Next Article in Journal
Research on Green Campus Evaluation in Cold Areas Based on AHP-BP Neural Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Improvement in the Energy Efficiency of Office Buildings Based on Energy Performance Certificates
Previous Article in Special Issue
Choosing the Right Construction Method: A Comparative Study of Cost and Timeline for Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/buildings14092790
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Emerging Trends of Safe Working Conditions in the Construction Industry: A Bibliometric Approach

by
Ayodele Oluwole Alejo
1,*,
Clinton Ohis Aigbavboa
1 and
Douglas Omoregie Aghimien
2
1
Sustainable Human Settlement and Construction Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2008, South Africa
2
Department of Civil Engineering Technology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2008, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(9), 2790; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092790
Submission received: 9 July 2024 / Revised: 25 August 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 5 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Construction Management – Future Innovations, Methods, Techniques and Technologies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The construction industry has been slow to implement safe working conditions, even though it could reduce the risks and dangers that the industry’s operations pose to human health and safety. More research and development in this area is clearly needed to increase the acceptance of safety in the execution of engineering projects, as previous study has demonstrated. Therefore, this study will analyse safe working conditions in construction-related professions in order to determine the focal area of previous studies. However, there has not been much effort put into mapping international studies on safe working environments in the construction industry. This research evaluates safety for the construction industry in order to discover new research trends. This indicates the ongoing challenges in the sector. For this study, comprehensive bibliometric methodology was applied, and data were extracted from the Scopus database. Using keywords like “safe”, “working condition”, “construction industry” or “built environment”, “health and safety”, and “technology”, publications from the database were extracted. Based on the collected bibliographic information, a co-authorship and co-occurrence map was created using VOSviewer. Research on occupational health and safety in the building industry, safety management and risk factors in the construction industry, ethical considerations in human experimentation, and safety and work environment revealed an emerging trend in safe working conditions in the construction industry.

1. Introduction

The construction industry has an impact on the GDPs (gross domestic products) of many countries. The construction sector worldwide spent approximately USD 4 trillion in 2012. By 2025, nine trillion dollars will need to be spent on infrastructure worldwide [1]. Although the construction sector encourages economic growth and provides substantial non-financial advances to many nations, it continues to be one of the most unsafe industries due to the various occupational risks on sites [2] that cause frequent fatalities [3]. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD) recorded 734 construction safety accidents and 840 fatalities in China in 2018 [4]. In the United States in 2019, there were 5333 construction worker-related occurrences (3.5 per 100,000 full-time employees); that works out to more than 100 accidents a week or nearly 15 fatalities every day. One in five workers lost their lives in construction operations in 2019, accounting for 20% (1061) of all deaths [5,6]. In 2021, 2.88 million nonfatal incidents occurred in the EU that required at least four days of leave from work, according to the most recent data published by Eurostat [7]. The numerous operations that occur on the sites every day have resulted in several construction accidents. According to [8], the incorporation of precautionary measures in the construction industry has attracted the interest of academic researchers and resulted in significant remuneration for developers. This research set intended to identify the areas of focus for the study of safe working conditions in domains related to construction based on these submissions. This is considered vital to further research on working conditions and increase its implementation within the built environment. To achieve this, the objective of this study is to evaluate the various studies that have been conducted on safe working conditions in the construction industry. This will allow researchers to learn from the current focus of these studies and provide guidance for future developments in safe working conditions in the sector. This is accomplished by finding publications on safe working conditions in the construction industry written by various authors and from different nations, then analysing the most referenced articles along with their sources. The current research focus on safe working conditions in the construction industry during the past few years was further mapped out in this study, which paid close attention to the publications’ accomplishments. This study will accomplish its goal by helping construction industry organisations comprehend the relevance of safe working conditions to the sector and the regulations that must be implemented to ensure their acceptance.

2. Safety and Working Conditions

Numerous risk variables have an impact on working conditions at construction sites. When accidents are ascribed to a construction worker’s failure to act promptly enough, human error—including misjudgement or inappropriate operation—has been identified as one of the main risk factors that occur throughout construction projects [9,10,11]. According to [12,13,14], this error by humans is defined as an erroneous assessment by humans or as conduct that minimises value or safety (or both) all through construction activities and subsequently hinders a project’s cost and schedule execution. Refs. [15,16] found that when hazardous worker behaviours were coupled with hazardous working conditions on a construction site, 88% of fatalities in construction resulted. For instance, poor job performance (dangerous behaviour) could be caused by an unstable working platform (a hazardous situation). Additionally, using insufficient personal protection equipment (PPE) might increase exposure to a collision with nearby objects, which is a dangerous situation [15].
Ref. [17] investigated the reasons for hazardous behaviour by Hong Kong construction workers through a series of industry interviews and identified a number of contributing factors to unsafe human behaviour. The identified factors included workers’ clumsy attitude to recognise unsafe conditions while at work, workers’ lack of skill or safety training, workers’ disregard for safety procedures, and workers’ attitudes toward safety which involved not wearing personal protective equipment. According to [13], there are two main categories of these human errors: failures owing to intellectual variables such insufficient human capacity and violations/deviations from work techniques that are generally regarded as safe. Similar studies were carried out by [9], who also explored the options for site safety control and put up a framework for training in human-error detection. They looked at organisational and directorial human factors, worker mental and physical health, and other elements that could have contributed to human mistakes on a working site. While [18] examined how workers perceived the safety of scaffolding, they discovered that unsafe and challenging working conditions were caused by poor safety preparation and oversight, inadequate use of personal protective equipment, inaccurate inspections, and uncomfortable work postures.
With the expansion of research over the past few decades, scholars and industry professionals have carried out numerous occupational health and safety (OHS) studies in the construction industry, focusing on safety design as a useful innovation for identifying and reducing risks and hazards in the work environment [19,20]. Lately, occupational health and safety construction research has started to emphasise continual improvement by utilising cutting-edge technology [20] to create thorough and integrated occupational health and safety analysis frameworks [21,22]. A review of the pattern of research on safety design in construction with a technological focus was carried out by [23]. The research included a sizable period (1974–2022) and was examined using scientometric analysis. According to this study’s findings, publications that emphasise the integration of safety and BIM concepts receive the highest number of citations in the field of safety design. Ref. [24] also offers a summary of the trends in construction safety research within the 2010–2020 time frame. According to the study’s findings, occupational health and safety construction’s primary focus areas are safety management and safety climate. However, the study’s year-long constraint, which lasts only until 2020, creates a gap in the way occupational health and safety building publications expanded and trended when the global COVID-19 phenomena struck the following year. To explain the significance of worldwide phenomena to the publishing of occupational health and safety construction, the reference year must be reviewed. Ref. [25] opined that improving worker safety and well-being is a primary objective of the human-dimension-complicated role in preserving safe working environments for employees in the construction industry.

3. Research Methods

The idea of bibliometric examination and investigation was first presented by [26], who contended that by looking at patterns and boundaries numerically, it might provide insight into study being conducted in a certain field. To map and identify fields of knowledge through the detection of research patterns, a bibliometric technique was used in this study. Science mapping technologies are developed in bibliometric investigation to visualise the real components of scientific study and spheres and to describe the organisational formation of those fields [27,28]. The main source of information for this study was earlier research that could be found in the Scopus database. Ref. [29] state that Scopus is a crucial database for a wide range of scientific topics and that researchers frequently use it to compile the literature. This study used this methodology to organise and analyse research on safe working conditions in the construction industry, which could potentially support researchers to determine the direction of future study.
The construction industry and built environment were the main topics of the literature search. Allotted journal articles and conference proceedings were also considered. The rationale behind choosing journal articles was their perceived reliability as information sources compared to supplemental sources, as well as their greater comprehensiveness and conciseness [30,31]. In the same way that [32] valued conference proceedings as reliable sources for reviewing literature, so did the current study. The authors of [33] conducted an in-depth literature review on sustainability using a similar methodology. The same methodology was used in the research on green buildings by [34,35], and [36]. The major search terms used for this study were “safe”, “working conditions”, “construction industry”, “built environment”, “health and safety”, and “technology”. Publications with these search terms in their keywords, abstracts, and titles were obtained. In December 2023, the first literature search produced 209 papers using the given keywords. Screening was completed to remove pertinent articles from the recovery results in accordance with the categories of publication class and other criteria because the preliminary extracted 209 papers included a wide variety of areas, the majority of which are unrelated to construction. Book reviews, book chapters, correspondence, editorial materials, and lecture notes were omitted from the data set during the initial selection step. This study’s time frame, which runs from 2013 to 2023, is set at eleven years. The goal of this period was to comprehend the most recent developments regarding safe working conditions in the construction sector. The paper by [37], which was published in Russian, and the article by [38], which was written in Dutch, were two examples of article publications that were not included in this research because they were not written in the English language. In addition, a preliminary evaluation of the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the 209 articles was carried out. Titles unrelated to the construction industry were also dropped. Figure 1 shows a Prisma flow diagram applied in the bibliometric analysis of this work.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Publications per Year

A total of 104 relevant related articles were obtained, 14 of which came from conferences, while the remaining 90 were journal publications. The greater number of journal articles may offer helpful information for the research because of the rigorous peer-review process that they must undergo before publication. On the other hand, subject to the importance of the conference theme, conference papers are published more quickly and in larger quantities. Focusing on the annual publication count, Figure 2’s results verify a notable decline in 2014 of one publication when compared to the year before. The number of articles increased tremendously and steadily between 2015 and 2019. There was a large increase in publication trend in 2020 and 2021. However, there was a drastic surge in publication in 2022, which may be due to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, followed by a drastic decline in the year 2023. It is clear that the industry’s performance in terms of safety is inconsistent and subpar based on the undulating pattern of the number of publications in safety articles. This is in line with the results of [40], who demonstrated that there is a serious safety performance deficit in the construction industry.

4.2. Publications per Country

Regarding the quantity of studies by country of origin, the findings showed that there is some overlap because certain articles list more than one country in their affiliation or title. Similar to this, some nations that had only generated one article over the course of ten years were disqualified on the grounds that there might have been an overlap. Citations and document count were gathered from 18 countries that had at least two publications each, as determined by VOSviewer’s analytical feature. With a total of 24 publications and 472 citations, Australia was found to have the most publications of any country. The United States of America comes in second place with 10 publications and 255 citations, followed by China with 16 articles and 237 citations. South Africa had nine documents but only twenty citations, while New Zealand had two documents but eighty-two citations. Pakistan and the United Kingdom have the same number of citations but different numbers of documents. India and Malaysia each possessed six documents, but the citations were different. Belgium, Canada, and Indonesia are among nations that have two documents, each with a different citation.
Figure 3 demonstrates how clearly South America, Greenland, and the Russian Federation lagged in terms of safety and working conditions. The only African nation represented in the research area was South Africa. These barren and vulnerable zones should be the subject of further study.

4.3. Publications per Document Source

An evaluation was performed on the number of pull-out papers per source title. Only sources with at least two published studies on safety and working conditions are displayed in the result in Table 1. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ranked top with 17 publications and 196 citations. This is not surprising, considering that the journal’s primary focus—safety and health in construction operations and the surrounding environment—has eight articles and one hundred eighty-four citations. In contrast, the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management had the most citations (two hundred twenty-nine) and six publications; this journal’s emphasis is more on construction technology and management. With two publications each but distinct citation counts, Safety and Health at Work, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, International Journal of Construction Management, Journal of Safety Research, Journal of Building Engineering, and Advances in Civil Engineering had the fewest citations.

4.4. Publications Most Cited

It was vital to analyse the collected papers to determine the most often cited sources and their main areas of focus to completely comprehend the research about safety and working conditions. Only 39 of the 104 extracted publications have received at least ten citations or more, as shown in Table 2. The chart indicates that most of these publications addressed various facets of workplace safety and safety circumstances in the construction sector; the bulk of these articles addressed safety from various angles, such as safety climate, safety management, safety training, and safety culture. The majority of those who are frequently mentioned works are articles; only two conference papers and very few other types of publications were analysed. This implies safety research is more grounded in journal articles but less attractive in conference proceedings.

4.5. Co-Authorship Network and Publications per Author

Using VOSviewer, a co-authorship link was created to find the collection of authors who have collaborated on research projects pertaining to safe and healthy working conditions in the construction industry. No co-authors were detected among the 101 authors that were found; hence, the minimal number of documents from the VOSviewer engine could not be increased to two or higher as was the case with earlier researchers. The network map generated shows that there is no link between the authors because the authors do not have more than one paper in the research area. Thus, of the 101 authors, 39 match the standards, with the minimal number of citations for an author set at 10. Figure 4 depicts the co-authorship network overlay visualisation. The map showing these authorships from 2016 to 2022 can be viewed. The construction industry’s safety and working circumstances were first written about by [64]. This period is shown in deep blue on the map. However, Koc, K., Ekmekcioğlu, Ö., and Gurgun; Botti L [67] are the most recent authors to publish on safe working conditions. The yellow cluster in the map’s centre represents their publishing, which spans the years 2022 to the present.

4.6. Research Focus Base on Co-Occurring Keywords

In research articles, keywords are essential phrases because they help describe information, act as a point of reference, and make topics easier to understand [33,80]. Investigation into safety and working conditions in the construction industry has covered a wide range of themes and challenges over the past ten years. To create a visualisation map for co-occurring keywords and an overlaying network of study subjects on safety and working conditions for construction, information retrieved from the Scopus database was put into VOSviewer. The degree of co-occurrence is influenced by terms’ proximity and similarity [81,82].
This is crucial for effective term clustering into keywords that may be utilised to clarify the areas of focus for this earlier research. Ref. [83] previously established a criterion of two co-occurrences, despite VOSviewer_1.6.19 requiring a minimum of five co-occurring keywords. It was discovered that, for the purposes of this research, using a predetermined minimum of five would cause the output of keywords to be repeated. Complete counting was therefore carried out, and a co-occurrence minimum number of 10 was applied.
A total of 1118 keywords were found for all 104 uncovered publications by the analysis. Thirty-one of these terms were further classified into four categories after meeting the ten-co-occurrence threshold. Remember that terms that are near to one another have greater co-occurrence rates [81]. The network visualisation map for the 31 co-occurring keywords and their four categories is shown in Figure 5. “Safety” is the central term that is connected to all other keywords.
Cluster 1—Occupational Health and Safety in the Building Industry
“The building industry”, “safety and health”, “human, humans”, “occupational accident”, “occupational exposure”, “occupational hazard”, “occupational health”, “occupational safety”, “review”, and “workplace” are classified in red on the map and had 12 components. The phrase “occupational health and safety in the building industry” was used to better summarise this cluster. A remarkable concern facing global construction industries is improving occupational safety and health (OSH) [84]. According to [85], one of the business sectors with the greatest incidence of fatalities and serious occupational injuries is the construction industry. Occupational injuries can also result in higher project expenses, disability, and delays in project completion, according to [86]. To reduce deaths and occupational injuries, practical solutions must be devised in order enhance occupational health and safety in the construction industry [86].
Cluster 2—Safety Management and Risk Factors in the Construction Industry
Eleven items with keywords like “accident prevention”, “accidents”, “construction”, “construction industry”, “construction safety”, “human resources management”, “occupational risk”, “risk assessment”, “risk perception”, “safety engineering”, and “surveys” were represented in the green area of the map. Keywords in the cluster connected to risk management and the construction industry. According to [87], safety management components are any effective endeavour that affects safety outcomes, such as training, experience, engineering breakthroughs, managerial techniques, or any other approach that aims to improve workplace safety. In order to identify and minimise risk factors, [88] analysed safety and risk management factors in addition to previous evaluations of safety management elements. Ref. [89] assessed safety management and cultural components by emphasising the internal and external assets that a company needs to develop safety. In their research, it was discovered that a key characteristic of safety practice is senior managers’ and safety coordinators’ encouragement of employees. Effecting safety management issues in close cooperation with the various stakeholder groups who normally participate in the design and building of a facility is necessary for the logical detection and decline in construction safety risks [90].
Cluster 3—Ethical Considerations in Human Experimentation
Four of the items in the blue labelled group contained the keywords “adult”, “article”, “human experiment”, and “male”. “Ethical considerations in human experimentation” was the cluster’s summary. Professional ethics, which does not only refer to technology, transactions, activities, pursuits, and institution evaluation, is the defence of moral principles against real-world tasks. Refs. [91,92,93,94,95] have all indicated that it requires a more detailed understanding of what the public expects to fulfil their commitments. The robustness of the connection concerning the construction sector and the public, which is a purpose of the pride of competence, so preserves its existence via overwhelming reliance on request for the services of its experts and distinctive outcomes. The cultural mismatch between public conceptions and the behaviour of experts in the field, however, poses the biggest threat to the amicable relationship between the public at large and the construction industry [96]. This has led to several concerns and a misperception on the part of the general public regarding the professionalism and ethical standards of construction professionals. This fact makes it clear that the construction industry must be vibrant and reevaluate the moral behaviour and perspective of its experts to improve the services it offers [97,98].
Cluster 4—Safety and Work Environment
Four elements were highlighted in yellow and featured the terms “safety”, “safety culture”, “safety management”, and “working conditions”. There are keywords related to “safety and working conditions” in this cluster. A variety of risk factors have an impact on safety on a building site. When the causes of accidents are linked to the incapacity of a construction worker to act promptly enough, human error—such as miscalculation or inappropriate operation—has been recognised as one of the main risk issues that emerge in construction projects [9,10,11]. According to [12,13,14], this individual’s inaccuracy is characterised as an incorrect human evaluation or as the conduct that lowers value or safety (or both) at some point in construction activities and subsequently degrades construction costs and schedule routine. In addition to the dangerous working conditions on a construction site, refs. [15,16] discovered that 88% of construction accidents were caused by unsafe worker behaviours.

4.7. Yearly Trends of Research Topic Analysis

Figure 6 displays the overlay visualisation network map for the co-occurring phrases in the different publishing years. It was noted that between the middle of 2019 and the beginning of 2020, research concentrating on safety and occupational safety and its application-related difficulties was increasingly noticeable.
“Accidents”, “occupational hazard”, “safety engineering”, “safety management”, “construction sector”, “risk assessment”, “workplace”, “articles”, “occupational risk”, “safety culture”, “surveys”, and “construction safety” are some of the keywords that come up frequently during this time. The map’s purple and blue groupings show these keywords. The “building industry”, “construction”, “accident prevention”, “working conditions”, “male”, “adult”, “humans”, and “human experimentation” were among the topics that received the most attention in the research from 2020 to May 2020 These are shown on the map in green. However, since the middle of 2020, there has been a greater emphasis on occupational exposure, accidents, and researchers’ attention to reviews in publications.

5. Conclusions

Through a bibliometric method, this study sought to discover the research focus in safety and working conditions within domains relevant to construction. The study conducted was able to determine the primary emphasis of research concerning safety and working conditions in the built environment, based on a selection of papers that were saved in the Scopus database and published over a period of ten years. With 14 articles published in 2023, it can be concluded from the statistics that the number of research papers on safety and working conditions is unstable. This unstable publishing poses a severe threat to safe working conditions in the construction industry, given the importance of fully comprehending the idea of safety and working conditions in the built environment and the benefits the industry stands to gain by adopting it holistically.
Australia, the United States, China, Malaysia, and India are the nations with the most publications on safety and working conditions. There is no proof that South America, the Greenland sphere, or the Russian Federation have published anything in this field of study. South Africa was the only nation on the continent of Africa to publish in this field. This exposes a knowledge gap that might be investigated to enhance the continent’s ability to deliver construction. Based on the various clusters extracted, research on safety and working conditions in construction-related fields has focused on occupational health and safety in the building industry, safety management and risk factors in the construction industry, ethical considerations in human experimentation, and safety and work environment. The primary search terms used for this study were “safe”, “working conditions”, “construction industry”, “built environment”, “health and safety”, and “technology”. Results from VOSviewer showed that none of the authors used technology as a keyword, even though they did mention and discuss it in the main body of their research work.
Although this investigation adds a great deal to the body of knowledge about safety and working conditions, care must be used when extrapolating its conclusions because its data were gathered exclusively from the database maintained by Scopus. More research may be conducted with additional databases, or a combination of them, with the goal to contrast outcomes and obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the research subject, even though it is believed that there may be a lot of intersect between Scopus and additional databases. This can be achieved by obtaining a greater number of samples than was feasible in the current study. However, the research findings were limited to journal articles and conference papers only. Book chapters, which are also a tangible contribution to the body of knowledge, were not included. The time frame adopted for the research was between 2013 and 2023; 2024 articles were not included because the majority of 2024 articles were not yet indexed in the database at the time of compilation, and further research can build on this.

Author Contributions

Author A.O.A. conceptualised, designed, conducted the literature search, and prepared the draft. Author D.O.A. designed, reviewed, and edited the draft. Author C.O.A. designed the research, conducted the literature search, and supervised the research. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in Scopus database.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Oxford Economics. Capital Project and Infrastructure Spending: Outlook to 2025; PricewaterhouseCoopers (pwc): London, UK; Oxford Economics: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhou, Z.; Goh, Y.M.; Li, Q. Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2015, 72, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, R.Y.; Poon, S.W. Using web 2.0 to share knowledge of construction safety: The fable of economic animals. Econ. Aff. 2011, 31, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Huang, Y.-J.; Tao, J.; Yang, F.-Q.; Chen, C. Construction safety during pandemics: Learning from the Xinjia Express hotel collapse during COVID-19 in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. International Labour Organization (ILO). ILOSTAT—ILO Database of Labour Statistics. 2018. Available online: https://ilostat.ilo.org/ (accessed on 24 August 2023).
  6. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary. 2019. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm (accessed on 18 August 2023).
  7. European Commission; Eurostat. Accidents at Work Statistics Report. 2024. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Accidents_at_work_statistics (accessed on 2 May 2024).
  8. Al Mawli, B.; Al Alawi, M.; Elazouni, A.; Al-Mamun, A. Construction SMEs safety challenges in water sector in Oman. Saf. Sci. 2021, 136, 205156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Garrett, J.W.; Teizer, J. Human factors analysis classification system relating to human error awareness taxonomy in construction safety. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 754–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hinze, J.; Huang, X.; Terry, L. The nature of struck-by accidents. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huang, X.; Hinze, J. Analysis of construction worker fall accidents. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aksorn, T.; Hadikusumo, B.H.W. Critical success factors influencing safety program performance in Thai construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 709–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saurin, T.A.; Formoso, C.T.; Cambraia, F.B. Analysis of a safety planning and control model from the human error perspective. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2005, 12, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Teo, E.A.L.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Chong, A.F.W. Framework for project managers to manage construction safety. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chi, S.; Han, S.; Kim, D.Y. Relationship between Unsafe Working Conditions and Workers Behaviour and Impact of Working Conditions on Injury Severity in U.S. Construction Industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 826–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Heinrich, H.W. Industrial Accident Prevention; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1936. [Google Scholar]
  17. Choudhry, R.M.; Fang, D. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 566–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Saurin, T.A.; de Macedo Guimarães, L.B. Ergonomic assessment of suspended scaffolds. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2008, 38, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Newnam, S.; Muir, C. Reforming the future of workplace road safety using systems-thinking workplace road safety surveillance. Saf. Sci. 2021, 138, 105225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rao, A.S.; Radanovic, M.; Liu, Y.; Hu, S.; Fang, Y.; Khoshelham, K.; Palaniswami, M.; Ngo, T. Real-time monitoring of construction sites: Sensors, methods, and applications. Autom. Constr. 2022, 136, 104099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, X.; Yang, D.; Yuan, J.; Donkers, A.; Liu, X. BIM-enabled semantic web for automated safety checks in subway construction. Autom. Constr. 2022, 141, 104454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stefana, E.; Ustolin, F.; Paltrinieri, N. IMPROSafety: A risk-based framework to integrate occupational and process safety. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2022, 75, 104698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ibrahim, C.K.I.C.; Manu, P.; Belayutham, S.; Mahamadu, A.M.; Antwi-Afari, M.F. Design for safety (DfS) practice in construction engineering and management research: A review of current trends and future directions. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 52, 104352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Luo, F.; Li, R.Y.; Crabbe, M.J.; Pu, R. Economic development and construction safety research: A bibliometrics approach. Saf. Sci. 2022, 145, 105519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alejo, A.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Aghimien, D.O. The Role of Human Dimension to Safe Working Condition in the Construction Industry: A conceptual framework. In Proceedings of the Transforming Construction with Off-site Methods and Technologies (TCOT) Conference: Designing Tomorrow’s Construction, Today, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 20–22 August 2024. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pritchard, A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J. Doc. 1969, 2, 348–349. [Google Scholar]
  27. Akram, R.; Thaheem, M.J.; Nasir, A.R.; Ali, T.H.; Khan, S. Exploring the role of building information modeling in construction safety through science mapping. Saf. Sci. 2019, 120, 456–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Guz, A.N.; Rushchitsky, J.J. Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. Int. Appl. Mech. 2009, 45, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R.; Ruíz-Navarro, J. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the strategic management journal, 1980–2000. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25, 981–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zheng, X.; Le, Y.; Chan, A.P.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y. Review of the application of social network analysis (SNA) in construction project management research. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1214–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Webster, J.; Watson, R. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 2002, 26, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  33. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W. A Scientometric Review of Global Research on Sustainability and Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Albort-Morant, G.; Henseler, J.; Leal-Millan, A.; Cepeda-Carrion, G. Mapping the Field: A Bibliometric Analysis of Green Innovation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Darko, A.; Zhang, C.; Chan, A.P. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat Int. 2017, 60, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Osei-Kyei, R. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build. 2019, 190, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kopytenkova, O.I.; Tursunov, Z.S.; Levanchuk, A.V.; Mironenko, O.V.; Frolova, N.M.; Sazonova, A.M. The hygienic assessment of the working environment in individual occupations in building organizations. Gig. I Sanit. 2018, 97, 1203–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Herweijer-van Gelder, M.H. Evidence-Based Design in Nederlandse Ziekenhuizen: Ruimtelijke Kwaliteiten die van Invloed Zijn op het Welbevinden en de Gezondheid van Patiënten; A+ BE| Architecture and the Built Environment; TUDelft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 61–456. [Google Scholar]
  39. Çevikbaş, M.; Işık, Z. An Overarching Review on Delay Analyses in Construction Projects. Buildings 2021, 11, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Buniya, M.K.; Othman, I.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Kineber, A.F.; Mussi, E.; Ahmad, H. Barriers to safety program implementation in the construction industry. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wong, J.K.W.; Ge, J.; He, S.X. Digitisation in facilities management: A literature review and future research directions. Autom. Constr. 2018, 92, 312–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Namian, M.; Albert, A.; Zuluaga, C.M.; Behm, M. Role of safety training: Impact on hazard recognition and safety risk perception. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lyu, S.; Hon, C.K.H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Wong, F.K.W.; Javed, A.A. Relationships among safety climate, safety behavior, and safety outcomes for ethnic minority construction workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Namian, M.; Albert, A.; Feng, J. Effect of Distraction on Hazard Recognition and Safety Risk Perception. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zahoor, H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Gao, R.; Utama, W.P. The factors contributing to construction accidents in Pakistan: Their prioritization using the Delphi technique. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 463–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. García-Herrero, S.; Mariscal, M.A.; Gutiérrez, J.M.; Toca-Otero, A. Bayesian network analysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant. Saf. Sci. 2013, 53, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Unnikrishnan, S.; Iqbal, R.; Singh, A.; Nimkar, I.M. Safety Management Practices in Small and Medium Enterprises in India. Saf. Health Work. 2014, 6, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tymvios, N.; Gambatese, J.A. Perceptions about Design for Construction Worker Safety: Viewpoints from Contractors, Designers, and University Facility Owners. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dumrak, J.; Mostafa, S.; Kamardeen, I.; Rameezdeen, R. Factors associated with the severity of construction accidents: The case of South Australia. Constr. Econ. Build. 2013, 13, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ammad, S.; Alaloul, W.S.; Saad, S.; Qureshi, A.H. Personal protective equipment (PPE) usage in construction projects: A scientometric approach. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 35, 102086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Goh, K.C.; Goh, H.H.; Omar, M.F.; Toh, T.C.; Mohd Zin, A.A. Accidents preventive practice for high-rise construction. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Paris, France, 2016; Volume 47. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ranasinghe, U.; Jefferies, M.; Davis, P.; Pillay, M. Resilience Engineering Indicators and Safety Management: A Systematic Review. Saf. Health Work. 2020, 13, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lingard, H.; Pink, S.; Harley, J.; Edirisinghe, R. Looking and learning: Using participatory video to improve health and safety in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 740–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guo, S.; He, J.; Li, J.; Tang, B. Exploring the impact of unsafe behaviors on building construction accidents using a Bayesian network. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, H.; Chi, S.; Yang, J.; Nepal, M.; Moon, S. Development of a Safety Inspection Framework on Construction Sites Using Mobile Computing. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Asibey, M.O.; Amponsah, O.; Yeboah, V. Solid waste management in informal urban neighbourhoods. Occupational safety and health practices among tricycle operators in Kumasi, Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2019, 29, 702–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Goh, Y.M.; Guo, B.H. FPSWizard: A web-based CBR-RBR system for supporting the design of active fall protection systems. Autom. Constr. 2018, 85, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hallowell, M.R.; Bhandari, S.; Alruqi, W. Methods of safety prediction: Analysis and integration of risk assessment, leading indicators, precursor analysis, and safety climate. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 38, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vidal-Gomel, C. Training to safety rules use. Some reflections on a case study. Saf. Sci. 2017, 93, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Parker, A.W.; Tones, M.J.; Ritchie, G.E. Development of a multilevel health and safety climate survey tool within a mining setting. J. Saf. Res. 2017, 62, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Trillo-Cabello, A.F.; Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A.; Rubio-Romero, J.C. Perception of risk in construction. Exploring the factors that influence experts in occupational health and safety. Saf. Sci. 2020, 133, 104990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Huang, Y.-H.; Yang, T.-R. Exploring on-site safety knowledge transfer in the construction industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Meng, Q.; Liu, W.; Li, Z.; Hu, X. Influencing factors, mechanism and prevention of construction workers unsafe behaviours: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Litinen, H.; Vuorinen, M.; Simola, A.; Yrjänheikki, E. Observation-based proactive OHS outcome indicators—Validity of the Elmeri+ method. Saf. Sci. 2013, 54, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, J.; Yu, M.; Wang, H. A taxonomy of performance shaping factors for shield tunnel construction. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 574–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ye, G.; Tan, Q.; Gong, X.; Xiang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Q. Improved HFACS on Human Factors of Construction Accidents: A China Perspective. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 4398345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Koc, K.; Ekmekcioğlu, Ö.; Gurgun, A.P. Accident prediction in construction using hybrid wavelet-machine learning. Autom. Constr. 2022, 133, 103987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Baby, T.; Madhu, G.; Renjith, V. Occupational electrical accidents: Assessing the role of personal and safety climate factors. Saf. Sci. 2021, 139, 105229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lestari, F.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Loosemore, M.; Kusminanti, Y.; Widanarko, B. A Safety Climate Framework for Improving Health and Safety in the Indonesian Construction Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Namian, M.; Taherpour, F.; Ghiasvand, E.; Turkan, Y. Insidious Safety Threat of Fatigue: Investigating Construction Workers’ Risk of Accident Due to Fatigue. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dekker, S.W.A. Safety after neoliberalism. Saf. Sci. 2020, 125, 104630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Edwards, J.R.D.; Davey, J.; Armstrong, K.A. Profiling contextual factors which influence safety in heavy vehicle industries. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 73, 340–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Swuste, P.; van Gulijk, C.; Groeneweg, J.; Guldenmund, F.; Zwaard, W.; Lemkowitz, S. Occupational safety and safety management between 1988 and 2010: Review of safety literature in English and Dutch language scientific literature. Saf. Sci. 2020, 121, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zarei, E.; Karimi, A.; Habibi, E.; Barkhordari, A.; Reniers, G. Dynamic occupational accidents modeling using dynamic hybrid Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis: An in-depth psychometrics study. Saf. Sci. 2021, 136, 105146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hashiguchi, N.; Sengoku, S.; Kubota, Y.; Kitahara, S.; Lim, Y.; Kodama, K. Age-dependent influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on construction worker performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Botti, L.; Melloni, R.; Oliva, M. Learn from the past and act for the future: A holistic and participative approach for improving occupational health and safety in industry. Saf. Sci. 2022, 145, 105475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Borghini, F.; Garzia, F.; Lombardi, M.; Mete, M.; Perruzza, R.; Tartaglia, R. Human factor analysis inside a peculiar job environment at the Gran Sasso mountain underground laboratory of Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics. Int. J. Saf. Secur. Eng. 2018, 8, 390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Idrisova, J.I.; Kaverzneva, T.T.; Rumyantseva, N.V.; Skripnik, I.L. Neural network modelling of safety system for construction equipment operation in permafrost zone. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 302, 012128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lindhout, P.; Kingston-Howlett, J.; Reniers, G. Learning from language problem related accident information in the process industry: A literature study. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 130, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Su, H.-N.; Lee, P.-C. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics 2010, 85, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice; Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320. [Google Scholar]
  82. Liang, H.; Zhang, S.; Su, Y. The structure and emerging trends of construction safety management research: A bibliometric review. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2018, 26, 469–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Saka, A.B.; Chan, D.W.M. A Scientometric Review and Metasynthesis of Building Information Modelling (BIM) Research in Africa. Buildings 2019, 9, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhou, Z.; Li, Q.; Wu, W. Developing a Versatile Subway Construction Incident Database for Safety Management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1169–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Umer, W.; Antwi-Afari, M.F.; Li, H.; Szeto, G.P.Y.; Wong, A.Y.L. The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in the construction industry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2017, 91, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Antwi-Afari, M.F.; Li, H.; Wong, J.K.W.; Oladinrin, O.T.; Ge, J.X.; Seo, J.; Wong, A.Y.L. Sensing and warning-based technology applications to improve occupational health and safety in the construction industry: A literature review. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1534–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Robson, L.S. Guide to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries: How to Show Whether a Safety Intervention Really Works; DHHS: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  88. Dückers, M.; Faber, M.; Cruijsberg, J.; Grol, R.; Schoonhoven, L.; Wensing, M. Safety and risk management interventions in hospitals. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2009, 66, 90S–119S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hale, A.; Guldenmund, F.; van Loenhout, P.; Oh, J. Evaluating safety management and culture interventions to improve safety: Effective intervention strategies. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 1026–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mofidi, A.; Tompa, E.; Mortazavi, S.B.; Esfahanipour, A.; Demers, P.A. A probabilistic approach for economic evaluation of occupational health and safety interventions: A case study of silica exposure reduction interventions in the construction sector. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fan, L.C.N.; Fox, P.W.; Wan, J.C.Y. An Investigation of Ethical Behaviour of Construction Professionals in Quality Management. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-II) ‘Sustainability and Innovation in Management and Technology’, Hong Kong, 10–12 December 2003. [Google Scholar]
  92. Chalkley, R. Conflict of Interest within Construction Practitioners: Quantity Surveying and Built Environment. In Professional Conducts: A Handbook for Chartered Surveyors; Olatunji, O.A., Ed.; RICS Books: London, UK, 1990; Volume 18, pp. 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  93. Poon, J. Professional Ethics for Surveyors and Construction Project Performance’ What We Need to Know. In Proceedings of the Construction and Building Research proceedings of RICS COBRA 2003, Wolverhampton, UK, 1–2 September 2003; pp. 232–242. [Google Scholar]
  94. Poon, J. The Study of Ethical Perceptions of Construction Managers. In Proceedings of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 1–3 September 2004; pp. 973–983. [Google Scholar]
  95. Poon, J. An Investigation of the Differences in Ethical Perceptions among Construction Managers and their Peers. In Proceedings of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 1–3 September 2004; pp. 985–993. [Google Scholar]
  96. Pollington, C. Legal Procurement Practices for Sustainable Development. Build. Res. Inf. 1999, 27, 409–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lam, K.C.; Hu, T.; Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M.; Cheung, S.O. A Fuzzy Neural Network Approach for Contractor Prequalification. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Doree, A.G. Collusion in the Dutch Construction Industry. An Industrial Organization Perspective. Build. Res. Inf. 2004, 32, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 02790 g001
Figure 1. Research design, adapted from [39].
Figure 1. Research design, adapted from [39].
Buildings 14 02790 g001
Buildings 14 02790 g002
Figure 2. Annual distribution of publications.
Figure 2. Annual distribution of publications.
Buildings 14 02790 g002
Buildings 14 02790 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of publications by country/region.
Figure 3. Distribution of publications by country/region.
Buildings 14 02790 g003
Buildings 14 02790 g004
Figure 4. Overlay visualisation of authorship network.
Figure 4. Overlay visualisation of authorship network.
Buildings 14 02790 g004
Buildings 14 02790 g005
Figure 5. Network map of co-occurring keywords.
Figure 5. Network map of co-occurring keywords.
Buildings 14 02790 g005
Buildings 14 02790 g006
Figure 6. Overlay visualisation map.
Figure 6. Overlay visualisation map.
Buildings 14 02790 g006
Table 1. Publications based on document source.
Table 1. Publications based on document source.
Source TitleDocumentsCitations
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17196
Safety Science8184
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management6229
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management472
Automation in Construction3192
Construction Management and Economics361
Sustainability (Switzerland)327
International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering314
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science310
Association of Researchers in Construction Management, ARCOM—33rd Annual Conference 2017, Proceeding37
Safety and Health at Work278
Journal of Building Engineering236
Advances in Civil Engineering225
Journal of Safety Research219
International Journal of Construction Management210
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology29
Table 2. Most cited publications.
Table 2. Most cited publications.
SourceTitleCitationsMethodFocus
[41]‘Digitisation in facilities management: A literature review and future research directions’.151ReviewFacilities management
[42]‘Role of safety training: Impact on hazard recognition and safety risk perception’.100ArticleSafety training
[43]‘Relationships among safety climate, safety behavior, and safety outcomes for ethnic minority construction workers’.82ArticleSafety climate, safety behaviour, and safety outcomes
[44]‘Effect of Distraction on Hazard Recognition and Safety Risk Perception’.61ArticleHazard recognition and safety risk perception
[45]‘The factors contributing to construction accidents in Pakistan: Their prioritization using the Delphi technique’.54ArticleConstruction accident
[46]‘Bayesian network analysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant’.53ArticleSafety culture and organisation culture
[47]‘Safety management practices in small and medium enterprises in India’.49ArticleSafety management practices
[48]‘Perceptions about design for construction worker safety: Viewpoints from contractors, designers, and university facility owners’.47ArticleConstruction worker safety
[49]‘Factors associated with the severity of construction accidents: The case of South Australia’.46ArticleSeverity of construction accidents
[50]‘Personal protective equipment (PPE) usage in construction projects: A scientometric approach’.34ReviewPersonal protective equipment
[51]‘Accidents preventive practice for high-rise construction’.33ConferenceAccident preventive practice
[52]‘Resilience Engineering Indicators and Safety Management: A Systematic Review’.29ReviewSafety management
[53]‘Looking and learning: using participatory video to improve health and safety in the construction industry’.29ArticleHealth and safety
[54]‘Exploring the impact of unsafe behaviors on building construction accidents using a Bayesian network’.29ArticleUnsafe behaviour
[55]‘Development of a Safety Inspection Framework on Construction Sites Using Mobile Computing’.29ReviewSafety inspection framework
[56]‘Solid waste management in informal urban neighbourhoods. Occupational safety and health practices among tricycle operators in Kumasi, Ghana’.27ArticleOccupational safety and health practices
[57]‘FPSWizard: A web-based CBR-RBR system for supporting the design of active fall protection systems’.27ArticleWeb-based CBR-RBR system
[58]‘Methods of safety prediction: analysis and integration of risk assessment, leading indicators, precursor analysis, and safety climate’.24ArticleSafety prediction
[59]‘Training to safety rules use. Some reflections on a case study’.22ArticleSafety rules
[60]‘Development of a multilevel health and safety climate survey tool within a mining setting’.19ArticleMultilevel health and safety climate
[61]‘Perception of risk in construction. Exploring the factors that influence experts in occupational health and safety’.18ArticleRisk
[62]‘Exploring on-site safety knowledge transfer in the construction industry’.18ArticleOn-site safety knowledge
[63]‘Influencing factors, mechanism and prevention of construction workers’ unsafe behaviors: A systematic literature review’.17ReviewUnsafe behaviour
[64]‘Observation-based proactive OHS outcome indicators—Validity of the Elmeri+ method’.17ArticleOHS outcome indicators
[65]‘A taxonomy of performance shaping factors for shield tunnel construction’.16ArticlePerformance-shaping factors
[66]‘Improved HFACS on Human Factors of Construction Accidents: A China Perspective’.16ArticleHuman factors on construction accidents
[67]‘Accident prediction in construction using hybrid wavelet-machine learning’.14ArticleAccident
[68]‘Occupational electrical accidents: Assessing the role of personal and safety climate factors’.13ArticleAccident
[69]‘A safety climate framework for improving health and safety in the Indonesian construction industry’.13ArticleSafety climate
[70]‘Insidious Safety Threat of Fatigue: Investigating Construction Workers’ Risk of Accident Due to Fatigue’.12ArticleThreat of fatigue
[71]‘Safety after neoliberalism’.12ArticleSafety
[72]‘Profiling contextual factors which influence safety in heavy vehicle industries’.11ArticleSafety
[73]‘Occupational safety and safety management between 1988 and 2010: Review of safety literature in English and Dutch language scientific literature’.11ReviewOccupational safety and safety management
[74]‘Dynamic occupational accidents modeling using dynamic hybrid Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis: An in-depth psychometrics study’.10ArticleAccident
[75]‘Age-dependent influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on construction worker performance’.10ArticleIntrinsic and extrinsic motivation
[76]‘Learn from the past and act for the future: A holistic and participative approach for improving occupational health and safety in industry’.10ArticleOccupational health and safety
[77]‘Human factor analysis inside a peculiar job environment at the gran sasso mountain underground laboratory of Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics’.10ArticleHuman factor analysis
[78]‘Neural network modeling of safety system for construction equipment operation in permafrost zone’.10ConferenceSafey system for construction equipment operation
[79]‘Learning from language problem related accident information in the process industry: A literature study’.10ReviewAccident
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alejo, A.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Aghimien, D.O. Emerging Trends of Safe Working Conditions in the Construction Industry: A Bibliometric Approach. Buildings 2024, 14, 2790. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092790

AMA Style

Alejo AO, Aigbavboa CO, Aghimien DO. Emerging Trends of Safe Working Conditions in the Construction Industry: A Bibliometric Approach. Buildings. 2024; 14(9):2790. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092790

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alejo, Ayodele Oluwole, Clinton Ohis Aigbavboa, and Douglas Omoregie Aghimien. 2024. "Emerging Trends of Safe Working Conditions in the Construction Industry: A Bibliometric Approach" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2790. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092790

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop