Test of

factorability was performed on SPSS for windows using Kasier-Meyer-Olkin's (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. The result of KMO test for all the variables was 0.771, which is acceptable for the analysis [11]. Nine common factors out of 39 variables were extracted through factor analysis with the cumulative up to 58.54%. The rotated component matrix (also called factor structure matrix) is a matrix of coefficients, where the coefficients refer to the correlations between factors and variables, as shown in Table 4. The realistic meaning of a factor can be synthesized by combining those of the variables which have relatively high cross-factor loadings on it. The foremost five factors, identified by factor analysis, are interpreted as follows: Component 1 is an organisational commitment and communication and workmates ﾁ f influence related factor. According to factor analysis theory, the first factor accounts for the largest part of total variance of the cases. This confirms that the perception of the workers is mostly influenced by the management effort towards safety matters such as the safety training, safety meeting and has sufficient resource available for safety. Workmates can influence other worker to work safely and vice-versa. Component 2 is a worker related factor. There is strong relationship between the historical factors of the worker and reporting of accidents and near misses. This is reinforced that the worker ﾁ fs experience, age and background of safety training Perception of Construction Workers towards Safety, Health & Environment 277 Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) related to the tendency to reporting any accidents or near misses happen on the site. Their perception on the accidents and near misses reporting is high due to their awareness of the importance of safety on the construction site as any of their experience, age and background of safety training is increased. Table 4: Rotated Component Matrix (Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis) Componen t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 F1: V1.1 0.43 0.52 0.19 0.49 -0.11 0.16 -0.14 0.02 0.21 -0.02 -0.12 V1.2 0.33 0.49 0.15 0.55 0.03 -0.16 -0.11 0.23 0.11 -0.10 -0.08 V1.3 0.28 0.58 0.19 0.52 0.06 -0.08 -0.08 0.10 0.23 -0.10 -0.08 F2: V2.1 0.74 0.17 0.06 0.41 -0.15 0.15 0.13 0.10 -0.11 0.13 0.14 V2.2 0.59 0.23 -0.22 -0.24 -0.36 0.05 0.03 0.27 -0.12 -0.02 0.10 V2.3 0.59 0.46 0.08 0.11 -0.06 0.14 -0.04 -0.02 -0.17 0.15 0.20 V2.4 0.79 0.24 0.05 -0.34 -0.11 -0.09 -0.08 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.10 V2.5 0.62 0.38 0.38 -0.26 -0.20 0.04 -0.19 -0.04 0.04 0.05 0.12 V2.6 -0.36 -0.35 0.43 0.15 -0.36 0.23 0.39 -0.03 -0.00 0.23 -0.06 V2.7 0.69 0.26 -0.12 -0.03 0.03 0.08 -0.00 0.07 0.18 0.35 0.15 F3: V3.1 0.35 0.59 0.00 -0.11 0.23 0.11 0.13 -0.47 -0.10 0.06 -0.05 V3.2 0.20 0.47 -0.06 0.13 0.34 0.17 0.22 -0.59 -0.09 0.18 -0.05 F4: V4.1 -0.12 -0.14 0.13 -0.09 0.28 0.55 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.04 0.22 V4.2 0.20 -0.15 -0.07 0.10 0.19 0.53 -0.07 -0.12 0.42 -0.31 0.25 V4.3 0.13 0.12 0.21 -0.06 0.33 0.42 -0.21 0.15 -0.06 0.08 -0.54

F5: V5.1 0.63 -0.02 0.50 -0.11 0.10 -0.05 0.02 -0.04 -0.31 -0.25 0.11 V5.2 0.64 -0.05 0.42 -0.32 0.10 -0.05 0.10 -0.21 -0.13 -0.21 0.04 F6: V6.1 -0.71 0.03 -0.11 -0.02 -0.10 0.12 0.35 -0.03 0.06 0.16 0.07 V6.2 -0.55 0.02 0.18 -0.13 -0.20 -0.20 -0.37 -0.22 0.26 0.27 0.22 V6.3 -0.31 0.34 -0.20 -0.47 0.29 0.07 0.17 0.06 0.28 -0.02 0.09 V6.4 -0.15 0.62 0.01 -0.49 -0.23 0.05 0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.22 0.03 V6.5 -0.57 0.29 0.51 -0.07 -0.29 -0.08 -0.07 0.05 -0.05 -0.14 0.15 V6.6 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.06 -0.38 -0.28 0.39 -0.33 0.30 -0.31 -0.10 V6.7 0.20 0.39 -0.23 -0.21 -0.32 -0.18 0.29 0.06 0.33 -0.18 -0.27 F7: V7.1 0.74 -0.42 0.28 0.13 0.05 -0.08 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.18 -0.04 V7.2 0.71 -0.42 0.27 -0.06 0.04 -0.12 0.19 -0.04 0.15 0.24 -0.05 V7.3 0.54 -0.05 -0.25 0.26 -0.22 0.05 0.51 0.11 -0.21 0.06 -0.11 V7.4 0.57 0.12 -0.10 0.06 0.34 -0.25 0.29 0.16 -0.13 -0.04 0.22 V7.5 0.24 0.26 0.07 -0.32 0.39 -0.46 0.08 0.35 0.04 0.12 -0.20 F8: V8.1 -0.57 0.37 -0.23 0.13 -0.38 0.22 0.05 0.16 -0.11 0.07 0.02 V8.2 -0.61 0.53 -0.25 -0.03 0.06 0.15 -0.02 -0.06 -0.15 -0.18 0.02 V8.3 -0.73 0.38 -0.10 0.13 0.10 -0.05 0.10 0.08 -0.22 -0.09 0.15 V8.4 -0.66 0.18 0.44 -0.18 0.16 0.06 0.18 0.17 -0.05 -0.08 -0.00 V8.5 -0.57 0.25 0.60 -0.19 0.17 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.05 -0.01 -0.07 F9: V9.1 -0.72 0.06 0.39 0.29 0.04 0.03 0.07 -0.05 -0.09 0.23 -0.11 V9.2 -0.52 0.06 -0.47 0.03 0.12 -0.19 -0.02 -0.10 0.11 0.19 -0.17 V9.3 -0.33 0.05 -0.05 0.46 0.36 -0.46 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.33 V9.4 -0.78 -0.07 0.29 0.23 -0.06 -0.07 0.06 -0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 V9.5 -0.78 0.18 0.26 -0.04 0.05 -0.15 0.04 -0.01 0.04 0.12 0.04 278 C.R. Che Hassan et al Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) Component 3 is a relationship between personal role and supervisors ﾁ f role. Workers will work more safely with a supervisor who is seen as someone who respects their workers and their contribution, and who is stimulated by a distinct company policy on safety. This is because they see their supervisor regards safety equally important as production. Component 4 is obstacles to safe behaviour factor. The physical condition may be the main obstacles to safe behaviour factor. The worker ﾁ fs tasks sometimes very difficult that make them have to ignore the safety procedure. Some tasks require a long period with head or arms in physically awkward positions. Component 5 is a line management commitment and risk taking behaviour factor. This stress is the importance of line management ﾁ fs viability and participation with the worker. Line management involvement such as relationship with worker, talk on safety and advice on safety matter is related to the worker ﾁ fs safety behaviour and safety motivation. 4. Conclusions Construction safety survey study on the job site revealed that the safety level in construction sites varies with the project size. Large projects, constructed by large international firms, have much better safety level and safety records than smaller ones. This indicates the need for implementing a safety standard to monitor and enforce safety requirements at work sites. Also the results indicate that large

projects have little variation in safety levels, while small projects have a wide variation in their safety performance. Although there are many factors affecting perception of building construction workers towards safety, health and environment, the main factor perceived by the worker is organisational commitment and communication. Good organizational commitment and communication is highly associated with effective accident reporting, high line management commitment, active supervisor ﾁ fs role and active personal role. Active personal role to safety and health resulted in greater influence among workmates ﾁ f and low obstacles to safety behaviour. References 1. Hinze, J.W. (1997). Construction Safety. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2. Cooper, D.C. (1998). Improving Safety Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 3. Dedobbeleer, N. & Beland, F. (1991). A Safety Climate Measure for Construction Sites. Journal of Safety Research, 22, 97-103. 4. Tam, C.M. & Fung, W.H. (2001). Study of Attitude Changes in People after the Implementation of a New Safety Management system: The Supervision Plan. Construction Management. Economics, 19, 393 . 403. 5. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety Climate in Industrial Organizations: Theoretical and Applied Implications. Journal Applied Psychology, 65, 96-102. 6. Koys, D.J. & Decotiis, T.A. (1991). Inductive Measures of Psychological Climate. Human Relations, 44, 265-285. 7. Dedobbeleer, N. & Beland, F. (1991). A Safety Climate for Construction Sites. Journal of Safety Research, 22, 97-103. Perception of Construction Workers towards Safety, Health & Environment 279 Journal of Engineering Science and Technology DECEMBER 2007, Vol. 2(3) 8. Cooper, D.C. (1996). Measuring and Improving Safety Culture. Handbook for the Public Sector. New York: ESH. 9. Minerals Council of Australia, Australia Minerals Industry. (1999). SAFE map. Safety Culture Survey Report. Australia. 10. McSween, T.E. (1995). The Values . Base Safety Process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 11.Gellor, E.S. (2001). The Psychology of Safety Handbook. New York: Lewis Publishers. 12.Kim J.O. & Mueller, C.W. (1985). Introduction to Factor Analysis. Beverly Hills. The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Act (1995) [Online] http://www.adaptenv.org/publications/checklist-pdf.pdf (31 May 2009)