Exploring the Relationship between Safety Climate and Worker Safety Behavior on Building Construction Sites in Taiwan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Safety Climate
2.1.1. Concept of SC
2.1.2. Dimensions of SC
2.2. Safety Behaviour
2.3. The Relationship between SC and SB
- (1)
- The relationship between SC and SB has been examined in many industrial fields, but the conclusions of the relationship between SC and SB differ depending on the field. Some studies suggest that no significant relationship existed between SC and SB in manufacturing industry [25], while most studies [13,14,15,22,26] in the construction sector showed that there is a correlation between SC and SB.
- (2)
- Both SC and SB can be divided into multiple dimensions however, each individual dimension of SC has its own relationship with SB.
- (3)
3. Research Methods
3.1. Questionnaire Design
- (1)
- Safety commitment: Worker safety is regarded as the core value of the organization’s culture and has robust safety management systems and provides sufficient safety related resources and equipment. The organization is concerned about the staff’s physical and mental conditions and safety on the worksite and educates the employees on work site dangers and empowers them to act when needed. The supervisor is engaged in daily activities and provides hazard information and supports precautionary measures.
- (2)
- Risk decision making: Based on standard operating procedures, the risk decision making processes provide adequate measures for identifying and controlling potential hazards. There is also support for staff’s ownership of safety in the working environment, and the risk conditions faced by them on the worksite.
- (3)
- Safety attitude and communication: all personnel are aware of safety related expectations. Workers understand that worksite safety takes priority over competing interests such as the drive for productivity. During the completion of the construction project, there is constant two-way safety communication between workers and supervisors.
- (4)
- Safety training: The organization provides ongoing safety-related training courses. Regular evaluation of the effectiveness of safety training is conducted to ensure training meets the continuously changing nature of the construction industry.
- (5)
- Safety participation: Personnel take the initiative to identify safety issues in the working environment and communicate to their superiors. Further, workers participate in the safety-related activities, and provide feedback. Participation is to not only done with the intent to proactively share safety knowledge or information with colleagues but also to assist each other in complying with safety procedures to ensure work safety is paramount.
- (6)
- Safety operation: All personnel should work in compliance with site safety requirements and expectations. All personnel should take appropriate protective measures before the commencement of operations and are supported to comply with risk-based safety controls throughout operations.
3.2. Data Analysis Methodology
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Analysis of Dimension Assessment
4.2. Correlation Analysis between SC and SB
4.3. Analysis the Differences of Personal Variables between SC and SB
4.4. Estimating SB Based on SC
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fang, D.; Wu, C.; Wu, H. Development of a safety culture interaction (SCI) model for construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2013, 57, 138–149. [Google Scholar]
- Sunindijo, R.Y.; Zou, P. Political skill for developing construction safety climate. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 138, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, D.; Wu, C.; Wu, H. Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, F.; Celebi, U.B. The importance of safety in construction sector: Costs of occupational accidents in construction sites. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 207–222. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, M.; Fang, D. A cognitive analysis of why Chinese scaffolders do not use safety harnesses in construction. Constr. Manag. Econ, 2013, 31, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackmon, R.B. Gramopadhye, A.K. Improving construction safety by providing positive feedback on backup alarms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1995, 121, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Lu, M.; Hsu, S.C.; Gray, M.; Huang, T. Proactive behavior-based safety management for construction safety improve-ment. Saf. Sci. 2015, 75, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Labour Department. Occupational Safety and Health Statistics 2012. Available online: http://www.labour.gov.hk/tc/osh/pdf/Bulletin2012.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- McDonald, N.; Corrigan, S.; Daly, C.; Cromie, S. Safety management systems and safety culture in aircraft maintenance organizations. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 151–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hetherington, C.; Flin, R.; Mearns, K. Safety in shipping: The human element. J. Saf. Res. 2006, 37, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mosly, I. Factors influencing safety climate in the construction industry: A review. Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 8, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zohar, D. Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1517–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A.; Hart, P.M. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, S. Safety climate in construction site environments. Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2002, 128, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Q.; Fang, D.; Wang, X. A method to identify strategies for the improvement of human safety behavior by considering safety climate and personal experience. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1406–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hon, C.K.; Chan, A.P.; Yam, M.C. Relationships between safety climate and safety performance of building repair, maintenance, minor alteration, and addition (RMAA) works. Saf. Sci. 2014, 65, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, H.C.; Lee, Y.S.; Kim, J.J.; Jee, N.Y. Analyzing safety behaviors of temporary construction workers using structural equation modeling. Saf. Sci. 2015, 77, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glendon, A.I.; Litherland, D.K. Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behavior in road construction. Saf. Sci. 2001, 39, 157–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, M.D.; Phillips, R.A. Validation of a safety climate measure. In Proceedings of the British Psychological Society, Annual Occupational Psychology Conference, Birmingham, UK, 3–5 January 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Barling, J.; Loughlin, C.; Kelloway, E.K. Development and Test of a Model Linking Safety-Specific Transformational Leadership and Occupational Safety. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, K.A.; Willis, P.G.; Prussia, G.E. Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel industry: Development and test of a sociotechnical model. J. Oper. Manag. 2000, 18, 445–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Sun, J.; Du, H.; Wang, C. Relations between safety climate, awareness, and behavior in the Chinese construction industry: A hierarchical linear investigation. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 6580375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lingard, H.; Zhang, R.P.; Oswald, D. Effect of leadership and communication practices on the safety climate and behavior of construction workgroups. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 886–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, S.; Zou, P.; Luo, H. Impact of attitudinal ambivalence on safety behavior in construction. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 7138930. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, M.D.; Phiilips, R.A. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. J. Saf. Res. 2004, 35, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zohar, D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1980, 65, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.L.; Holmes, H. The use of a factor-analytic procedure for assessing the validity of an employee safety climate model. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1995, 18, 455–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, I.W.; Tam, C.M.; Tung, K.C.; Man, A.S. Safety cultural divergences among management, supervisory and worker groups in Hong Kong construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiegmann, D.A.; Zhang, H.; Von Thaden, T.L.; Sharma, G.; Gibbons, A.M. Safety culture: An integrative review. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 2004, 14, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mearns, K.J.; Flin, R. Assessing the state of organizational safety—Culture or climate? Curr. Psychol. 1999, 18, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, P.; Buttery, S.E.; O’Dea, A.; Kennedy, Q. Identifying and addressing the limitations of safety climate surveys. J. Saf. Res. 2011, 42, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dedobbeleer, N.; Béland, F.A. A safety climate measure for construction sites. J. Saf. Res. 1991, 22, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.; Harrison, K. Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 61–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.; Song, X.; Wang, T.; Fang, D. Core dimensions of the construction safety climate for a standardized safety-climate measurement. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, D.; Chen, Y.; Wong, L. Safety climate in construction industry: A case study in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makki, A.A.; Mosly, I. Determinants for safety climate evaluation of construction industry sites in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Haadir, S.; Panuwatwanich, K.; Stewart, R.A. Empirical analysis of the impacts of safety motivation and safety climate on safety behavior. In Proceedings of the 19th CIB World Building Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 5–9 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Flin, R.; Mearns, K.; O’Connor, P.; Bryden, R. Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, M.A.; Neal, A. Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pousette, A.; Larsson, S.; Törner, M. Safety climate cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behavior. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhry, R.M.; Fang, D.; Lingard, H. Measuring safety climate of a construction company. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 890–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhasi, M.; Vinodkumar, M.N. Safety management practices and safety behavior: Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 43, 2082–2093. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, L.; Yu, G.; Li, Y.; Li, F. Perceived colleagues’ safety knowledge/behavior and safety performance: Safety climate as a moderator in a multilevel study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1468–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kines, P.; Lappalainen, J.; Mikkelsen, K.L.; Olsen, E.; Pousette, A.; Tharaldsen, J.; Törner, M. Nordic Safety Climate Question-naire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate. Int. J. Indust. Ergon. 2011, 41, 634–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cigularov, K.P.; Lancaster, P.G.; Chen, P.Y.; Gittleman, J.; Haile, E. Measurement equivalence of a safety climate measure among Hispanic and White Non-Hispanic construction workers. Saf. Sci. 2013, 54, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lingard, H.; Wakefield, R.; Blismas, N. If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it. In Proceedings of the 19th Triennial CIB World Building Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 5–9 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tholén, S.L.; Pousette, A.; Törner, M. Causal relations between psychosocial conditions, safety climate and safety behavior—A multi-level investigation. Saf. Sci. 2013, 55, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shin, D.P.; Gwak, H.S.; Lee, D.E. Modeling the predictors of safety behavior in construction workers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2015, 21, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, B.H.; Yiu, T.W.; González, V.A. Predicting safety behavior in the construction industry: Development and test of an inte-grative model. Saf. Sci. 2016, 84, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.T.; Merrett, H.C.; Huang, Y.H.; Lu, S.T.; Sun, W.C.; Li, Y. Exploring the multilevel perception of safety climate on Taiwanese construction sites. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheung, C.M.; Zhang, R.P. How organizational support can cultivate a multilevel safety climate in the construction industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 04020014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kapp, E.A. The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on employee safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fugas, C.S.; Silva, S.A.; Meliá, J.L. Another look at safety climate and safety behavior: Deepening the cognitive and social mediator mechanisms. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 468–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, M.A.; Hu, X. How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and safety participation: The role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Saf. Sci. 2013, 60, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhry, R.M.; Fang, D. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites. Saf. Sci. 2008, 135, 566–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.H.; Yang, T.R. Exploring on-site safety knowledge transfer in the construction industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chi, S.; Han, S.; Kim, D.Y. Relationship between unsafe working conditions and workers’ behavior and impact of working conditions on injury severity in US construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 139, 826–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zin, S.M.; Ismail, F. Employers behavioural safety compliance factors toward occupational, safety and health improvement in the construction industry. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 36, 742–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gay, L.R. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; Merrill: Columbus, OH, USA, 1996; ISBN ISBN-10: 0675205069. [Google Scholar]
- DeVellis, R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; Applied Social Research Methods Series; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991; Volume 26. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
Research | Qty. | Major Dimensions Identified |
---|---|---|
Dedobbeleer and Beland [32] | 2 | (1) management commitment to safety (2) workers involvement in safety |
Flin et al. [38] | 5 | (1) management/supervision (2) safety system (3) risk (4) work pressure (5) competence |
Griffin and Neal [39] | 6 | (1) management values (2) safety communication (4) safety practices (5) safety training (6) safety equipment |
Glendon and Litherland [18] | 6 | (1) communication and support (2) adequacy of procedures (3) work pressure (4) personal protective equipment (5) relationships (6) safety rules |
Mohamed [14] | 10 | (1) safety attitudes and management commitment (2) safety consultation and safety training (3) supervisor role and workmates role (4) risk taking behavior (5) safety resources (6) appraisal of safety procedure and work risk (7) improper safety procedure (8) worker involvement (9) workmate influence (10) competence |
Fang et al. [35] | 10 | (1) safety attitude and management commitment (2) safety consultation and safety training (3) supervisor’s role and workmate’s role (4) risk taking behavior (5) safety resources (6) appraisal of safety procedure and work risk (7) improper safety procedure (8) worker’s involvement (9) workmate’s influence (10) competence |
Zhou et al. [15] | 5 | (1) safety management systems and procedures (2) management commitments (3) safety attitudes (4) workmate influences (5) employee involvement |
Pousette et al. [40] | 4 | (1) management safety priority (2) safety management (3) safety communication (4) workgroup safety involvement |
Choudhry et al. [41] | 2 | (1) management commitment and employee involvement (2) inappropriate safety procedures and work practices |
Bhasi and Vinodkumar [42] | 6 | (1) management commitment (2) safety training (3) workers involvement in safety (4) safety communication and feedback (5) safety rules and procedures (6) safety promotion policies |
Jiang et al. [43] | 3 | (1) safety training (2) management commitment and communication for safety (3) safety equipment and maintenance |
Kines et al. [44] | 7 | (1) management safety priority, commitment and competence (2) management safety empowerment (3) management safety justice (4) workers safety commitment (5) workers safety priority and risk non-acceptance (6) safety communication, learning, and trust in coworkers safety competence (7) workers trust in the efficacy of safety systems |
Cigularov et al. [45] | 4 | (1) management commitment to safety (2) supervisor support for safety (3) safety practices (4) work pressure |
Lingard et al. [46] | 4 | (1) perceptions of the extent to which safety is prioritized over other objectives (2) perceptions of managers commitment to safety (at both client and contractor levels) (3) perceptions of first level supervisors safety behaviour (4) perceptions of the quality of safety communication within construction projects |
Tholén et al. [47] | 4 | (1) management safety priority (2) management safety commitment (3) safety communication (4) workgroup safety involvement |
Hon et al. [16] | 3 | (1) management commitment (2) safety rules (3) safety responsibility |
Wu et al [34] | 4 | (1) safety priority (2) safety supervision, training and communication (3) safety rules and procedures (4) safety involvement |
Shin et al. [48] | 5 | (1) management values (2) immediate supervisor (3) communication (4) training (5) safety system |
Seo et al. [17] | 5 | (1) managerial priority (2) safety communication (3) safety regulation (4) safety education (5) supervisor |
Guo et al. [49] | 3 | (1) management safety commitment (2) social support (3) production pressure |
Mosly | 2 | (1) management-related safety climate factors (2) workers-related safety climate factors |
Chen et al. [50] | 5 | (1) safety attitude (2) safety training and policies (3) risk decision-making (4) safety commitment and communication (5) workmate mutual care |
Makki and Mosly [36] | 3 | (1) safety commitment (2) safety interaction (3) safety support |
Cheung and Zhang [51] | 2 | (1) group-level safety climate (2) organization-level safety climate |
Research Dimension | Safety Participation | Safety Compliance | Others | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Researcher | ||||
Griffin and Neal (2000) [39] | √ | √ | ||
Neal et al. (2000) [13] | √ | √ | ||
Zhou et al. [15] (2008) | √ | √ | ||
Bhasi and Vinodkumar [42] (2010) | √ | √ | ||
Jiang et al. [43] (2010) | √ | √ | ||
Kapp [52] (2012) | √ | √ | ||
Fugas et al. [53] (2012) | √ | Proactive Safety Behaviors | ||
Griffin and Hu [54] (2013) | √ | √ | ||
Al-Haadir et al. [37] (2013) | √ | √ | ||
Hon et al. [16] (2014) | √ | √ | ||
Shin et al. [48] (2015) | √ | √ | ||
Seo et al. [17] (2015) | √ | √ | ||
Guo et al. [49] (2016) | √ | √ |
Attribute | Classification | No. | Attribute | Classification | No. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 277 | Position Level | Management Roles | Site Director | 32 |
Female | 25 | Safety Personnel | 28 | |||
Age Group | <24 | 9 | Work Supervisor | 32 | ||
25–31 | 36 | Site Operation Supervisor | 26 | |||
32–38 | 88 | Laborer Roles | Rod Buster | 52 | ||
39–45 | 96 | Formwork Worker | 62 | |||
46–54 | 68 | Concrete Worker | 41 | |||
>55 | 5 | Cement Worker | 29 | |||
Highest Education Level Obtained | Junior High or Below | 54 | Job Tenure (yrs.) | <2 Years | 33 | |
Senior High | 149 | 2 (inclusive)–6 | 50 | |||
Junior College | 66 | 6 (inclusive)–12 | 85 | |||
College | 31 | 12 (inclusive)–16 | 71 | |||
Graduate Institute | 2 | >17 | 63 | |||
Marital Status | Married | 228 | No. of incidents encountered over the past year | 1 | 214 | |
Unmarried | 67 | 2–3 | 86 | |||
Others | 7 | 4–7 | 2 | |||
Company Category * | Grade A Construction | 55 | No. of education and training events attended over the past year | <1 | 75 | |
Grade B Construction | 41 | 2–3 | 126 | |||
Grade C Construction | 34 | 4–7 | 94 | |||
Civil Engineering Construction | 172 | 8–10 | 4 | |||
Engineering Attribute | Public Construction | 112 | >11 | 3 | ||
Civil Construction | 190 |
Dimension | Safety Climate | Safety Behavior | |
---|---|---|---|
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (measure of sampling adequacy) | 0.718 | 0.795 | |
Bartlett’s Sphericity Test | Chi-squared Distribution Approximation | 3307.844 | 1195.764 |
Degree of Freedom | 300 | 78 | |
Significance | p = 0.000 | p = 0.000 |
Dimension | Cronbach’s α | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Management Group | Labour Group | All Groups | ||
SC | Safety Commitment | 0.687 | 0.711 | 0.714 |
Risk Decision Making | 0.705 | 0.716 | 0.737 | |
Safety Attitudes and Communication | 0.702 | 0.733 | 0.740 | |
Safety Training | 0.703 | 0.755 | 0.750 | |
All SC dimensions combined | 0.817 | 0.792 | 0.829 | |
SB | Safety Participation | 0.701 | 0.778 | 0.770 |
Safety Operation | 0.727 | 0.797 | 0.783 | |
All SB dimensions combined | 0.765 | 0.760 | 0.785 |
Dimension | Items | Average Score | Average Score Ranking | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Safety Commitment | 1. Your company values and cares about the safety of its employees | 3.73 | 1 | 0.874 |
2. Your company respects and evaluates the safety opinions proposed by others and make improvements | 2.75 | 22 | 1.071 | |
3. Your site does not have adequate and appropriate safety equipment * | 3.67 | 2 | 0.857 | |
4. Your company attaches great importance to the safety training of its employees | 3.60 | 5 | 0.844 | |
5. When your supervisor conducts safety inspection or supervision, encounters a violation of work safety regulations that will immediately prevent | 3.63 | 4 | 0.825 | |
6. Your company does implement safety code of practice | 3.12 | 14 | 0.868 | |
Risk Decision Making | 7. You are sometimes confused about how to work safely * | 2.83 | 21 | 1.072 |
8. Some colleagues are simply not aware of what kind of harm may cause at work * | 2.85 | 19 | 1.082 | |
9. Sometimes you have to carry on the work at a risk of unwilling hazard in order to complete the job done * | 2.92 | 16 | 0.909 | |
10. Aspects of safety related procedures or regulations are impractical to comply with * | 2.93 | 15 | 1.006 | |
11. The actual situation of some construction sites will cause unable to perform the work safely * | 3.59 | 6 | 0.876 | |
12. There are some safety procedures or regulations that cannot be practical applied at work * | 2.87 | 17 | 0.933 | |
13. Some jobs do not have the means to be work completely safely * | 2.83 | 21 | 1.020 | |
Safety Attitude and Communication | 14. You are willing to accept personal work safety advice from others | 3.65 | 3 | 0.860 |
15. Do you think “duration” is more important than “work safety” * | 3.45 | 12 | 0.841 | |
16. The accurate implementation of work safety processes or regulations will prevent accidental occurrence | 3.46 | 11 | 0.895 | |
17. You are aware of your job responsibilities and fully understand the safety procedures or regulations | 2.84 | 20 | 0.918 | |
18. Sometimes you will omit the work steps for the momentary convenience * | 3.59 | 6 | 0.838 | |
19. In addition to paying attention to your own safety at work, you will also be aware to colleagues who possible in affected area | 3.50 | 9 | 0.896 | |
20. When you have safety related issue at work, you will discuss it with your colleague and request for assistance | 3.18 | 13 | 0.863 | |
Safety Training | 21. Your supervisor will conduct safety announcements and provide information notices about related safety | 3.55 | 7 | 0.812 |
22. Safety training is of practical help for your work | 3.53 | 8 | 0.935 | |
23. Your company will familiarize workers with safe work procedures | 3.55 | 7 | 0.902 | |
24. Your company will carry out the necessary safety training for new employees | 3.48 | 10 | 0.877 | |
25. Your company has a perfunctory attitude towards safety training * | 2.86 | 18 | 0.917 | |
Safety Participation | 26. You encounter any safety problems at work will take the initiative to reflect to the supervisor | 3.12 | 10 | 0.836 |
27. You will assist your work partner to ensure safety at work | 3.70 | 2 | 0.874 | |
28. You will take the initiative to participate in safety-related activities and meetings | 2.87 | 12 | 1.045 | |
29. You will take the initiative to improve the safety of the working environment | 3.57 | 4 | 0.811 | |
30. You will share safety knowledge or information with the supervisor or colleague mutually | 3.54 | 5 | 0.864 | |
31. When your colleague has unsafe behavior, will take the initiative to remind them | 3.19 | 9 | 0.858 | |
Safety Operation | 32. You will use personal protective equipment correctly | 3.71 | 1 | 0.849 |
33. Even if the management is not there, you will still comply with safety regulations | 3.53 | 6 | 0.826 | |
34. You will omit the use of protective tool (equipment) because of convenience * | 3.52 | 7 | 0.956 | |
35. You will follow the instruction of management to guide the safe behavior | 3.58 | 3 | 0.881 | |
36. You will usually work according to the standard procedure | 2.82 | 13 | 0.903 | |
37. You will actively cooperate with the safety requirements of the site | 3.50 | 8 | 0.892 | |
38. When colleague reminded the safety precautions, will actually follow their persuasion | 2.88 | 11 | 0.951 |
Dimension | Management Roles (N = 118) | Laborer Roles (N = 184) | Overall (N = 302) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | ||
Safety Climate | Safety Commitment | 3.58 | 0.551 | 3.31 | 0.562 | 3.41 | 0.573 |
Risk Decision Making | 3.22 | 0.569 | 2.82 | 0.594 | 2.97 | 0.615 | |
Safety Attitude and Communication | 3.56 | 0.497 | 3.27 | 0.547 | 3.38 | 0.546 | |
Safety Training | 3.57 | 0.577 | 3.28 | 0.637 | 3.39 | 0.629 | |
Overall Safety Climate | 3.47 | 0.379 | 3.15 | 0.373 | 3.28 | 0.405 | |
Safe Behavior | Safety Participation | 3.55 | 0.536 | 3.19 | 0.603 | 3.33 | 0.604 |
Safety Operation | 3.51 | 0.530 | 3.27 | 0.607 | 3.36 | 0.590 | |
Overall Safety Behavior | 3.53 | 0.437 | 3.23 | 0.455 | 3.35 | 0.470 |
Safety Commitment | Risk Decision Making | Safety Attitude and Communication | Safety Training | Safety Participation | Safety Operation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Safety Commitment | 1 | |||||
Risk Decision Making | 0.354 ** | 1 | ||||
Safety Attitude and Communication | 0.258 ** | 0.222 ** | 1 | |||
Safety Training | 0.141 * | 0.143 * | 0.678 ** | 1 | ||
Safety Participation (SB) | 0.859 ** | 0.361 ** | 0.312 ** | 0.185 ** | 1 | |
Safety Operation (SB) | 0.181 ** | 0.243 ** | 0.717 ** | 0.831 ** | 0.243 ** | 1 |
Safety Climate | Safety Behavior | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Safety Commitment | Risk Decision Making | Safety Attitude and Communication | Safety Training | Overall SC | Safety Participation | Safety Operation | Overall SB | |||||||||
F Value | p Value | F Value | p Value | F Value | p Value | F Value | p Value | F Value | P Value | F Value | p Value | F Value | p Value | F Value | p Value | |
Gender | 0.351 | 0.554 | 0.051 | 0.821 | 4.351 * | 0.038 | 2.193 | 0.140 | 1.274 | 0.260 | 0.600 | 0.439 | 1.530 | 0.217 | 0.146 | 0.703 |
Age | 2.186 | 0.056 | 1.673 | 0.141 | 0.263 | 0.933 | 0.983 | 0.428 | 1.036 | 0.397 | 1.536 | 0.178 | 0.538 | 0.748 | 0.460 | 0.806 |
Education Level | 5.683 * | 0.003 | 8.114 * | 0.000 | 2.259 | 0.063 | 2.015 | 0.092 | 8.586 * | 0.000 | 7.946 * | 0.000 | 1.789 | 0.131 | 5.925 * | 0.000 |
Marital Status | 1.579 | 0.208 | 2.457 | 0.087 | 0.052 | 0.950 | 0.069 | 0.934 | 0.944 | 0.390 | 3.282 * | 0.039 | 0.148 | 0.862 | 1.693 | 0.186 |
Company Category | 14.554 * | 0.000 | 21.096 * | 0.000 | 10.521 * | 0.000 | 8.021 * | 0.000 | 30.055 * | 0.000 | 17.973 * | 0.000 | 7.902 * | 0.000 | 20.333 * | 0.000 |
Engineering Attribute | 21.569 * | 0.000 | 77.629 * | 0.000 | 0.270 | 0.604 | 0.803 | 0.371 | 24.758 * | 0.000 | 20.880 * | 0.000 | 0.070 | 0.791 | 8.077 * | 0.005 |
Position Level | 7.119 * | 0.000 | 8.963 * | 0.000 | 3.474 * | 0.001 | 3.242 * | 0.002 | 11.685 * | 0.000 | 8.577 * | 0.000 | 2.403 * | 0.021 | 7.785 * | 0.000 |
Job Tenure | 2.389 | 0.051 | 0.741 | 0.565 | 1.211 | 0.306 | 1.945 | 0.103 | 2.349 | 0.054 | 3.513 * | 0.008 | 1.067 | 0.373 | 2.230 | 0.066 |
Project Site | 1.378 | 0.254 | 3.676 * | 0.026 | 1.163 | 0.314 | 3.266 * | 0.040 | 2.103 | 0.124 | 0.783 | 0.458 | 1.727 | 0.180 | 1.815 | 0.165 |
Unit Cost | 2.816 * | 0.039 | 0.324 | 0.808 | 3.091 * | 0.027 | 2.584 | 0.053 | 2.666 | 0.048 | 1.687 | 0.170 | 1.813 | 0.145 | 2.053 | 0.107 |
No. of Occupational Disasters | 1.527 | 0.219 | 1.608 | 0.202 | 5.401 * | 0.005 | 3.788 * | 0.024 | 3.788 * | 0.024 | 1.061 | 0.347 | 2.122 | 0.122 | 1.349 | 0.261 |
No. of Participation in Education and Training | 2.411 * | 0.049 | 1.740 | 0.141 | 1.204 | 0.309 | 1.409 | 0.231 | 1.950 | 0.102 | 1.680 | 0.154 | 1.144 | 0.336 | 1.360 | 0.248 |
Model | R | R Squared | Adjusted R Squared | Change Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R Squared Change | F Change | Numerator Degree of Freedom | Denominator Degree of Freedom | Significant F Change | ||||
1 | 0.859 a | 0.737 | 0.736 | 0.737 | 840.830 | 1 | 300 | 0.000 |
2 | 0.864 b | 0.746 | 0.744 | 0.009 | 10.253 | 1 | 299 | 0.002 |
Model | Non-Standardized Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | p Value | VIF | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimated Value of Β | Standard Error | Beta Distribution | |||||
1 | (Constant) | 0.244 | 0.108 | 2.256 | 0.025 | ||
Safety Commitment | 0.904 | 0.031 | 0.859 | 28.997 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
2 | (Constant) | −0.028 | 0.136 | −0.205 | 0.837 | ||
Safety Commitment | 0.878 | 0.032 | 0.834 | 27.614 | 0.000 | 1.072 | |
Safety Attitude and Communication | 0.107 | 0.033 | 0.097 | 3.202 | 0.002 | 1.072 |
Model | R | R Squared | Adjusted R2 | Change Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 Change | F Change | Numerator Degree of Freedom | Denominator Degree of Freedom | Significant F Change | ||||
1 | 0.831 a | 0.690 | 0.689 | 0.690 | 667.847 | 1 | 300 | 0.000 |
2 | 0.857 b | 0.734 | 0.732 | 0.044 | 49.075 | 1 | 299 | 0.000 |
3 | 0.861 c | 0.742 | 0.739 | 0.008 | 9.440 | 1 | 298 | 0.002 |
Model | Non Standardised Coefficient | Standardised Coefficient | t | p Value | VIF | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimated Value of Β | Standard Error | Beta Distribution | |||||
1 | (Constant) | 0.718 | 0.104 | 689.8 | 0.000 | ||
Safety Training | 0.779 | 0.030 | 0.831 | 25.843 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
2 | (Constant) | 0.293 | 0.114 | 2.565 | 0.011 | ||
Safety Training | 0.598 | 0.038 | 0.638 | 15.711 | 0.000 | 1.851 | |
Safety Attitude and Communication | 0.307 | 0.044 | 0.284 | 7.005 | 0.000 | 1.851 | |
3 | (Constant) | 0.102 | 0.128 | 0.797 | 0.426 | ||
Safety Training | 0.599 | 0.038 | 0.639 | 15.959 | 0.000 | 1.851 | |
Safety Attitude and Communication | 0.284 | 0.044 | 0.263 | 6.474 | 0.000 | 1.907 | |
Risk Decision Making | 0.089 | 0.029 | 0.093 | 3.072 | 0.002 | 1.052 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, W.T.; Merrett, H.C.; Huang, Y.-H.; Bria, T.A.; Lin, Y.-H. Exploring the Relationship between Safety Climate and Worker Safety Behavior on Building Construction Sites in Taiwan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063326
Chen WT, Merrett HC, Huang Y-H, Bria TA, Lin Y-H. Exploring the Relationship between Safety Climate and Worker Safety Behavior on Building Construction Sites in Taiwan. Sustainability. 2021; 13(6):3326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063326
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Wei Tong, Hew Cameron Merrett, Ying-Hua Huang, Theresia Avila Bria, and Ying-Hsiu Lin. 2021. "Exploring the Relationship between Safety Climate and Worker Safety Behavior on Building Construction Sites in Taiwan" Sustainability 13, no. 6: 3326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063326