Analysis and diagnosis of risk-prevention training actions in the Spanish construction sector

Barriuso, Álvaro Romero; Escribano, Blasa María Villena; Cañamares, María Segarra; González, Mariano Ruiz; Sáiz, Ángel Rodríguez

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.023

Cited by 17 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They want to climb higher and tunnel deeper than most people. The general population often views construction as risky [ 65 ]. However, construction workers often do not consider their work hazardous even when the recognized safe working limits for the task are stretched or broken.…”

Section: State-of-the-art Regarding Zero-riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zero-Risk Interpretation in the Level of Preventive Action Method Implementation for Health and Safety in Construction Sites

Pinos

González

Pentelhão

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment is a legal obligation for all companies in most countries worldwide. It aims to control the quality of working conditions and avoid externalizing the consequences of accidents and resulting costs to society. This work discusses the need for an adequate interpretation of the zero-risk concept from a technical-preventive perspective to assess occupational risks in construction sites. A critical analysis of several risk assessment methodologies was carried out, focusing on the evaluation criteria of little or no-risk situations. The verification of the results was made through a case study. The perception of health and safety risks by workers is very different from that of the evaluators. Often, when workers identify a situation as low-risk or even zero-risk, the evaluator assesses the same context as maximum risk. Given the workers’ and the evaluators’ responses, the Preventive Action Method establishes a new parameter, the Environment Congruence. This parameter is based on the perception of the preventive environment and gives more importance to the evaluators’ decision. When preventive action is optimal, the risk is low in all preventive observation settings. In conclusion, this study justifies the non-nullity of the risk and the difficulty of assessing zero-risk in construction sites. Therefore, evaluations with qualitative and quantitative non-risk approaches should be discarded.

show abstract

Section: State-of-the-art Regarding Zero-riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zero-Risk Interpretation in the Level of Preventive Action Method Implementation for Health and Safety in Construction Sites

Pinos

González

Pentelhão

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Risks in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the construction sector were also studied, focusing on the occupational risk-prevention training [36]. The triangular intuitionistic fuzzy-EDM model was proposed for enhancing the applicability of time performance indices and the process of forecasting under unknown conditions.…”

Section: Risk Analysis In Construction Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualitative Analysis of Risks Affecting the Delivery of Land Surveying Project Activities

Issa¹,

Alqurashi²,

Salama³

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land surveying projects (LSPs) suffer from the effects of many risk factors on the time and accuracy of these projects. Using field surveys, the main objective of this study was identifying the major activities and risk factors associated with LSPs’ execution, as well as assessing and analyzing the effects of the risk factors on the LSPs’ time and accuracy. Furthermore, the study aimed to classify and determine the responsibility of each risk factor and evaluate the responsibilities. Four main activities were categorized and presented, including reconnaissance works, planning works, data collection works, and data adjustment works. Moreover, forty-three risk factors that control the main activities and affect the time and accuracy of LSPs were recognized. The probabilities of occurrences for the risk factors and impacts on the time and accuracy of LSPs were determined as well as their combined effects. Key risk factors that had high threats on LSPs and affect time and accuracy were highlighted as the most critical risk factors. Many correlations were determined among risk factors affecting LSPs’ activity groups and their various effects on time and accuracy. The responsibilities of the surveying crew (chief, surveyor, assistance, office engineer) for each risk factors were correspondingly defined. The results showed that “Data collection works” is considered the riskiest activity group in LSPs and most of the key risk factors belonged to this group. Around 25% of the LSPs face time overrun and do not meet the required specifications. On the other hand, the surveyor was found to be responsible for most of the risk factors and the office engineer was signified by the lowest responsibility, while the responsibilities for most risk factors were single responsibility and few were shared by only dual responsibility.

show abstract

“…Construction activities are particularly critical from a safety point of view, since the changing environments, subcontracting, and nature of the activities make it impossible to perform systematic process management [22,23,24]. In order to successfully deal with health and safety in construction, the research carried out has highlighted, by way of comparative advantages, management leadership in companies and employee training.…”

Section: Preventive Organization and Training: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the Gap: Professionalization is the Key to Strengthening Safety and Leadership in the Construction Sector

Romero

González

Segarra³

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to analyze the reality of risk prevention in construction sector companies in Spain, from the perspective of training, management, and risk prevention, as well as the amount of resources that are allocated to those budget headings. An in-depth comparative review has been conducted, using the data obtained from two focus groups that were expressly created for the study, in conjunction with the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emergent Risks (ESENER-2) and its Spanish counterpart (ESENER-2 Spain). The focus groups were formed with agents and entrepreneurs involved in the construction sector, from both the public and the private sector, in order to provide greater impartiality to the resulting data. The principal strategic indicators that served as a guideline for the moderators of the different focus groups were analyzed. The results obtained show great similarity between the data from the focus groups and the data from ESENER-2 and ESENER-2 Spain; which demonstrates the idiosyncrasies that surround this productive sector in the European setting, so badly treated by the economic crisis. All of these points highlight the imperative need to professionalize the construction sector, implementing a “risk prevention culture” among all of the agents involved in the constructive-preventive processes that surround construction activities.

show abstract

Analysis and diagnosis of risk-prevention training actions in the Spanish construction sector

Cited by 17 publications

References 20 publications

Zero-Risk Interpretation in the Level of Preventive Action Method Implementation for Health and Safety in Construction Sites

Zero-Risk Interpretation in the Level of Preventive Action Method Implementation for Health and Safety in Construction Sites

Qualitative Analysis of Risks Affecting the Delivery of Land Surveying Project Activities

Mind the Gap: Professionalization is the Key to Strengthening Safety and Leadership in the Construction Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About