Safety Culture and Worker Perception in Highway Maintenance Operations: A Survey of Alabama Department of Transportation Maintenance Technicians

Abstract

The survey entitled “Field Survey of Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) Transportation Maintenance Technicians (TMTs) Perception of Worker Safety” investigates the safety perceptions and concerns of maintenance workers within ALDOT through a multifaceted analysis approach. The findings reveal critical insights that can significantly enhance ALDOT’s safety practices, training programs, and overall safety culture. Disparities in safety perceptions across different ALDOT’s areas were found, emphasizing the need for ALDOT to tailor its strategies to meet the unique needs of each area, ensuring that safety measures are both relevant and effective. The study emphasizes the importance of implementing targeted interventions focused on high-risk activities and prevalent safety concerns, allowing ALDOT to prioritize resources effectively. Additionally, the research highlights the necessity for continuous improvement by regularly evaluating safety initiatives based on feedback and best practices. This ongoing evaluation ensures that safety measures remain relevant and effective in addressing the evolving needs of TMTs. By integrating these insights into its safety management practices, ALDOT can cultivate a more proactive and resilient work environment that not only addresses immediate safety concerns but also establishes a sustainable culture of safety prioritizing employee well-being. The study provides a roadmap for future improvements in workplace safety and initiates discussions on the implications and recommendations for enhancing ALDOT’s and other transportation agencies’ safety management practices.

1. Introduction

Highway maintenance workers face significant safety concerns due to the hazardous nature of their work environments. These concerns include exposure to occupational hazards like dust, noise, heat, vibration, and chemicals, potentially leading to health issues such as hearing loss, respiratory disorders, musculoskeletal problems, and skin irritations [1]. Additionally, the risk of injuries and fatalities are heightened by factors like working in live traffic, night shifts, limited maneuverability in tight work areas, weather conditions, and lack of safety training, which can lead to catastrophic consequences if not addressed promptly [2]. While quantitative analyses (i.e., roadway characteristics, crash data, and traffic volume data) have traditionally dominated road safety research, qualitative insights from workers directly involved in roadway maintenance activities offer valuable perspectives on hazards, incidents, and mitigating measures [3]. The study examines the perceptions of Transportation Maintenance Technicians (TMTs) regarding job safety, through a comprehensive survey of 99 TMTs employed at the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT).

1.1. Research Background

Workers’ perception of safety is crucial for several reasons, as it directly influences their behavior, attitudes, and overall safety outcomes in the workplace. These perceptions significantly affect how employees act on the job; when workers believe that their workplace prioritizes safety and that they are supported in their safety efforts, they are more likely to engage in safe work practices, follow safety protocols, and report hazards. Conversely, negative perceptions can lead to risky behaviors and a disregard for safety measures [4]. A positive safety perception is also linked to a lower incidence of workplace accidents and injuries, as workers who feel that safety is a shared value within the organization tend to be more cautious and proactive in identifying and mitigating potential hazards.

Moreover, workers who perceive a strong safety climate are more likely to communicate openly about safety concerns and report unsafe conditions, fostering a culture of safety that benefits the entire organization. This open communication is essential for identifying risks and implementing corrective measures. Additionally, positive safety perceptions contribute to higher levels of employee engagement and morale; when workers feel that their safety is valued, they are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and committed to their organization, leading to improved productivity and lower turnover rates [5].

Understanding workers’ safety perceptions can provide valuable insights for organizations seeking to improve their safety programs. By assessing and addressing the factors that influence these perceptions, organizations can implement targeted interventions that enhance safety culture and practices. A key element in understanding safety perception is the concept of safety climate, which refers to the shared beliefs and attitudes regarding safety within an organization [6].

The interaction between workers and their supervisors is particularly significant in shaping safety perceptions. Effective communication and feedback from supervisors can reinforce safe behaviors and encourage workers to voice concerns about safety issues. Conversely, a lack of engagement or negative feedback can lead to a diminished perception of safety, potentially increasing the likelihood of accidents. Studies have emphasized the importance of fostering a supportive supervisory approach that prioritizes safety discussions and encourages open communication about safety practices [7].

Additionally, individual factors such as personal attitudes towards risk and safety, as well as the influence of group norms, play a crucial role in shaping workers’ safety perceptions. Workers who perceive risk-taking as an inherent part of their job may be less vigilant about safety, while those who recognize the importance of safety protocols are more likely to adhere to them. Understanding workers’ safety perceptions allows for providing actionable insights that can enhance safety practices and reduce the accidents in this critical field [4].

1.2. Research Gaps

Research gaps represent critical areas that have not been thoroughly explored or understood, highlighting opportunities for further investigation to enhance knowledge and inform practice. Longitudinal studies are particularly lacking, as most research on this topic is cross-sectional and therefore limited to a temporary view of survey participants’ opinions. A longitudinal study would provide useful information on how workers’ safety perceptions change over time, such as through management developments, training programs, or changes in organizational culture [8]. There is also a need for studies that explore safety perceptions across a broader range of work environments. Understanding how safety perceptions differ in various contexts, such as urban versus rural road maintenance or different types of machinery used, could provide valuable insights.

Another area that requires further investigation is the impact of technology on safety perceptions. With the increasing use of automated machinery and safety apps in road maintenance, research could explore whether these advancements enhance or diminish safety awareness and how workers adapt to these changes. Furthermore, cultural influences on safety perception are underexplored, comparative studies across different regions could shed light on how cultural differences impact safety attitudes and behaviors among workers [9].

Individual differences, such as age, experience, and risk tolerance, can significantly influence safety perceptions. Studies that explore these individual factors could lead to more tailored safety interventions. Lastly, there is a need for research examining the balance between safety and productivity in road maintenance jobs. Understanding how workers perceive the trade-offs between these two aspects could inform better management practices that prioritize both safety and efficiency. By addressing these research gaps, future studies can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of workers’ safety perceptions and lead to improved safety practices and outcomes in road maintenance and other industries.

1.3. Significance of the Study

The findings from the survey on safety perceptions, training needs, and risk perceptions among ALDOT TMTs can serve as a model for other transportation organizations seeking to enhance their safety culture and practices. Understanding the dynamics of workplace safety is crucial, as it directly impacts community well-being and public safety. The study highlights the importance of fostering a proactive safety culture, which can lead to reduced workplace injuries and accidents. By sharing the methodologies and findings, this paper can inform readers about effective strategies for assessing and improving safety perceptions in their own workplaces. The emphasis on qualitative data collection can also encourage organizations to listen to their employees’ opinions, fostering a culture of open communication and continuous improvement. The study underscores the significance of tailored safety interventions based on specific workforce needs and risks. This approach can inspire other organizations to conduct their own assessments and develop customized safety programs that address the unique challenges faced by their employees. By demonstrating the value of data-driven decision-making in safety management, the manuscript can motivate organizations to prioritize safety and invest in the well-being of their workforce.

1.4. Structure of the Study

The structure of this research is organized into several key sections to facilitate a clear understanding of the study. The second section presents a comprehensive literature review, which contextualizes the study within existing research on workplace safety and safety culture. The third section details the survey instrument used to gather data, including the development process, question types, and the rationale behind the selected safety perception factors. Following this, the fourth section outlines the methodology employed in the study, including data collection procedures, and analytical techniques. The fifth section presents the results of the survey, offering a detailed analysis of survey responses. The sixth section discusses the implications of the results. The seventh section provides recommendations for improving safety practices, while the last section suggests opportunities for future research. This structured approach ensures a logical flow of information, facilitating a clear understanding of the study’s contributions to the field.

2. Literature Review

This section serves as a foundation for understanding the multifaceted nature of workplace safety culture and the various factors that influence safety perceptions among roadway maintenance workers.

2.1. Demographics and Safety Perception

When investigating the relationship between demographics and the impact on workers’ perception of safety, the literature demonstrates that variables such as age, job title, work experience, and location can influence an individual’s perception of safety in their workplace [3]. Different age groups were reported to have a notable impact on the perception of worker safety [10]. Studies have shown that older employees typically demonstrate enhanced safety perceptions, increased job satisfaction, better adherence to safety protocols, and reduced injury rates in comparison to their younger counterparts [11]. On the other hand, younger workers, specifically under the age of 25, frequently exhibit hesitancy in reporting occupational health and safety concerns, despite their capability to recognize potential hazards [12]. Job titles and their effect on safety perception were also investigated in previous studies, highlighting that highway maintenance workers with different levels of exposure (i.e., traffic volume, performed tasks, etc.) had varying perceptions of hazards and safety measures. For example, workers directly involved in tasks that required them to be in close proximity to traffic or machinery noted issues like wet weather, driver distraction, and driver aggression more frequently than the less-exposed groups [13]; however, previous research identifies that task-related accidents in the work area are 2.5 times greater than traffic accidents sustained by roadway workers, highlighting the critical need for safety awareness within the work zone, highlighting the perception that workers may feel more vulnerable to accidents occurring in their immediate work environment compared to those involving traffic [14]. Workers with more experience were found to have better situational awareness due to their familiarity with the dynamic conditions and potential hazards during roadway maintenance activities, which helps them detect and respond to hazards more effectively [15]. Similarly, a qualitative study performed by interviewing roadway workers reported that experienced workers highlighted the challenges of dealing with nearby traffic over which they have no control. Whereas inexperienced workers mentioned how constant alerts and noise from work vehicles and machinery may be disruptive or stressful, that could lead to reduced attentiveness, especially if they are still adjusting to the work environment [13].

The impact of work location was also discussed in previous studies. One such study noted that setting up temporary traffic control in locations with narrow roads presents unique challenges due to the limited space available for implementing safety measures, and the more significant disruption of traffic flow compared to wider roads. Lane closures, detours, or lane shifts may be more challenging to implement without causing congestion or delays, thereby impacting both motorist and worker safety. The study further suggested the utilization of new technologies for improving motorist and worker safety including (1) Intrusion prevention and warning systems including sensors, cameras, and alarms, (2) Speed reduction systems, (3) Drone radar, (4) Proximity warning systems, and (5) Human–machine interaction detection systems [1]. Another study suggests that different regions may have varying safety regulations and enforcement mechanisms, impacting how safety is perceived as well as the economic pressure and the overall safety climate in a specific location, including factors like communication, leadership, and training [16].

2.2. Management Approaches towards Safety

Training frequency and providing tailored safety training plays a crucial role in decreasing work-related injuries in highway maintenance activities. Research emphasizes the need for specialized safety training beyond standard courses to address the unique hazards faced by highway maintenance workers [17].

A study conducted on safety behavior and the perceived work pressure indicated that organizations could implement several strategic approaches to foster a healthier workplace and mitigate pressures that compromise safety. Examples of such strategies included (1) Promoting work–life balance, (2) Ensuring that employees have access to the necessary resources and tools, (3) Clear job roles and expectations, (4) Ongoing training and development programs, (5) Encouraging an environment of open communication allowing employees to voice concerns, (6) Equitable task delegation for fair distribution of work, and (7) Recognizing and rewarding employees’ contributions [18].

A recent study on improving the safety of the workplace discussed creating or improving the Safety Management Systems (SMS) with an emphasis on encompassing elements such as risk assessment, hazard identification, safety training, incident reporting, including reporting procedure, and continuous improvement based on metrics, data analysis, and lessons learned from near misses and accidents [19].

Current practices and capabilities of various SMS used among Departments of Transportation (DOTs) in managing highway maintenance worker safety emphasized the importance of electronic data management, with a significant majority of DOTs storing safety data electronically. Research revealed that while many DOTs utilize SMS for collecting and managing safety data, there is a notable gap in the documentation of written policies and procedures, which are essential for effective safety management [20]

To effectively address the safety concerns faced by maintenance workers, it is essential to implement comprehensive training programs. Training programs for maintenance workers can encompass a variety of critical topics such as (1) Equipment maintenance and repair, (2) Safety procedures and regulations, (3) Technical skill development, (4) Risk identification and analysis by analyzing the root causes of safety threats, and conducting thorough investigations, (5) Preventive maintenance practices, (6) Communication and teamwork as well as implementing innovative conflict resolution strategies, (7) Time management and prioritization depending on the maintenance workload; and (8) Continuous improvement for new and existing employees [21].

While comprehensive training programs are vital for enhancing the skills and Safety Awareness of maintenance workers, it is equally important to recognize how these training initiatives can significantly influence overall job satisfaction and employee morale within the workforce. A study that aimed to assess job satisfaction and work performance among employees suggested that a friendly atmosphere, stable employment, and good physical working conditions contribute significantly to employee satisfaction and, consequently, to their work performance and safety [22].

2.3. Factors of Safety Perception

Safety perception has an impact on safety behavior and workplace incidents [23]. It is crucial for organizations to prioritize safety culture dimensions like communication, management commitment, employee engagement, and training to enhance workers’ safety perception and reduce workplace incidents [24]. Outcomes of the safety culture are often demonstrated through worker Motivation and their safety knowledge [25]. Research conducted in power plant construction projects aimed to assess safety behavior by examining nine factors: (1) Management Dedication to Safety, (2) Establishing a Supporting Environment, (3) Safety Management System, (4) Employee Participation, (5) Safety Awareness, (6) Safety Mindset, (7) Motivation, (8) Resource Allocation, and (9) Perceived Work Pressure. Results indicated that most employees did not consistently follow safety rules and norms at the workplace. Safety attitude, safety knowledge, and supporting environment were identified as significant predictors of safety behavior. Instantaneous improvements in the supporting environment and enhancing employee participation were recommended as effective strategies to promote improved safety behavior [26]. This literature highlighted the critical interplay between various safety factors, setting the stage for this research effort, which adopted an examination of the nine key factors to assess ALDOT TMTs perception of safety culture within the organization.

3. Survey Instrument

The worker perception survey designed for assessing safety perceptions among ALDOT TMTs involved a systematic instrument development process, which included several key stages: initial development, pilot testing, and validation of the survey questions.

The survey instrument was developed based on a comprehensive review of existing literature on workplace safety and previous studies that focused on safety perceptions in similar contexts. This review informed the selection of relevant factors and variables to be measured, ensuring that the survey addressed critical aspects of safety culture, training needs, and risk perceptions. The instrument included a variety of question types, such as multiple-choice, Likert scale, rank order, and open-ended questions, to capture a wide range of data and perspectives.

Once the initial draft of the survey was created, it underwent pilot testing with a group of ALDOT safety managers. This pilot phase aimed to identify any ambiguities or issues with the questions, as well as to assess the overall clarity and flow of the survey. Feedback from the pilot participants was instrumental in refining the questions, ensuring that they were easily understood and relevant to the respondents’ experiences.

The survey was distributed across four ALDOT area offices that have been identified as having some of the highest numbers of injuries among ALDOT TMTs based on historical ALDOT injury data. The research team collaborated with ALDOT to gather TMTs working in each of the areas and achieved a near 100% response rate with 99 total responses. After collecting survey responses, the data was digitized and uploaded into Qualtrics, a survey management and data analysis platform. A copy of the survey instrument can be found here:

https://uab.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bEeUJo5TrsnP6HY (accessed on 12 September 2023).

The transition to a digital format facilitated a streamlined process for organizing and preparing responses for a detailed analysis. To further evaluate and understand the patterns and insights gathered from the survey data, the data was imported into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v.29. This process preserved the integrity of the data collected and enabled comprehensive statistical analyses of the demographic information, training practices, risk assessments, and safety perceptions of ALDOT’s TMT workforce.

The survey questionnaire covered various aspects of workplace safety and organizational practices within ALDOT. It included a wide range of question types such as multiple-choice (6), rank order (1), Likert scale (48), and open-ended questions (3). This varied approach was strategically chosen to gather comprehensive insights into the safety culture and management practices within the organization. Multiple-choice questions were used to gather demographic data and to quantify the prevalence of worker training, and a rank order question was used to allow TMTs to rank ALDOT activities by perceived risk, whereas Likert scale questions measured the degree of agreement or disagreement with statements related to safety culture and workplace safety. Open-ended questions provided TMTs the opportunity to express their thoughts, experiences, and suggestions in their own words, offering deeper context and richer insight into the day-to-day operations and safety management within ALDOT. This multifaceted approach aimed to ensure a thorough understanding of the safety environment, identifying strengths, possible weaknesses, areas for improvement, and driving factors behind the existing ALDOT safety culture.

The aims and objectives of the worker perception survey are as follows:

• Assess the safety culture, practices, and contributing factors to worker injuries among ALDOT TMTs.
• Identify areas of strength, potential weakness, and the potential for improvement in safety management within chosen ALDOT area offices.
• Gain an insight into the effectiveness of safety training programs and resources provided to TMTs.
• Provide a measure and a benchmark for different factors associated with worker safety perception.
• Identify workers’ safety concerns and activities within ALDOT that are perceived to pose the highest risk of injuries.

4. Materials and Methods

To transform the collected data into meaningful insights, a multifaceted analysis approach was employed. This section outlines the methodologies used to perform a detailed analysis of the survey responses, aiming to unfold the layers of safety perceptions among ALDOT workers. Through the adoption of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques, a holistic understanding of the prevailing safety culture within the organization was sought. Quantitative analysis primarily focused on statistical evaluations of multiple-choice, Likert scale, and rank order question responses to identify patterns, trends, and correlations. Meanwhile, the qualitative analysis was focused on exploring the open-ended responses, allowing for a deeper understanding of personal experiences and opinions of workers.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Quantitative analyses were performed for the initial interpretation of the results using descriptive statistics to summarize the data and present results in a meaningful way. Basic statistical measures such as means, medians, frequencies, and percentages were used to provide an overview of the data.

4.2. Reliability Test of Survey Questions

Likert scale questions comprised 48 statements related to nine different safety perception factors used in a previous study [26] and included (1) Management Dedication to Safety, (2) Motivation, (3) Supportive Environment, (4) Safety Management Systems, (5) Employee Participation, (6) Resource Allocation, (7) Safety Mindset, (8) Safety Awareness, and (9) Work Pressure. Each of the nine safety perception factors were assessed using several Likert scale statements. Cronbach’s Alpha was employed to measure the reliability of the statements within the survey indicating how closely related the items are to each other, which is used to assess the internal consistency of questionnaire items [27]. In other words, based on the value of Cronbach’s Alpha, the internal consistency of these statements was evaluated to ensure their coherency in representing the safety perception factor measured. To calculate Cronbach’s Alpha, responses for several statements or questions designed to measure the same concept are defined and the variances are calculated for each set of responses corresponding to one distinct safety perception factor. The next step is to calculate the variance for all items of the questionnaire. The variance measures how responses for each item differ from the average response. Then, the variances of all items are summed to obtain the total variance that helps in understanding the overall variability in the responses. Covariance between each pair of items is then calculated to measure the interrelatedness between each pair. A Cronbach’s Alpha value can be calculated using Equation (1) as follows:

$$\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{N\overline{c}}{\overline{v}+\left(N-1\right)\overline{c}}}$$

(1)

where

$\alpha$ = Cronbach’s Alpha

$N$ = Number of items

$\overline{c}$ = Average inter-item covariance among items

$\overline{v}$ = Average variance

In the study, SPSS was used to calculate Cronbach’s Alpha values for safety perception factors.

Validity was addressed through both content and construct validation. Content validity was ensured by applying the opinions of experts in the field of occupational safety from the literature as well as safety experts working closely with ALDOT TMTs.

4.3. Assigning Weights to Statements

To further analyze the responses effectively and derive meaningful insights, we employed statistical techniques to calculate the overall scores of each factor and assess the relative importance, or weights of each question contributing to the concept of the corresponding safety perception factor. These weights were assigned based on the literature review and using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

The literature assigned weights to statements through a process involving experts’ opinions and the application of Dempster–Shafer theory. In the previous study, five experts were consulted to assign probabilities to three possible relationships between each pair of variables. These probabilities provided a basis for determining the weights of statements. The selection of experts for the study was a systematic process aimed at ensuring the credibility and relevance of their contributions. Experts were chosen based on their experience in safety behavior research, which ensured they possessed the necessary background and understanding of the subject matter. Prior to their selection, interviews were conducted with each potential expert to assess their knowledge about existing models of safety behavior. This assessment was crucial in confirming that the experts had a comprehensive understanding of the field. Only those who demonstrated sufficient knowledge and expertise were selected, thereby enhancing the quality and reliability of the opinions gathered [26].

Dempster–Shafer theory, a mathematical theory for reasoning with uncertainty, was then used to combine the experts’ opinions and assign weights to the statements based on the degree of agreement among the experts [26]. The steps taken in the CFA process, focusing on the use of factor analysis and factor loadings to determine the weights of the survey Likert statements were all carried out using SPSS. The normalized weights were then calculated to reflect the adjusted influence of each question on the outcome factor.

Likert scale responses were converted from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” into numerical values 1 to 5, respectively, which allowed us to calculate the mean of responses to each statement for an initial understanding. Then, the mean for the statement was multiplied by its corresponding weight to accurately represent the score of workers’ perceptions of each safety factor. Equation (2) was formulated to calculate factors’ scores as follows:

$$S_{Fi}=\sum (W_{F{i}_{Yj}}\ast {\overline{X}}_{F{i}_{Yj}})$$

(2)

where

$i$ = factor number ranges from 1–9

$j$ = statement number ranges from 1–9

$S_{Fi}$ = score of factor i

$W_{F{i}_{Yj}}$ = weight of statement j of the factor i

${ \overline{X}}_{F{i}_{Yj}}$ = mean of responses to statement Y_j of the factor i

The factor number $\left(i\right)$ represents the specific safety perception factor being evaluated. In a study with multiple factors (e.g., Management Dedication, Motivation, etc.), each factor is assigned a unique number (1, 2, 3, to 9) to differentiate them in the analysis. Statement number (j) refers to the individual statements or questions that contribute to the assessment of a particular safety perception factor. Each factor consists of several statements that respondents evaluate, and each statement is numbered accordingly. Weight of statement ${(W}_{F{i}_{Yj}})$ indicates the assigned weight for each statement (j) within the factor (i). Weights were determined based on the importance of each statement in contributing to the overall understanding of the factor. Higher weights are assigned to statements deemed more critical to safety perception. Mean of responses (${ \overline{X}}_{F{i}_{Yj}})$ to statement (Yj) represents the average response score for the specific statement (j) within the factor (i). It is calculated based on the responses from all participants regarding that statement, providing a quantitative measure of how respondents perceive that particular aspect of safety. Finally, Score of Factor ($S_{Fi}$) is the calculated score for the specific safety perception factor (i). It reflects the overall perception of that factor based on the responses collected from the survey participants. The scores initially calculated out of 5 were then converted to a scale of 100 for easier interpretation. In this new scale, any factor that received a score of less than 60% was identified as needing immediate intervention due to critical deficiencies. Factors that scored between 60% and 79.9% were recognized as having room for improvement, indicating areas where enhancements could significantly benefit the safety culture. Scores of 80% and higher were regarded as positive aspects, reflecting strong and effective elements within the existing safety culture.

4.4. Visualization of Results

To simplify the visualization of the agreement spectrum of each statement and to explore correlations effectively, survey responses were grouped into three main categories: agree, neutral, and disagree. Responses indicating “strongly agree” and “agree” were combined to represent a general “agree” category. Similarly, responses of “disagree” and “strongly disagree” were merged into a single “disagree” category. The “neither agree nor disagree” responses were maintained as a separate, neutral category. This grouping strategy facilitated a clearer, visual understanding of the overall trends in safety perception among the workers and allowed for a more straightforward analysis of correlations between different statements and other survey responses.

4.5. Chi-Square Test

Chi-Square test is a statistical method used to determine whether there is a significant association between categorical variables. It can be especially helpful in survey data, where researchers are trying to understand trends among groups of people and the ways different demographic characteristics correlate with responses. In essence, the Chi-Square test evaluates the null hypothesis, which postulates that there is no relationship between the variables being studied. By calculating the Chi-Square statistic, we can interpret the value using a significance level (commonly set at 0.05), where a p-value below this threshold indicates that the observed relationship is statistically significant.

In the study, the Chi-Square test was used to determine the significance of any relationship between different demographic variables and overall safety perceptions. This allowed for the identification of potential patterns in the demographics (i.e., age, job title, level of experience, and ALDOT area) may influence workers perception of workplace safety. The Chi-Square test was also used to identify significant relationships between ALDOT area and job title with the scores of ALDOT’s riskiest activities based upon workers’ perceptions and experiences. This provided valuable insights into how workers in each area and job title perceive the safety of their work environment, and which specific tasks may be perceived as more hazardous compared to others.

5. Results

The representativeness of the survey sample data set was achieved through its diverse demographic composition, balanced distribution, statistical significance, reliability testing, and comprehensive analysis techniques. In this section, a detailed analysis of the survey results is presented, encompassing a comprehensive review of the demographic information, training activities, safety concerns, and worker safety perceptions among ALDOT TMTs. Through a series of visualizations, we aim to highlight how various factors interplay to shape the safety culture within the organization. These findings can be employed to guide future strategies to enhance workplace safety while ensuring that initiatives are tailored to meet the specific needs and concerns of ALDOT’s workers. For statements regarding worker safety perceptions, Cronbach’s Alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of survey items as mentioned in Section 4.2, the measurement evaluates the reliability of survey statements by determining the degree of their interrelatedness. Cronbach’s Alpha values range from 0 to 1. A higher Cronbach’s Alpha (closer to 1) indicates better internal consistency among the items while values above 0.7 are generally considered a reliable score in measuring the same factor [27]. In the study, SPSS was used to calculate Cronbach’s Alpha values for safety perception factors and were compared to a previous study with similar items measuring these factors and these values are shown in

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha of Safety Perception Factors.

Safety Perception Factor	Cronbach’s Alpha (Current Study)	Cronbach’s Alpha (Previous Study) [26]
1. Management Dedication to Safety	0.832	0.831
2. Motivation	0.795	0.800
3. Supportive Environment	0.783	0.751
4. Safety Management Systems	0.930	0.719
5. Employee Participation	0.819	0.611
6. Resource Allocation	0.773	0.650
7. Safety Mindset	0.735	0.768
8. Safety Awareness	0.890	0.875
9. Work Pressure	0.708	0.756

below.

5.1. Demographics

The first section of the survey aimed to collect demographic data, including age group, job title/class, years of experience, and the ALDOT area in which they are currently working. This information helps understand the composition of the surveyed sample and set the stage to explore subsequent correlations between safety perceptions and demographics.

Figure 1a provides a visual representation of the distribution of survey responses across various age groups of ALDOT TMTs. The ‘45–54’ age group exhibits the highest participation rate, accounting for 34% of the total responses, and indicating a high response rate from mid-career employees. Conversely, the ‘65 or over’ age group, along with the ‘18–24’ category, shows a lower survey response rate, with 6% and 5%, respectively. This age distribution highlights the predominance of middle-aged employees in contributing to the survey, which may reflect a vested interest in the organizational practices and safety culture at ALDOT, as well as more positive attitudes towards safety [11].

TMTs at ALDOT have three different classes based on experience: TMT I, TMT II, and TMT III. The highest percentage of responses came from employees with the job class of TMT II, accounting for 40% of total responses, is followed by TMT III at 26% and TMT I at 17% as shown in Figure 1b, which suggests a higher engagement level among mid-level maintenance staff. Other reported job descriptions account for 15% of responses and included Transportation Worker, Transportation Manager, Lowboy Driver, and District Administrator.

As for the level of experience, the largest groups of employees have been in their current job title for ‘1–5 years’ and ‘5–10 years’, each accounting for 24% of responses. Meanwhile, a significant portion of respondents, 21%, have held their title for more than 20 years, indicating a considerable level of experience and long-term commitment within the organization. Responses with less than 1 year of experience had the smallest representation (8%). Figure 1c shows an illustration of respondents’ experience level by percent of responses.

Responses were collected from three different ALDOT areas and were closely similar in response proportion. The highest percent of responses was collected from Alexander City Area (36%), followed by Birmingham and Tuscaloosa area with 32% and 31% of responses, respectively, as shown in Figure 1d.

By running a Chi-Square test, it was discovered that there is a statistically significant relationship (p-value < 0.05) between ALDOT area and job title/class, which can potentially influence training needs across the three areas. Figure 1e provides a comparative analysis of job titles or classes across the three different areas: Tuscaloosa Area, Birmingham Area, and Alexander City Area. TMT II category shows a substantial presence in Birmingham Area, accounting for 47% of Birmingham respondents, followed by 42% of Alexander City responses and 25% in Tuscaloosa. In contrast, the TMT I category is more evenly distributed within Tuscaloosa Area and Birmingham Area, showing close percentages (29% and 31%, respectively); however, none of Alexander City respondents were classified as a TMT I. The TMT III category shows a higher concentration in the Alexander City Area at 31%.

The “Other” category, which includes other job roles not classified under the TMT titles but still involved in highway maintenance activities, shows a higher percentage in Alexander City Area (22%) and Birmingham (19%) compared to Tuscaloosa (6%). This might indicate a narrower diversity of job roles in Tuscaloosa.

5.2. Training

Work-related injuries in highway maintenance jobs can be reduced by offering training designed to appropriately target specific hazards confronted by highway maintenance workers [17]. A breakdown of training frequency within ALDOT by percent of responses is shown in Figure 2. Yearly training was cited as the most occurring frequency with 52% of responses. Monthly training followed with 22% of all responses. Weekly training was the least common response at 6%. The other category was selected by 19% of respondents, which compromised irregular training sessions as needed.

Respondents were asked to list the training topics they had received as TMTs in an open-ended question. The responses highlighted several topics that were grouped and ranked from most frequently mentioned to least mentioned. (1) Equipment Operation Safety Training was the most frequently cited topic, underlining the critical importance of handling machinery with expertise and caution. This was followed by (2) Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) as well as (3) Flagging and (4) Safety Awareness, emphasizing the need for vigilance and proactive measures in ensuring safety within work zones and public safety. (5) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training was also notably mentioned. Other significant areas included (6) Hazardous Materials, (7) Emergency Response, and (8) Loading/Unloading/Hauling Materials.

5.3. Safety Concerns

To further assess the safety perception and exposure of TMTs, respondents were given a list of ten activities and were asked to select their top three most hazardous activities. These rankings were then converted to a weighted value, where a value of 3 was assigned to the riskiest, 2 to the second-riskiest, and 1 to the third-riskiest activity. A higher weighted value score represents riskier activities compared to lower weight value scores based upon worker perception. Figure 3 provides a quantitative analysis of the perceived risk associated with various maintenance activities, as ranked by ALDOT TMTs.

As seen in Figure 3, the activities that accumulated the highest scores were (1) Roadway/Shoulder Maintenance, (2) Guardrail/Cable Rail Maintenance, (3) Mowing and Trimming, and (4) Patching. These activities are indicative of those perceived as the most hazardous by the TMTs. This ranking method highlights not only the frequency of selection but also the ranking of perceived risk associated with each activity. The top-ranked activities, therefore, represent those that are considered to pose the greatest safety challenges and require the most attention in terms of risk management and safety protocols.

This ranking approach will allow ALDOT to prioritize additional safety measures and training more effectively by focusing on the activities that are considered the most hazardous by workers directly involved in their execution. It also provides valuable insights into the risk perception among the workforce, which can be crucial for developing targeted training, safety interventions, encouraging worker participation, and improving overall safety culture within the organization.

Additionally, to gain a better understanding of the specific concerns faced by ALDOT TMTs, they were asked to list their top safety concerns in an open-ended question. The most cited concern by most respondents was getting struck by vehicular traffic. This concern is not surprising due to the nature of the work environment and it has been noted in several studies [3,14]. Other commonly mentioned safety concerns include (1) proper use and maintenance of equipment (i.e., backhoes, tractors, chainsaws, and mowers), (2) flagging, Temporary Traffic Control (TTC), and general work zone safety, (3) availability and use of proper PPE, (4) handling hazardous materials, (5) lack of training especially for new employees, and (6) lack of manpower, which increases work pressure and the risk of accidents and injuries.

5.4. Worker Safety Perception

As mentioned earlier, nine safety factors were used to assess the safety perception of ALDOT TMTs in this survey study. Responses and perceptions to each of these factors will be discussed in this section.

Survey respondents were asked to assess all nine safety factors using Likert scale questions. This method allowed participants to express their level of agreement or disagreement with various statements. To quantify survey responses, a scoring system was used: (1) for “Strongly Disagree”, indicated that the respondent completely rejects or is in strong opposition; (2) for “Disagree”, showing a less intense opposition; (3) for “Neither Agree nor Disagree”, reflecting a neutral stance and that they are indifferent; (4) for “Agree”, indicating a positive opinion that they accept or support; and (5) for “Strongly Agree”, indicates a firm and clear support that they accept and endorse. The aggregation of these scores provided a comprehensive overview of employee perceptions regarding the effectiveness of safety measures and management’s commitment to a secure workplace. The response mean of each statement (i.e., F1_1, F1_2, etc.) was calculated.

5.4.1. Management Dedication to Safety

Management plays a significant role in promoting a positive safety culture by demonstrating commitment to safety, which has shown positive influence in safety compliance and overall worker’s safety perception [28]. According to the ALDOT TMTs’ responses, Management Dedication to Safety was assigned a score of 69% (3.46/5.00) according to Equation (3) below, indicating room for improvement.

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{M}\mathit{a}\mathit{n}\mathit{a}\mathit{g}\mathit{e}\mathit{m}\mathit{e}\mathit{n}\mathit{t} \mathit{D}\mathit{e}\mathit{d}\mathit{i}\mathit{c}\mathit{a}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{o}\mathit{n} \mathit{t}\mathit{o} \mathit{S}\mathit{a}\mathit{f}\mathit{e}\mathit{t}\mathit{y}= \\ 0.18\ast \overline{x}\left(F{1}_1\right)+0.19 \ast \overline{x}\left(F{1}_2\right)+0.16 \ast \overline{x}\left(F{1}_3\right)+0.17 \ast \overline{x}\left(F{1}_4\right)+0.12 \ast \overline{x}\left(F{1}_5\right)+0.18 \ast \overline{x}\left(F{1}_6\right) \end{gathered}$$

(3)

where

$F1$ = safety factor 1 (i.e., Management Dedication to Safety)

F1_X = statement number X under safety factor 1

The value of 3.46 reflects a positive recognition of management dedication to safety at ALDOT.

Figure 4 provides a visualization of the response spectrum of each statement used to quantify Management Dedication to Safety, which reveals a skew towards positive responses, suggesting that many ALDOT TMTs recognize and appreciate the efforts made by management to uphold and enhance safety. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis below the corresponding statement.

Delving further into the responses and identifying contributing factors and other correlations, it was found that some of the variance in responses to certain statements were correlated with the ALDOT area in which the employees worked. This pattern suggests that geographical location and the specific operational environments within ALDOT may significantly influence employees’ perceptions and experiences as it relates to Management Dedication to Safety. Understanding these area-specific factors is crucial for tailoring safety measures and policies to address the unique needs and concerns of employees in different ALDOT areas.

Statements pertaining to management prioritizing worker’s safety, and valuing compliance of safe work practices, were significantly correlated (p-value < 0.05) with ALDOT areas and received an inconsistent response spectrum among workers in varying locations and reflect varying levels of satisfaction or concern with how management prioritizes worker safety. Figure 5a shows that 77% of respondents of Tuscaloosa Area perceive their management as committed to prioritizing workers’ safety. On the other hand, more than half of Birmingham Area respondents (53%) disagreed with that statement, indicating a need for management to enhance their focus on safety, increase training, improve communication regarding safety procedures, or more actively engage in safety practices in worksites. Most responses collected from Alexander City Area (64%) show an agreement, however, they conveyed the highest percentage of neutrality or uncertainty that reflects a neutral position.

Figure 5b shows that majority of TMTs in Tuscaloosa Area (77%) and Alexander City Area (64%) feel recognized and appreciated for their adherence to safety standards, which can enhance worker morale and encourage even greater compliance. However, most TMTs in the Birmingham Area expressed disagreement with the statement, indicating that they may feel that despite their efforts to comply with safety procedures, their contributions are not adequately acknowledged by management. This perception could potentially lead to decreased motivation and a careless attitude towards safety protocols. A high rate of neither agree nor disagree responses were observed in Alexander City (31%) and Birmingham area (30%), which could reflect uncertainty about how their safety efforts are valued. Such a neutral stance may suggest a need for clearer communication and more visible recognition efforts from management to ensure employees feel their compliance efforts are noticed and valued.

Overall, this detailed breakdown by percentages allows management to pinpoint specific areas where improvements in recognition and communication may be necessary. By addressing these gaps, ALDOT can work towards fostering a uniform positive safety culture across all areas, ensuring that every employee feels valued for their commitment to safety.

5.4.2. Motivation

Motivation is an important aspect of safety perception reflecting on the overall safety culture at an organization. Education and training help employees develop their knowledge, abilities, and skills pertaining to safety, making them feel more competent and confident in their roles, which naturally leads to increased motivation as they see a clear path for growth and improvement [29]. Motivation amongst ALDOT TMTs scored a value of 82% (4.08/5.00) based on Equation (4) below, reflecting a positive aspect of the safety culture at ALDOT.

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{M}\mathit{o}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{v}\mathit{a}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{o}\mathit{n}= \\ 0.22 \ast \overline{x}(F2\_1)+0.22 \ast \overline{x}(F2\_2)+0.21 \ast \overline{x}(F2\_3)+0.14 \ast \overline{x}(F2\_4)+0.21 \ast \overline{x}(F2\_5) \end{gathered}$$

(4)

where

$F2$ = factor 2 (Motivation)

F2_X = statement number X under factor 2

Survey responses from ALDOT employees regarding Motivation can be seen in Figure 6. For the first statement, only 1% disagreed with it, indicating that the vast majority of respondents prioritize safety and the use of PPE in their daily work. Most respondents agree (77%) that they report safety incidents, which is crucial for maintaining a safe work environment, though there’s a noticeable percentage that is neutral (19%). Believing in informing colleagues about hazards in their work environment received the highest agreement (94%), showing a strong culture of team communication regarding safety among colleagues. While a majority agree (67%) that management encourages safety contributions, there’s a significant proportion that feels neutral (19%) or disagrees (13%), suggesting potential areas for management to strengthen their support. Three-quarters (75%) of the respondents feel involved in safety procedures, which is positive, but there’s still room for improvement in terms of involving more employees as 19% of respondents had a neutral stance. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis below the corresponding statement.

Overall, Figure 6 reflects a generally positive attitude towards Motivation among the employees, with high levels of agreement on most statements. However, the presence of neutral and disagreeing responses, especially regarding management’s role in encouraging safety, highlights areas where further engagement and improvement could be beneficial. Chi-Square tests were conducted to explore significant relationships with other contributing factors that might influence these results and it was found that involvement in the development and review of safety procedures at ALDOT was correlated with ALDOT Area as seen in Figure 7. In Alexander City, there was a 0% disagreement, and only 3% disagreed in the Tuscaloosa Area. However, in Birmingham Area, a 16% disagreement was observed, which is notable and suggests that a significant number of workers feel left out of safety discussions or processes.

5.4.3. Supportive Environment

Establishing a Supportive Environment in the workplace is crucial for ensuring safety, efficiency, and effectiveness. This can be achieved by considering various aspects of the work environment (i.e., safety protocols, equipment design, and support systems). Studies emphasize the importance of providing clear guidelines for physical, cognitive, and psychological safety to enhance engagement, effort, and satisfaction of workers [30]. In calculating the score for the overall influence of Supportive Environment and other factors, an adjustment was made to account for the inherent negativity in some statements, such as those expressing a lack of concern for the risky behavior of others. The reversed scoring method is a technique employed to accurately capture the sentiment of respondents regarding negatively framed statements. In this context, certain survey statements may imply a lack of concern for safety or risky behaviors, which could lead to a misunderstanding of the respondents’ agreement if scored in a traditional manner. The traditional manner scores responses from 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. For statements that express a negative view (e.g., “I do not care about the risky behavior of others”), a straightforward application of the scoring system could lead to a higher score indicating a positive perception, which is misleading. To address this, the scoring is inverted for negatively framed statements. This means a response of “Strongly Agree” to a negative statement would be treated as a low score (assigned a score of 1 instead of 5), reflecting a negative perception. Conversely, a response of “Strongly Disagree” would be treated as a high score (assigned a score of 1 instead of 5), indicating a positive perception.

This approach ensured that the final score for Supportive Environment accurately reflected the employees’ true sentiment about safety culture. For example, if many respondents strongly disagree with a negative statement, it indicates a strong commitment to safety, which would be reflected in a higher overall score. The calculated score for Supportive Environment indicated room for improvement in the existing safety culture with a value of 77% (3.86/5.00) based on Equation (5):

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{S}\mathit{u}\mathit{p}\mathit{p}\mathit{o}\mathit{r}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{v}\mathit{e} \mathit{E}\mathit{n}\mathit{v}\mathit{i}\mathit{r}\mathit{o}\mathit{n}\mathit{m}\mathit{e}\mathit{n}\mathit{t}= \\ 0.14 \ast \overline{x}(F3\_1)+0.12 \ast \overline{x}(F3\_2)+0.15 \ast \overline{x}(F3\_3)+0.16 \ast \overline{x}(F3\_4)+0.12 \ast \overline{x}(F3\_5)+0.21 \ast \overline{x}(F3\_6)+0.1 \ast \overline{x}(F3\_7) \end{gathered}$$

(5)

where

$F3$ = factor 3 (Supportive Environment)

F3_X = statement number X under factor 3

The descriptive analysis shown in Figure 8 highlights that a significant majority of employees recognize supervisors’ critical role in communicating workplace risks, with 64% agreeing, though 15% are neutral, and 21% disagree, indicating some inconsistency in supervisors’ effectiveness. 59% agreed that new employees quickly adapt to safety standards, despite 24% neutrality and 17% disagreement indicating potential gaps in training or orientation. Additionally, 70% of employees actively share perceived risks with colleagues, essential for maintaining a safe work environment, and 74% feel peer support in safe work practices, enhancing the safety culture. The data reveals that 73% believe their safe performance is valued, yet some feel this recognition is insufficient with 11% disagreement. Notably, 86% disagree with the indifference towards others’ risky behaviors, underscoring a collective safety commitment. Furthermore, 85% of respondents feel empowered to report safety issues, which is crucial for an effective safety management system. Overall, the data indicates that a Supportive Environment exists, however, several areas of potential improvement were identified that include enhancing supervisor communication and the onboarding process for new employees. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis below the corresponding statement.

Further analysis revealed that responses for two statements under Supportive Environment were correlated with ALDOT area. Figure 9a reveals varied perceptions across ALDOT areas regarding supervisors’ roles in communicating potential task risks to TMTs. In Alexander City Area, a strong majority (69%) agree that supervisors effectively communicate risks, contrasting with only 42% in Birmingham Area, suggesting potential communication issues there. Tuscaloosa Area shows the highest satisfaction at 80% agreement. Neutrality on the effectiveness of supervisors’ communication is evident, with 17%, 14%, and 11% in Alexander City, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa areas, respectively, indicating some respondents are uncertain or indifferent. Disagreement rates further emphasize the results, with 14% for Alexander City, a notable 36% for Birmingham, and 6% for Tuscaloosa, underscoring concerns about supervisor communication in Birmingham. The variances across areas could stem from differences in supervisor training, organizational culture, employee expectations, and communication practices, underlying the importance of addressing these factors to enhance safety communication efficacy.

Examining the agreement spectrum concerning the statement that new workers rapidly grasp the importance of adhering to proper health and safety protocols across various ALDOT areas is shown in Figure 9b. In Alexander City Area, 64% of respondents agree, demonstrating a positive reception towards the effectiveness of safety training for new employees. Tuscaloosa Area shows a slightly higher agreement at 68%, suggesting perhaps more robust training or orientation processes are in place. However, Birmingham Area stands out with only 44% agreement, indicating potential deficiencies in training or orientation procedures that necessitate attention. Neutrality is relatively consistent across areas, with Alexander City at 28%, Birmingham at 22%, and Tuscaloosa at 23%, indicating some uncertainty or variability in perceptions regarding training effectiveness. Disagreement rates, particularly the 34% in Birmingham, underscore critical concerns about the communication of safety practices to new hires, compared to lower rates in Alexander City and Tuscaloosa. These variations could stem from differences in training program quality, supervisory support, cultural differences, and the efficacy of feedback mechanisms, highlighting areas for potential improvement to ensure all new employees quickly assimilate good health and safety practices.

5.4.4. Safety Management System

A Safety Management System within an organization is crucial for managing risks effectively and ensuring a safe working environment. It refers to the comprehensive set of procedures, documentation, and processes used to control and enhance safety performance [31] including risk assessment, hazard identification, safety training, emergency preparedness, incident reporting, data analysis, and lessons learned from near misses and accidents [19]. The overall Safety Management System score was calculated to be 66% (3.31/5.00) based on Equation (6) below, suggesting a need for improvement.

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{S}\mathit{a}\mathit{f}\mathit{e}\mathit{t}\mathit{y} \mathit{M}\mathit{a}\mathit{n}\mathit{a}\mathit{g}\mathit{e}\mathit{m}\mathit{e}\mathit{n}\mathit{t} \mathit{S}\mathit{y}\mathit{s}\mathit{t}\mathit{e}\mathit{m}= \\ 0.13 \ast \overline{x}(F4\_1)+0.15 \ast \overline{x}(F4\_2)+0.15 \ast \overline{x}(F4\_3)+0.15 \ast \overline{x}(F4\_4)+0.14 \ast \overline{x}(F4\_5)+0.14 \ast \overline{x}(F4\_6)+0.13 \ast \overline{x}(F4\_7) \end{gathered}$$

(6)

where

$F4$= factor 4 (Safety Management System)

F4_X = statement number X under factor 4

The responses from ALDOT employees regarding the Safety Management System reveal concerning trends of dissatisfaction and areas needing improvement as shown in Figure 10. A significant percentage express dissatisfaction with both the quality and practicality of safety training provided, with 22% disagreeing that the training meets their needs, and 16% feeling that they haven’t received adequate training for safety considerations in their roles. Concerns extend to the handling of hazardous situations, where 18% disagree and 24% neither agree nor disagree with the effectiveness of current practices. Satisfaction with incident investigations scored lowest amongst ALDOT TMTs with 26% expressing dissatisfaction and 28% of respondents had a neutral stance. Furthermore, 18% of respondents perceive no improvement in the safety culture, and a similar sentiment is echoed in their views on management’s responsiveness to reported hazards or suggestions for safety improvements. Although some statements show a slightly more balanced viewpoint, the predominant feedback indicates a considerable gap between employee expectations and their experiences with safety management at ALDOT, highlighting an urgent need for general revisions to enhance training, incident handling, and the overall safety culture. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis of Figure 10 below the corresponding statement.

All seven statements pertaining to the Safety Management System showed a statistically significant correlation with ALDOT area, in which Birmingham demonstrated the lowest level of agreement.

In this section of data analysis pertaining to Safety Management System perceptions among ALDOT areas, not all graphs were included in this report for brevity. However, those selected for inclusion highlight critical areas needing immediate attention. The charts in Figure 11 present key areas related to statement 1, receiving adequate safety training; statement 4, satisfaction with management’s way of investigating incidents; and statement 7, acknowledgment by management when workers propose ideas to improve hazardous situations. These charts not only pinpoint where ALDOT needs to focus its efforts in enhancing safety training and education but also emphasize the importance of addressing these concerns promptly to cultivate a culture of safety and proactiveness.

Figure 11a illustrates significant regional differences in employees’ satisfaction with the training provided by ALDOT across Alexander City, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa areas. In Alexander City, a majority of 64% expressed satisfaction, indicating a positive reception towards the training’s quality and practicality. However, Birmingham Area exhibits a notable contrast, with only 26% satisfaction, emphasizing a critical need for evaluating and enhancing the training programs to address the apparent gaps. Conversely, Tuscaloosa Area stands out with 87% satisfaction rate, suggesting that the training there likely aligns closely with employee expectations and job requirements, possibly due to more tailored, practical sessions or effective delivery methods. The varied responses also hint at underlying factors such as the quality and relevance of content, delivery methods, employee backgrounds, and the efficiency of feedback mechanisms. This diversity in satisfaction levels underscores the importance of a tailored approach to training, with a particular focus on improving Birmingham Area’s programs to achieve higher overall training effectiveness across ALDOT.

Figure 11b details the agreement spectrum in different ALDOT areas regarding their satisfaction with safety department incident investigations. The percentage of respondents in agreement reflects their satisfaction with the investigation process, showing a widespread from 23% in Birmingham to 68% in Tuscaloosa, indicating a significantly more positive perception in the latter. Additionally, the neutral responses, accounting for a notable percentage, illustrate a level of indecision or neutrality about the investigation process’ effectiveness, varying from area to area. This neutrality suggests that while some respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, there may be underlying factors that could change their perceptions towards a more positive or negative view, depending on improvements or changes in the process, while the high percentage of disagreement in Birmingham (52%) identifies/highlights a critical area of concern regarding dissatisfaction or perceived gaps in the investigation process. These results stress the importance of assessing and refining incident investigation protocols within ALDOT, especially in areas with notable disagreement. Investigative thoroughness, transparency, response times, and the availability of resources and training could be key factors influencing these perceptions. Additionally, past experiences with incident investigations may heavily impact current trust levels and satisfaction levels. Addressing these elements could enhance the effectiveness of incident investigations, improve employee satisfaction and trust in the safety department, and ultimately foster a safer, more engaged work environment.

The analysis of responses by area regarding management’s acknowledgment of suggestions for improving hazardous situations is shown in Figure 11c. Notably, Tuscaloosa Area exhibits the most positive response, with 68% agreeing that their suggestions are acknowledged by management, suggesting a high level of confidence in management’s responsiveness. This is contrasted by the Birmingham Area, where only 16% share this sentiment, and the Alexander City Area, where only 36% feel their suggestions are acknowledged.

The levels of neutrality, with 33% in Alexander City Area, 45% in Birmingham Area, and 16% in Tuscaloosa Area, suggest high degrees of indecisiveness in opinions about management’s response to safety suggestions. Disagreement levels present a clear area for concern, especially in Birmingham Area, where 39% do not feel their suggestions are acknowledged. This is followed closely by the Alexander City Area at 22%, indicating a significant portion of the staff feels overlooked. The Tuscaloosa Area stands out positively, with only 13% disagreeing. These results underline the necessity for ALDOT to consider varying management practices, the effectiveness of communication channels, cultural differences regarding employee input across different areas, and the impact of previous experiences on current perceptions of management’s responsiveness.

5.4.5. Employee Participation

Employee Participation in safety activities and perceived organizational support play crucial roles in shaping safety perceptions in the workplace. Research has shown that perceived organizational support significantly predicts psychological safety [32], while employee participation in voluntary safety activities is linked to preventing accidents and injuries [33]. The calculated score for Employee Participation indicated room for improvement with a value of 76% (3.82/5.00), based on Equation (7) below:

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{E}\mathit{m}\mathit{p}\mathit{l}\mathit{o}\mathit{y}\mathit{e}\mathit{e} \mathit{P}\mathit{a}\mathit{r}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{c}\mathit{i}\mathit{p}\mathit{a}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{o}\mathit{n}= \\ 0.2 \ast \overline{x}(F5\_1)+0.27 \ast \overline{x}(F5\_2)+0.27 \ast \overline{x}(F5\_3)+0.26 \ast \overline{x}(F5\_4) \end{gathered}$$

(7)

where

$F5$ = factor 5 (Employee Participation)

$F5\_X$ = statement number X under factor 5

The analysis of ALDOT employees’ responses to participation in safety-related activities is shown in Figure 12. 45% of employees agree that they participate in safety-related activities such as incident investigation and purchasing personal protective equipment, whereas a combined 56% of respondents are either neutral or disagree. This discrepancy suggests a perceived gap in involvement or awareness of such activities among a significant portion of the workforce. 77% believe they are proactive in forwarding suggestions for hazardous situations, and a notable 80% of respondents agree that they report safety issues. Furthermore, 79% of respondents see the benefit in having pre-task safety talks, indicating a strong belief in preventive measures to reduce injuries. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis below the corresponding statement.

The only significant correlation found was found between statement 1 and ALDOT area shown in Figure 13. The bar chart’s analysis regarding employee participation in safety-related activities across different ALDOT areas shows that in Tuscaloosa Area, a substantial 71% of employees agree that they actively engage in safety initiatives like incident investigation and purchasing personal protective equipment. This level of agreement suggests effective communication and implementation of safety practices in Tuscaloosa, setting a benchmark for other areas. Conversely, the Birmingham Area exhibits the lowest agreement rate at 26%, paired with the highest rate of neutrality at 39%. This indicates a potential lack of clarity, motivation, or awareness among employees regarding their roles in safety practices. Such insight calls for a tailored approach in Birmingham to enhance employee engagement and participation in safety activities. Alexander City Area shows a balanced distribution of responses across all three categories, with 39% agreement and equal parts of neutrality and 31% in disagreement. This balance may point to varied experiences or perceptions of safety practices among employees, suggesting a need for further investigation to identify and address specific barriers to higher engagement levels. In summary, while the Tuscaloosa Area demonstrates strong employee participation in safety-related activities, the data from Birmingham and Alexander City areas highlight a crucial need for targeted strategies to foster a more inclusive and proactive safety culture.

5.4.6. Resource Allocation

Allocating resources effectively is fundamental to managing safety and health, ensuring minimal mishaps and injuries, while the perception of management’s commitment to safety, potentially influenced by the allocation of resources like manpower and PPE, significantly impacts safety behaviors and violations [34]. Responses to statements regarding Resource Allocation within ALDOT scored the second lowest amongst all factors with a value of 62% (3.11/5.00), according to Equation (8) below, signifying a room for improvement.

$$\mathit{R}\mathit{e}\mathit{s}\mathit{o}\mathit{u}\mathit{r}\mathit{c}\mathit{e} \mathit{A}\mathit{l}\mathit{l}\mathit{o}\mathit{c}\mathit{a}\mathit{t}\mathit{i}\mathit{o}\mathit{n}=0.31 \ast \overline{x}(F6\_1)+0.36 \ast \overline{x}(F6\_2)+0.33 \ast \overline{x}(F6\_3)$$

(8)

where

$F6$ = factor 6 (Resource Allocation)

$F6\_X$ = statement number X under factor 6

The analysis of ALDOT employees’ responses regarding Resource Allocation sheds light on several key areas of concern and is shown in Figure 14. The question regarding the sufficiency of workers available to complete tasks safely revealed that 44% of respondents disagreed, indicating a perception of insufficient staffing levels at certain times. This magnitude of disagreement emphasizes a critical area for potential improvement in ensuring that enough personnel are on-hand to maintain safety standards. Responses regarding the availability of necessary equipment to perform tasks safely were also almost evenly split, with a slight majority (42%) agreeing that equipment availability generally meets needs. However, the nearly equal distribution of disagreement (41%) signals a significant number of employees who feel that equipment availability could be enhanced to better support safe working conditions. The most comparatively positive feedback was regarding the condition and compatibility of PPE, with 60% of respondents agreeing that the provided PPE is adequate for required tasks, and 23% disagreeing. This highlights the importance of ongoing attention to maintain high standards of PPE quality and suitability. It is crucial to address the highlighted concerns about staffing and equipment to mitigate safety risks fully and ensure the well-being of ALDOT employees. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis of Figure 14 below the corresponding statement.

All three statements were found significantly correlated with ALDOT area. Figure 15a shows variances in employee perceptions regarding the availability of sufficient workers to complete tasks safely across different ALDOT areas. Tuscaloosa Area exhibits a relatively high level of agreement (68%) concerning adequate staffing, which might reflect either a more streamlined approach to task allocation, efficient workforce management, or comparatively fewer tasks necessitating rigorous safety measures. This suggests that employees in this area generally feel well supported with the necessary manpower to uphold safety standards effectively. Conversely, Birmingham Area presents a notable contrast, with only 14% of respondents affirming sufficient worker availability and a significant majority (76%) expressing disagreement. This stated discrepancy may point towards issues such as heightened task demands, potential understaffing, or systemic challenges in managing workforce deployment within the area. The substantial rate of disagreement underscores an urgent need for interventions aimed at bolstering staffing levels to ensure the safety and efficacy of task completion.

Alexander City Area displays a more evenly distributed set of responses, possibly indicating a fluctuating staffing adequacy that could vary depending on specific tasks or periods. Such a pattern suggests a potentially inconsistent experience among employees regarding worker availability, indicating areas where staffing optimization could enhance task safety.

Responses from employees in three different ALDOT areas regarding the statement “All equipment required to perform the task safely is available at all times” are shown in Figure 15b. Tuscaloosa Area shows a significantly higher agreement (65%) compared to the other areas. This could indicate better management and availability of equipment necessary for safety, suggesting that Tuscaloosa has a more effective system in place for ensuring that all required safety equipment is accessible when needed. Birmingham Area shows the lowest agreement (24%) and the highest disagreement (72%). This notable contrast suggests a significant issue with equipment availability in this area. Possible reasons could include logistical challenges, higher demand for resources due to larger scale projects, or inefficiencies in inventory management. The responses from Alexander City Area are more balanced across the three categories, indicating a mixed perception among employees. This might suggest that while some teams have adequate access to safety equipment, others may not, pointing to inconsistencies in resource distribution.

Figure 15c shows high agreement rates in Tuscaloosa (71%) and Alexander City (67%) regarding the condition and suitability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Such statistics suggest that these regions may either have effective systems in place for ensuring the quality and appropriateness of PPE or that the equipment undergoes less intensive usage, thereby prolonging its lifespan and effectiveness. Birmingham’s considerably lower agreement rate (41%) paired with a higher disagreement rate (45%) presents an area of concern. This could indicate a variety of challenges including, but not limited to, higher wear and tear due to more rigorous use, inadequate replacement cycles leading to the use of worn-out or outdated equipment, and potential mismatches between the PPE provided and the specific requirements of the tasks at hand. Meanwhile, relatively consistent percentages of respondents who neither agree nor disagree were found across all areas.

5.4.7. Safety Mindset

Safety Mindset refers to the way employees think about and prioritize safety in their daily work. It is about being aware of safety at all times and making it a key part of how everyone operates [35]. When determining the overall impact of responses to Safety Mindset, modifications were implemented to compensate for the natural negativity found in certain statements, for example, those that convey that a brave worker does not have to worry about safety. Consequently, as discussed in Section 5.4.3 (Supportive Environment), the scoring scale for answers from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” was deliberately reversed. Hence, a “Strongly Agree” response to a statement with negative connotations (suggesting a pessimistic view of the Safety Mindset) was assigned a reduced score, whereas a “Strongly Disagree” reaction to such a statement was awarded an elevated score. The calculated score for the Safety Mindset factor indicated room for improvement with a value of 78% (3.91/5.00) based on Equation (9) below:

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{S}\mathit{a}\mathit{f}\mathit{e}\mathit{t}\mathit{y} \mathit{M}\mathit{i}\mathit{n}\mathit{d}\mathit{s}\mathit{e}\mathit{t}= \\ 0.17 \ast \overline{x}(F7\_1)+0.13 \ast \overline{x}(F7\_2)+0.14 \ast \overline{x}(F7\_3m)+0.15 \ast \overline{x}(F7\_4)+0.12 \ast \overline{x}(Q17\_5m)+0.15 \ast \overline{x}(F7\_6m)+0.13 \ast \overline{x}(F7\_7m) \end{gathered}$$

(9)

where

$F7$ = factor 7 (Safety Mindset)

$F7\_X$ = statement number X under factor 7

The survey results shown in Figure 16 reveal a significant emphasis on safety among TMTs at ALDOT, with 87% agreeing that safety is their principal concern. This attitude is further underscored by the 83% who believe in the importance of a safe working environment. While 62% find the current safety procedures helpful and effective, a considerable proportion of respondents (26%) hold neutral views or disagree (12. A strong agreement exists against the notion that bravery exempts one from safety concerns, with 86% disagreeing with the idea that a brave worker need not worry about safety. This is in line with the 70% who express concern over work-related injuries. The mixed responses regarding the inevitability of accidents, with 41% disagreeing, suggesting a belief among TMTs that many workplace accidents can be prevented through adequate safety measures. Furthermore, most of the disagreement with the statement that safety training and procedures are impractical indicates a widespread acknowledgment of their necessity and value. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis below the corresponding statement.

Two statements were found significantly correlated with ALDOT area and are shown in Figure 17. Figure 17a demonstrates high agreement in Tuscaloosa Area where it shows the highest agreement (81%) that safety procedures are helpful and effective. Birmingham Area shows a significantly lower agreement (37%) compared to the other areas. This might suggest issues such as inadequate training, outdated procedures, or possibly a lack of enforcement of existing safety protocols. The relatively high percentage of disagreement (23%) and neutrality (40%) further indicates potential dissatisfaction or ambivalence towards the effectiveness of safety measures. The agreement level in Alexander City was 67%, with a small percentage of disagreement (8%).

When examining the perspectives across the three ALDOT areas regarding the inevitability of most workplace accidents, significant variation in responses was noticed as shown in Figure 17b. In Alexander City Area, opinion is nearly evenly split, with slight agreement towards accidents being preventable (39% disagreeing with the inevitability of accidents). This contrasts with Birmingham Area, where a strong majority (67%) believe that proper measures can prevent most accidents. On the other hand, Tuscaloosa Area presents a more pessimistic stance, with 35% agreeing that accidents are inevitable and only 16% disagreeing.

5.4.8. Safety Awareness

Safety awareness in the workplace refers to the level of knowledge and consciousness among employees regarding potential hazards, safety protocols, and the importance of maintaining a safe work environment. Workers’ safety awareness in highway maintenance activities is crucial to mitigate hazards and prevent incidents and injuries. The responses concerned with Safety Awareness scored the highest amongst all nine factors, suggesting it to be the most positive aspect of the existing safety culture with a score of 82% (4.12/5.00) based on Equation (10) as follows:

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{S}\mathit{a}\mathit{f}\mathit{e}\mathit{t}\mathit{y} \mathit{A}\mathit{w}\mathit{a}\mathit{r}\mathit{e}\mathit{n}\mathit{e}\mathit{s}\mathit{s}= \\ 0.21 \ast \overline{x}(F8\_1)+0.18 \ast \overline{x}(F8\_2)+0.2 \ast \overline{x}(F8\_3)+0.2 \ast \overline{x}(F8\_4)+0.21 \ast \overline{x}(F8\_5) \end{gathered}$$

(10)

where

$F8$ = factor 8 (Safety Awareness)

$F8\_X$ = statement number X under factor 8

The results shown in Figure 18 reveal a strong foundation of perceived safety awareness among ALDOT employees. A substantial majority of respondents feel confident in their understanding of safety practices, with over 80% affirming their familiarity with the safety protocols relevant to their specific tasks, risks inherent in their work, implementation of job duties in a safe manner, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, and overall risks present in the workplace. While these positive responses are promising, it’s important to consider that such high levels of agreement may partially stem from overconfidence or a desire to project competence in their roles. No variances in responses were present to be explained by other correlations. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis of Figure 18 below the corresponding statement.

5.4.9. Work Pressure

Work Pressure can lead to unsafe behaviors and risk compensation, where workers take more risks to cope with time pressure and cognitive demands [18]. The scoring for this factor was adjusted to account for the negativity in all statements. The responses were reversed so that a “Strongly Agree” to a negatively framed statement resulted in a lower score, while a “Strongly Disagree” response yielded a higher score. Work Pressure scored the lowest score of all assessed factors with a value of 56% (2.81/5.00) amongst all safety perception factors based on Equation (11) below, demonstrating a need for immediate intervention.

$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{W}\mathit{o}\mathit{r}\mathit{k} \mathit{P}\mathit{r}\mathit{e}\mathit{s}\mathit{s}\mathit{u}\mathit{r}\mathit{e}= \\ 0.25 \ast \overline{x}(F9\_1)+0.26 \ast \overline{x}(F9\_2)+0.22 \ast \overline{x}(F9\_3)+0.26 \ast \overline{x}(F9\_4) \end{gathered}$$

(11)

where

$F9$ = factor 9 (Work Pressure)

F9_X = statement number X under factor 9

Figure 19 illustrates ALDOT workers’ responses to statements about Work Pressure. With 59% agreeing that the rush to meet deadlines can result in unsafe practices, it’s apparent that time constraints are a significant concern. This viewpoint by the majority underscores the challenge ALDOT faces in balancing productivity demands with safety protocols. It also suggests a potential area for intervention, such as revising unrealistic deadlines or providing additional resources to manage time pressures without compromising safety. The evenly divided responses (34% agree, 33% neutral, 33% disagree) on whether there is enough time to follow safety guidelines illustrate a division among employees. This division indicates that while some teams might be experiencing time adequacy for safety, others feel rushed. This variability could stem from departmental differences or uneven workload distribution, highlighting the need for a standardized approach to time management in safety procedures across all departments. Nearly half (45%) of the respondents acknowledge economic considerations sometimes override safety priorities. This significant proportion points to a trend where cost-cutting or financial objectives might compromise safety measures. Over half (51%) believe previous injuries were due to work pressure. This statistic is an indicator of the tangible consequences of excessive work demands. Implementing measures to alleviate work pressure, such as better workload management, stress reduction programs, and more effective communication channels, could mitigate the risk of future injuries.

These findings collectively highlight the imperative need for ALDOT to reassess its approach to work pressure and safety. A concerted effort to address the underlying issues leading to unsafe behavior and injuries is needed. By fostering an environment where safety is always prioritized above time and economic constraints, ALDOT can prioritize its employees’ safety and improve operational efficiency. Enhancing the safety culture, through education, clear communication, and engagement strategies, will ensure that safety standards are not only maintained but championed by all employees. The division in perceptions also calls for more tailored approaches to safety management, recognizing the unique challenges different departments or teams may face. Statistics of responses (Mean ($\overline{x}$), Standard Deviation (σ), Variance (σ²)) for each statement are shown on the Y-axis of Figure 19 below the corresponding statement.

5.5. Summary of Survey Responses and Results

The results of the survey conducted among ALDOT TMTs provided a broad snapshot of the workforce demographics. Among the data collected were age groups, job titles/classes, total experience in years, and ALDOT area in which TMTs are employed. The findings displayed diversity in the survey respondent pool. Age groups revealed that the ‘45–54’ group had the highest participation rate, while the ‘65 or over’ and ‘18–24’ had low participation rates. The survey also aimed to draw correlations between demographic variables and respondents’ safety perceptions—that is, to explore how workers’ age, title, experience, and location can influence how they perceive safety at work.

The training section identified Equipment Operation Safety Training, Temporary Traffic Control (TTC), Flagging, Safety Awareness, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training as the most topics of training received. The survey also revealed disparities in training satisfaction across different ALDOT areas, with varying levels of contentment reported in Alexander City, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa areas. This insight emphasizes the need for evaluating and enhancing training programs to address specific gaps and ensure alignment with employee expectations and job requirements.

The activities with the highest perceived risk, as ranked by TMTs, included Roadway/Shoulder Maintenance, Guardrail/Cable Rail Maintenance, Mowing and Trimming, and Patching. These activities were assumed to pose the greatest safety challenges and require heightened attention to risk management and safety protocols. By prioritizing these high-risk activities, ALDOT can focus on implementing targeted safety measures and training interventions to mitigate potential hazards and enhance worker safety. The most cited concern among respondents was the risk of getting hit by moving traffic, highlighting the significant danger posed by working near roadways. Other prevalent safety concerns encompassed worries related to equipment safety, proper handling of machinery, traffic control measures, PPE usage, awareness of safety protocols, emergency preparedness, and lack of manpower. Addressing these safety concerns is crucial for minimizing risks associated with maintenance activities and ensuring the well-being of TMTs while they perform their duties.

By analyzing the nine different factors of safety perception, a generally more positive attitude was found in Tuscaloosa Area, while Birmingham Area responses exhibited a drastically more negative attitude. Scores for each factor were calculated as shown in

Table 2. Safety Perception Factors’ Formulas.

Factor	Formula	Score and Score Interpretation
1. Management Dedication to Safety	$=0.18\ast \overline{x} (F1\_1)+0.19 \ast \overline{x} (F1\_2)+0.16 \ast \overline{x} (F1\_3)+0.17 \ast \overline{x} (F1\_4)+0.12 \ast \overline{x} (F1\_5)+0.18 \ast \overline{x} (F1\_6)$	69% Room for improvement
2. Motivation	$=0.22\ast \overline{x} (F2\_1)+0.22 \ast \overline{x} (F2\_2)+0.21 \ast \overline{x} (F2\_3)+0.14 \ast \overline{x} (F2\_4)+0.21 \ast \overline{x} (F2\_5)$	82% Positive aspect of the safety culture
3. Supportive Environment	$=0.14\ast \overline{x} (F3\_1)+0.12 \ast \overline{x} (F3\_2)+0.15 \ast \overline{x} (F3\_3)+0.16 \ast \overline{x} (F3\_4)+0.12 \ast \overline{x} (F3\_5)+0.21 \ast \overline{x} (F3\_6)+0.1 \ast \overline{x} (F3\_7)$	77% Room for improvement
4. Safety Management System	$=0.13\ast \overline{x} (F4\_1)+0.15 \ast \overline{x} (F4\_2)+0.15 \ast \overline{x} (F4\_3)+0.15 \ast \overline{x} (F4\_4)+0.14 \ast \overline{x} (F4\_5)+0.14 \ast \overline{x} (F4\_6)+0.13 \ast \overline{x} (F4\_7)$	66% Room for improvement
5. Employee Participation	$=0.2\ast \overline{x} (F5\_1)+0.27 \ast \overline{x} (F5\_2)+0.27 \ast \overline{x} (F5\_3)+0.26\ast \overline{x} (F5\_4)$	76% Room for improvement
6. Resource Allocation	$=0.31\ast \overline{x} (F6\_1)+0.36 \ast \overline{x} (F6\_2)+0.33 \ast \overline{x} (F6\_3)$	62% Room for improvement
7. Safety Mindset	$=0.17\ast \overline{x} \left(F{7}_1\right)+0.13 \ast \overline{x} \left(F{7}_2\right)+0.14 \ast \overline{x} (F7\_3m)+0.15 \ast \overline{x} (F7\_4)+0.12 \ast \overline{x} (Q17\_5m)+0.15 \ast \overline{x} (F7\_6m)+0.13 \ast \overline{x} (F7\_7m)$	78% Room for improvement
8. Safety Awareness	$=0.21\ast \overline{x} (F8\_1)+0.18 \ast \overline{x} (F8\_2)+0.2 \ast \overline{x} (F8\_3)+0.2 \ast \overline{x} (F8\_4)+0.21 \ast \overline{x} (F8\_5)$	82% Positive aspect of the safety culture
9. Work Pressure	$=0.25\ast \overline{x} (F9\_1)+0.26 \ast \overline{x} (F9\_2)+0.22\ast \overline{x} (F9\_3)+0.26 \ast \overline{x} (F9\_4$)	56% Need for immediate intervention

Note: $\overline{x} (FXi\_Yi)$ is the mean of responses to statement Yi of the factor Xi.

below, then were subsequently ranked according to respondents’ perceptions, ranging from most positive to least. The ranking unfolded as follows: (1) Safety Awareness, receiving the highest level of positive perception, followed by (2) Motivation, (3) Safety Mindset, (4) Supportive Environment, (5) Employee Participation, (6) Management Dedication, (7) Safety Management System, (8) Resource Allocation, and (9) Work Pressure ranking the least, emphasizing its significant impact as perceived negatively by respondents. This ranking provides a clear insight into the areas requiring further attention and those regarded as strengths within ALDOT’s current safety culture.

6. Discussion

The analysis and rankings of various factors influencing the safety culture within ALDOT have laid a foundation for understanding the current state of occupational health and safety from the perspectives of TMTs. The findings suggest that area differences in worker safety perceptions and experiences exist within ALDOT. It is essential for ALDOT to identify and address the underlying factors contributing to these gaps to ensure a consistent and effective approach to safety management across all areas.

The perceived risk associated with various maintenance activities among ALDOT TMTs was evaluated by asking respondents to rank activities based on their perceived hazard levels. The ranking method not only reflects the frequency of selection but also indicates the intensity of perceived risk associated with each activity. Roadway/Shoulder Maintenance, Guardrail/Cable Rail Maintenance, Mowing and Trimming, and Patching were the top high-risk activities, highlighting priority areas for implementing targeted safety measures, training programs, and safety interventions. By focusing on these activities, ALDOT can address worker concerns, specific hazards, enhance safety protocols, and mitigate risks associated with critical maintenance tasks.

When investigating different safety factors, Work Pressure within ALDOT has emerged as a critical issue, scoring the lowest among all factors surveyed and indicating a negative impact on the organization’s safety culture. Among the concerns raised, two statements stood out for receiving the most negative responses, highlighting significant areas requiring immediate attention. Pressure of completing the task on time was perceived by the majority to be one of the reasons for unsafe behavior, which emphasizes an issue where deadlines might be prioritized over safety protocols. This mentality fosters an environment prone to accidents due to rushed or neglected safety measures. The division among employees regarding the adequacy of time to follow safety guidelines suggests varying experiences within different teams or departments. This may stem from uneven workload distribution or human resources (i.e., manpower) between different areas, indicating the necessity for a standardized approach to time management in safety procedures across all areas. Similarly, believing that work pressure contributed to prior injuries by most respondents highlights the consequences of excessive work demands on employee safety. Implementing measures to alleviate work pressure, such as better workload management, stress reduction programs, and improved communication channels, could mitigate the risk of future injuries and enhance overall safety outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for ALDOT to reassess its approach to work pressure and prioritizing employees’ health and well-being above time and economic constraints, starting with addressing the underlying issues that lead to unsafe behavior and injuries.

Another area of concern highlighted by the survey is Resource Allocation, which received the second-lowest score among all assessed factors. Most respondents expressed their disagreement with the notion that sufficient workers are available to complete tasks safely. The perception of insufficient staffing levels among TMTs underscores the need for ALDOT to evaluate and potentially adjust workforce allocation strategies to ensure adequate support for safe task completion. Implementing measures to address staffing challenges, such as optimizing workforce deployment and workload management, can enhance safety outcomes and operational efficiency. Furthermore, the availability of necessary equipment to perform tasks safely always was also brought into question in Birmingham area, alongside doubts regarding whether the provided Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is in good condition and compatible with the tasks required. Most respondents in Alexander city and Tuscaloosa area agreed that the provided PPE is adequate for required tasks, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high standards of PPE quality and suitability.

Safety Management System is a well-structured framework that aims to effectively manage occupational health safety and risks and should be well established and followed to ensure the working environment is safe and compliant with regulatory bodies [19]. Feedback from respondents in Birmingham Area highlights a sense of dissatisfaction with the current state of the Safety Management System at ALDOT. Concerns have been raised regarding the quality and practicality of safety training provided, questioning its adequacy to prepare staff for real-world hazards. Additionally, there is a notable dissatisfaction with the way managers handle hazardous situations, and the perception that management frequently overlooks employee suggestions on how to improve hazardous situations. To reinforce a safety-conscious work environment, management should prioritize ongoing training programs that address specific hazards faced by TMTs and ensure effective communication channels that facilitate information sharing on safety protocols and best practices to promote a culture of safety awareness.

Disparities in satisfaction with safety training across different ALDOT areas underscore the importance of tailored training programs. The survey results highlight the critical need for evaluating and enhancing training programs, particularly in areas where satisfaction levels are low, to ensure alignment with employee expectations and job requirements. Specific training methods can significantly enhance the skill set and proficiency of maintenance workers. Examples of training methods include hands-on training, on-the-job training, classroom, E-Learning platforms, workshops, and seminars. Refresher courses are essential for keeping skills sharp and staying updated on the latest maintenance practices and technologies [21]. TMTs can be trained in a variety of critical areas that can expand their skills, such as (1) equipment maintenance and repair, (2) safety procedures and regulations including proper PPE application, (3) risk identification and analysis, (4) preventive maintenance practices, (5) communication, teamwork, and conflict resolution strategies, (6) time management, and (8) continuous improvement for new and existing employees.

While some respondents expressed satisfaction with the investigation process, a notable percentage indicated dissatisfaction or neutrality, suggesting opportunities for improvement in the handling of incidents and safety-related incidents. Improving the incident investigation process is critical for any organization to determine the roots of incidences, recommend counteractive measures, and prevent reoccurrence in the future. Some of the strategies to improve the incident investigation process include (1) creating a proper measurement scale on how to perform incident investigation including reporting procedures, investigative team selection criterion, evidence collection and assessment process, (2) establishing a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) system, (3) prompt reporting to enhance the validity of the results obtained from an investigation, (4) thorough documentation, (5) share lessons learned and ensuring that findings from investigations are made known to all members [36].

To address the perception of ALDOT’s TMTs in Birmingham Area that management frequently overlooks or outright dismisses employee suggestions, actions should be taken to foster a culture of continuous improvement and employee engagement. Some approaches to enhance the communication process include (1) implementing an open-door policy, (2) creating regular feedback through suggestion boxes, surveys, and having designated digital platforms where employees can submit their suggestions, (3) recognize and reward workers for good suggestions that are valuable to the organization, (4) update employees on a regular basis concerning the progress of their suggestions, and (5) encourage employee participation in team meetings and workshops [36].

The survey results indicate that over half of surveyed TMTs hold either a neutral stance or disagree with the statement regarding their involvement in safety-related activities. However, it’s crucial to recognize the benefits that employee participation in safety management systems brings. Employee involvement in safety-related activities leads to improvements in safety performance due to better awareness and adherence to protocols, which significantly reduces workplace incidents and leads to more effective hazard identification. Furthermore, empowering employees in safety matters promotes a sense of ownership and accountability and enhances communication, leading to more effective safety measures. This positive impact increases morale and engagement in safety practices, resulting in a reduction of risks and a decrease in the probability of incidents [37].

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on survey results, several systematic and in-depth suggestions can be made to enhance safety practices and foster a positive safety culture within ALDOT in particular and DOTs in general. Initially, developing customized training programs that address specific safety concerns identified in the survey, particularly those related to high-risk activities, is crucial. For instance, workers expressed concerns about working in live traffic, so training should focus on traffic management and personal protective equipment (PPE) usage. Incorporating real-life scenarios from the survey responses into training modules can make the content more relatable and impactful, helping TMTs understand the practical implications of safety protocols.

Enhancing communication channels is crucial. Establishing regular feedback mechanisms, such as anonymous surveys, suggestion boxes, or safety meetings, will allow employees to voice their safety concerns and suggestions. Creating physical or digital safety bulletin boards that highlight safety tips, recent incidents, and lessons learned can keep safety at the forefront of employees’ minds and encourage ongoing dialogue about safety practices. Promoting a culture of safety engagement is another essential aspect. Establishing a safety champions program, where selected employees act as safety advocates within their teams, can lead safety discussions, promote best practices, and serve as liaisons between management and workers. Implementing a recognition program that rewards teams or individuals who demonstrate exceptional commitment to safety can further encourage a proactive safety culture.

Regular safety audits and assessments should also be conducted to identify potential hazards in the work environment. These inspections should involve input from TMTs to ensure their insights are considered. Furthermore, benchmarking ALDOT’s safety practices against those of other DOTs or organizations known for their strong safety cultures can provide valuable insights into effective strategies.

Data-driven decision-making is vital for continuous improvement. DOTs should integrate safety incident data with survey results to identify trends and correlations, helping prioritize areas for improvement and tailor interventions more effectively. Establishing a system for ongoing monitoring of safety perceptions and practices will allow for regular assessment of the effectiveness of implemented safety initiatives, enabling adjustments based on feedback and emerging best practices.

The existing literature on workplace safety emphasizes the importance of a strong safety culture, employee engagement, and tailored training programs as key components in reducing workplace accidents and enhancing overall safety performance. The findings of this survey align with these principles. The identification of hazardous activities and the prioritization of safety training topics reflect a growing trend in safety management that advocates for data-driven decision-making. By integrating survey results with safety incident data, DOTs can identify trends and correlations that inform targeted interventions, a practice that is increasingly recognized as vital for continuous improvement in safety management.

8. Limitations of Study and Future Improvement

The survey of safety perceptions among ALDOT TMTs has several limitations and areas for future development. Limitations include regional variability as ALDOT operates in various regions and areas across the state. Findings highlighted from three areas in the study may not be applicable to other areas, leading to a lack of comprehensive understanding of safety perceptions across the entire organization. Another limitation is the possible response bias to certain statements concerning TMTs’ own mindset, awareness, or participation. They may have provided socially desirable answers rather than their true perception. One other limitation is emotional bias or increased sensitivity due to experiencing a recent serious injury before taking the survey, which can create an atmosphere of anxiety that results in responding to survey questions with heightened concern about safety practices, potentially leading to more negative perceptions than under normal circumstances.

Suggested future developments of this effort include conducting longitudinal studies to track changes in safety perceptions and the effectiveness of safety interventions over time. Expanding future research to include a wider range of ALDOT areas will enhance the generalizability of findings and ensure that safety strategies are relevant across different areas. Performing multi-level analysis by recognizing and distinguishing between different levels of analysis (e.g., organizational, group, and individual levels) is suggested. This ensures that the measurements taken at one level are appropriately interpreted and applied to other levels, enhancing the validity of the findings [38]. Integrating actual safety incident data with survey results to correlate perceptions can provide a more comprehensive understanding of safety culture.

By systematically implementing these suggestions, DOTs can create a more proactive and resilient safety culture that prioritizes the well-being of its employees and effectively addresses the specific safety concerns identified in the survey.