Designing a Scalable Safety Cost Model for the Surveying Industry: A Dual Approach for Routine and High-Risk Projects

Abstract

The surveying industry, often operating in high-risk environments such as construction sites and transport corridors, currently lacks a standardized framework for estimating and allocating safety management costs. This study proposes a dual-mode safety cost framework designed to address this gap, combining a rate-based model for routine projects with an actual-cost model for complex operations requiring detailed labor, equipment, and safety cost estimation. Employing a mixed-methods approach—comprising regulatory analysis, a nationwide survey (n = 63), and expert interviews (n = 4)—we assess the feasibility and institutional applicability of this framework. Our findings highlight persistent issues in safety budgeting practices, including inconsistent safety protocols, lack of designated safety personnel, and limited training programs. In response, we developed a draft guideline to standardize safety measures across project phases, with criteria for personnel allocation, safety equipment selection, and training schedules. Simulation analyses show that the rate-based model, when applied at 3.5% of the total project costs, simplifies budgeting for routine projects. In contrast, the actual-cost model offers more precise budgeting for high-risk projects, typically accounting for 6–7% of costs depending on complexity. This scalable and adaptable framework is particularly relevant for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and technical service contracts. More broadly, it offers a transferable foundation for integrating safety cost estimation into public infrastructure projects and digital construction workflows, providing a critical policy tool for contexts worldwide that lack formalized safety cost systems.

1. Introduction

In South Korea, the surveying industry plays a critical role in building national geospatial infrastructure and supporting the lifecycle management of public and private assets. Despite the inherently high-risk nature of its field operations—such as working at heights, near traffic corridors, and in confined underground environments—the surveying industry lacks a formal safety cost framework that reflects its specific operational risks. While several studies have quantitatively analyzed accident prevention costs in the Korean construction industry, highlighting the need for structured safety investment frameworks [1], comparable research in the surveying domain remains largely absent.

Recent amendments to the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (SAPA) have expanded legal safety obligations to small-scale workplaces, encompassing most domestic surveying firms [2]. This shift highlights the urgent need for a sector-specific safety cost accounting framework that reflects the unique risk structures of surveying operations. Nevertheless, current industry practices reveal that safety management expenses are often overlooked or estimated using generalized ratios adapted from the construction sector—an approach that fails to reflect the specific labor structures and operational risks of surveying projects.

In the absence of structured and data driven models, safety investments in high-risk technical sectors are often misaligned with sector specific risks and operational workflows. This misalignment frequently results in insufficient allocation of preventive resources and a corresponding increase in accident-related losses. To address these gaps, recent studies have emphasized the importance of adopting risk adjusted approaches such as cost–benefit analysis (CBA), risk-based optimization, and quantitative cost modeling. These methods have proven effective in enhancing decision-making for safety investments and in reducing both direct and indirect costs associated with occupational accidents [1,3,4,5,6].

Generalized budgeting models fail to reflect the unique risks of surveying operations [1,6]. Structured approaches like CBA and accident cost forecasting offer high returns—up to 3:1—and support safer, more efficient resource allocation [3,5,7].

Additionally, Ref. [8] highlight the institutional vulnerability of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in implementing safety management systems, particularly when no clear regulatory guidance or cost structure exists. Given that most surveying firms in Korea are SMEs, this structural limitation further impedes compliance and increases legal exposure.

While safety cost modeling has significantly advanced in the construction and manufacturing sectors, research addressing the unique operational characteristics of the surveying industry remains limited. Existing frameworks are predominantly developed for construction site environments, focusing on fixed-site factors such as building typologies, labor deployment, and equipment usage patterns. However, these models are often inapplicable to the highly mobile, subcontractor-driven nature of surveying projects [9,10,11]. In particular, surveying operations involve dynamic work environments, specialized geospatial equipment, and fragmented subcontractor chains, posing challenges that cannot be adequately addressed by generalized construction safety models. This gap underscores the need for tailored safety cost frameworks, which this study aims to develop and address.

Existing safety cost models in the construction industry are often ill-suited for surveying projects, which involve highly mobile operations, specialized geospatial equipment, and complex subcontractor structures. As such, construction-based approaches fail to capture the operational realities and risk dynamics unique to the surveying sector [9,11,12].

Given these challenges, the surveying industry requires a more adaptive and nuanced approach to safety cost estimation. To address this, this study proposes a dual-mode safety cost framework that integrates a rate-based model for standardized budgeting and an actual-cost accounting model for detailed tracking of complex operations. This dual-mode approach is designed to better align with the unique operational and procedural characteristics of surveying work, providing a tailored solution for the sector’s safety cost needs.

This study aims to address the critical gap in safety cost estimation within the surveying industry by proposing a dual-mode safety cost framework. The central research question is as follows: “How can a dual-mode safety cost framework, tailored to the unique operational characteristics of the surveying industry, improve safety cost estimation and resource allocation?” To answer this, the study develops a comprehensive solution to the lack of sector-specific safety cost models in South Korea’s surveying industry. The framework integrates both a rate-based model, designed for standardized budgeting, and an actual-cost accounting model, which allows for detailed tracking and project-specific calibration. It was developed through a multifaceted approach involving regulatory analysis, expert interviews, and a structured field survey of industry professionals. Accompanying this framework is an implementation roadmap to support institutional adoption and policy integration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Regulatory Gaps and Institutional Challenges in Safety Cost Allocation

The expansion of legal accountability under Korea’s Serious Accidents Punishment Act (SAPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act has amplified the need for sector-specific institutional responses to workplace safety management. While sectors such as construction and manufacturing have established guidelines and cost structures to comply with these laws, the surveying industry remains institutionally underprepared. In particular, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for over 90% of the sector, often lack the legal capacity and resources to implement effective safety systems [8].

Furthermore, existing cost estimation systems—such as Korea’s Standard Cost Guidelines for Surveying Services—do not currently incorporate safety management expenses as part of direct project costs. In response to this omission, some public-sector project owners have applied safety cost ratios derived from the construction industry (e.g., 1.85%) to surveying services, despite fundamental differences in operational scope, workforce structure, and risk exposure. This regulatory misalignment has contributed to inconsistent budgeting practices and weak enforcement. Similar to the healthcare sector, where structured human factors classification frameworks have been applied to analyze adverse incidents [12], the surveying industry may also benefit from adopting systematic causal analysis methods to improve safety accountability and resource allocation.

The necessity of tailoring safety policies and investment frameworks to the specific risk characteristics and operational environments of different industries has been widely emphasized in the literature. In particular, small and medium-sized construction enterprises (SMEs) face a disproportionately high burden of indirect accident-related costs and limited organizational resilience, necessitating higher levels of safety investment. A customized model for SMEs proposed by ref. [13] suggests an optimal Safety Investment Ratio (SIR) of approximately 3.8% of the total project budget, which minimizes overall safety-related expenditures, including accident costs. Similarly, in high-risk operational settings such as industrial parks and ports, safety investment decisions are significantly influenced by factors including the spatial clustering of risk, the intensity of governmental oversight, and the resource capacity of individual firms [14,15].

The effectiveness of safety investments also hinges on the alignment between legal mandates and firm-level resource capabilities. Even where legal standards are in place, firms with limited financial or managerial capacity often struggle to meet compliance requirements, undermining both regulatory objectives and actual accident prevention outcomes. In response, several frameworks developed in the process industry integrate legal compliance with insurance mechanisms and residual risk targeting, offering a more comprehensive basis for investment decision-making under resource constraints [16,17].

In the absence of well-defined, industry-specific safety cost frameworks, both compliance and actual safety performance may be compromised. Recent research proposes optimization-based approaches—such as cost–benefit analysis, probabilistic simulation, system dynamics modeling, and AI-enabled analytics—as scalable solutions to guide safety investment under uncertainty [6,7,10,12]. These tools enable organizations to forecast safety outcomes, prioritize preventive actions, and allocate limited resources more efficiently.

In summary, the development and adoption of industry-specific safety investment models are essential to enhancing accident prevention effectiveness and regulatory compliance. The limitations of construction-derived safety cost models become especially evident when applied to the surveying industry. Surveying projects typically operate in decentralized, mobile environments and require the deployment of highly specialized geospatial instruments—conditions that differ significantly from the fixed, vertically integrated structures common in construction. Moreover, subcontracting arrangements are more fragmented, and workflows are often short-cycle, making incident-based prediction tools and SME-focused investment models derived from construction settings poorly transferrable [10,12,13]. These models frequently cluster firms based on generalizable input variables, yet fail to reflect the nuanced risk profiles of technical surveying tasks, such as underground utility mapping or geodetic control, where hazard types and personnel deployment vary considerably. This underscores the need for a sector-specific approach that accounts for both operational complexity and project variability.

2.2. Empirical Investigation Through Structured Survey and Expert Interviews

To validate the institutional gaps identified in the preceding legal review and to capture field-level insights from industry stakeholders, a structured questionnaire survey was developed and administered to professionals working in the Korean surveying sector. The survey aimed to assess current safety management practices, identify obstacles to implementation, and collect respondent preferences regarding safety cost allocation methods. In particular, the survey focused on understanding how organizations of different sizes perceive and manage safety-related obligations under evolving legal frameworks. The questionnaire design incorporated both quantitative and categorical items to enable statistical analysis of trends across institution type, workforce size, and respondent experience.

A total of 63 valid responses were collected from participants representing public institutions, private surveying firms, and academic or research organizations. Of these, 34.9% were affiliated with government or public-sector agencies, 44.4% with private-sector firms, and 20.6% with academic or research institutions. In terms of company size, 52% of respondents worked in organizations with fewer than 5 employees, 33% in firms with 5 to 49 employees, and 15% in firms with 50 or more employees. This distribution is representative of the Korean surveying industry, which is predominantly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The collected data were organized to align with the analytical structure required for developing the safety cost framework. This process served as the empirical foundation for configuring input parameters and selecting appropriate modeling approaches. Based on organizational type, workforce size, and work environment, key risk factors and cost components were identified for each project category. This allowed for the application of a dual-mode estimation strategy comprising both rate-based and actual-cost models. The resulting insights reflect both regulatory obligations and operational realities, providing a grounded basis for the development of a tailored safety cost framework.

2.2.1. Survey Instrument and Structure

The questionnaire was designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative insights regarding current safety management practices, institutional limitations, and perceptions of appropriate safety cost allocation models within the surveying industry. To ensure content validity and practical relevance, the initial draft of the questionnaire was developed through a review of the existing literature on construction safety [5], SME risk management [18], and cost estimation frameworks [13]. These references were selected for their methodological rigor and relevance to risk-tiered budgeting in technically specialized sectors.

The draft instrument was reviewed and revised through iterative consultations with five domain experts from academia, government, and the surveying industry. A pilot test involving six practitioners was conducted to assess clarity, terminology accuracy, and item sequencing. Feedback from the pilot phase led to refinement of question phrasing and category labels to improve comprehension and response consistency.

To mitigate response bias, the survey was administered anonymously, with clear assurances of confidentiality. In addition, the questionnaire was distributed via randomly selected email invitations to registered members of the national surveying association to ensure a diverse and representative respondent pool. Question order was randomized within each thematic block to reduce acquiescence bias. While formal reliability metrics (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) were not computed due to the categorical and ordinal nature of the data, internal consistency and logical coherence were assessed qualitatively during pilot testing and expert review.

The final instrument consisted of 16 items across four thematic sections, combining closed-ended multiple-choice and Likert-scale items for statistical aggregation with a limited number of open-ended questions to elicit contextual insights. The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

• Respondent and Firm Characteristics: e.g., “What is your position or affiliation?”, “How many employees does your organization have?”
• Current Safety Practices and Compliance: e.g., “Does your organization have a designated safety manager?”, “Have employees received any formal safety training in the past year?”
• Perceptions of Safety Management Responsibilities: e.g., “Who should be responsible for implementing safety protocols in your organization?”, “What are the biggest obstacles to effective safety management?”
• Preferences Regarding Safety Cost Allocation: e.g., “Do you prefer a rate-based or actual-cost reimbursement model for budgeting safety costs?”, “At what percentage do you believe safety costs should be set relative to total project value?”

By organizing the instrument in this way, the survey was able to elicit structured, analyzable responses while still allowing room for respondents to express field-based concerns. The results of this instrument provided essential empirical input for designing a safety cost framework that is not only technically feasible but also operationally grounded in the realities of the surveying industry.

2.2.2. Profile of Survey Respondents and Organizational Characteristics

The survey was conducted using a randomized email distribution method targeting registered members of surveying industry associations in South Korea. Respondents were asked to provide information on their organizational affiliation, job function, project experience, and organizational size. These variables were included to account for structural factors that influence safety practices and regulatory compliance—particularly organizational size, which has been identified as a critical determinant of risk exposure and administrative capacity [8].

Among the 63 respondents, 44.4% were affiliated with private-sector firms, 34.9% with public institutions, and 20.6% with academic or research organizations. More than half (52.4%) reported working in micro-enterprises with fewer than five employees, reflecting the structural dominance of small-scale firms in the Korean surveying industry. Job functions included field technicians, design and procurement officers, and safety managers, while project experience ranged across cadastral surveys, geodetic control, underground utility mapping, and coastal monitoring.

The geographic distribution of respondents encompassed both major metropolitan areas and smaller regional cities, supporting the representativeness of the sample in terms of regional diversity. Taken together, these characteristics reflect the actual composition and operating conditions of the national surveying sector and form a valid empirical basis for analyzing the applicability of the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework.

Table 1. Survey respondents by affiliation and firm size. Summary of the 63 participants categorized by institutional type and organizational scale, highlighting the dominance of micro-scale firms in the Korean surveying sector.

Category	Subcategory	Respondents	Percentage (%)
Affiliation	Public Sector	22	34.9
Affiliation	Private Firm	28	44.4
Affiliation	Academia	13	20.6
Organization Size	<5 employees	33	52.4
Organization Size	5 < 9 employees	21	33.3
Organization Size	50 < 9 employees	6	9.5
Organization Size	100+ employees	3	4.8

presents the detailed breakdown of survey respondents by institutional affiliation and firm size, illustrating the predominance of micro-scale firms within the Korean surveying industry.

2.2.3. Analytical Methods

To derive meaningful insights from the collected data, both quantitative and qualitative analytical approaches were employed. The structured survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions and cross-tabulations, to identify trends in safety practices, organizational preparedness, and preferences regarding cost allocation frameworks. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 26.0), with categorical responses aggregated by organization type and size to assess variation across subgroups.

In addition to the survey analysis, 4 expert interviews were transcribed and subjected to qualitative coding. Thematic analysis was conducted to extract recurring patterns and concerns related to institutional gaps, cost allocation mechanisms, and anticipated challenges in the field implementation of safety guidelines. This mixed-methods approach ensured both breadth and depth in understanding the operational realities and stakeholder perceptions surrounding safety management in the surveying industry.

The collected survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods to explore patterns in institutional safety practices, awareness, and opinions on cost allocation in the Korean surveying industry. All quantitative data were processed using SPSS (version 26.0), where basic frequency and percentage distributions were computed for each item. Cross-tabulation analysis was also conducted to examine the relationship between variables such as organization type (public, private, academic) and safety cost preference (rate-based vs. actual-cost). Where appropriate, chi-square tests were performed to assess the statistical significance of group differences.

To complement the quantitative findings, a total of 4 expert interviews were conducted and analyzed using qualitative coding techniques. Interview transcripts were first subjected to open coding to identify recurring themes, followed by axial coding to organize these themes into broader categories such as (1) institutional constraints, (2) administrative burdens, (3) cost logic, and (4) policy implementation feasibility. Coding consistency was verified by two independent reviewers to ensure the credibility of the findings. This qualitative component provided rich contextual insight that helped to explain some of the quantitative trends and offered practical interpretations grounded in field expertise.

The integration of quantitative survey analysis with qualitative expert insight was essential in developing a comprehensive understanding of both the perceived and actual limitations of current safety management systems. The combined evidence served as the empirical basis for designing a dual-mode safety cost framework that is technically viable and field-adaptable.

2.3. Mixed-Methods Analysis of Survey and Expert Interview Data

To generate robust and policy-relevant insights into the institutional dynamics of safety cost management, this study employed a mixed-methods analytical design that integrates both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations to identify prevailing trends in safety practices, organizational readiness, and preferences for cost allocation mechanisms across various stakeholder groups. This quantitative analysis was instrumental in establishing generalizable patterns and subgroup variations across the Korean surveying industry.

Mixed-methods research is increasingly recognized as a valuable approach in safety and organizational studies, particularly when addressing complex, context-dependent problems that require both breadth and depth of understanding [19,20]. By combining statistical patterns with field-based expert insight, this approach enhances analytical validity through triangulation and facilitates integration of generalizable findings with nuanced contextual interpretation [20,21]. In this study, the integration of structured survey data and qualitative expert interviews enabled a holistic exploration of institutional constraints, safety investment behaviors, and the feasibility of implementing cost frameworks within the surveying sector.

To supplement these findings with in-depth practitioner insights, the study conducted 4 interviews with experts representing government agencies, private surveying firms, and academic institutions. The interviews aimed to capture nuanced perspectives on operational constraints, institutional fragmentation, and sector-specific implementation challenges that are not easily observable through structured instruments. Qualitative interviews are particularly valuable in policy framework development, as they allow researchers to uncover context-specific insights—such as the real-world limitations of regulatory structures and the underlying rationale behind organizational decision-making—that may otherwise remain hidden in quantitative data [22].

Interview transcripts were analyzed using established qualitative coding techniques, including open and axial coding, to extract recurring themes related to safety governance, cost allocation rationale, and regulatory feasibility. These analyses revealed that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) consistently face multifaceted barriers to achieving safety compliance.

First, a significant body of literature highlights the role of resource constraints and limited regulatory awareness in shaping safety behavior in SMEs. Studies by refs. [23,24] demonstrate that financial limitations, understaffing, and insufficient legal knowledge hinder effective implementation of safety protocols in small firms.

Second, sector-specific investigations indicate that generic safety frameworks often overlook the contextual realities of small enterprises. Refs. [25,26] found that SMEs in the food and chemical sectors, respectively, struggle with compliance when guidelines fail to account for sector-specific risks and operational routines. These findings underscore the necessity of tailored regulatory approaches that reflect the diversity of SME environments.

Third, organizational structure and leadership dynamics significantly influence compliance behavior. For instance, refs. [27,28] observed that awareness-building efforts and safety training yield better results when aligned with firm size and leadership commitment. Similarly, ref. [29,30] emphasize the importance of proactive safety culture, internal management practices, and employee engagement in sustaining compliance outcomes.

Lastly, broader behavioral factors such as motivation, climate, and knowledge sharing have also been shown to shape safety participation. Ref. [31] argue that these psychological and interpersonal dimensions are closely tied to compliance outcomes, reinforcing the need for integrated safety frameworks that address both technical and human elements.

Taken together, these insights underscore the necessity of developing a safety cost framework that is both compliant with legal mandates and practically applicable within the structural and behavioral constraints of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In response to these imperatives, the following section introduces a dual-mode safety cost model specifically designed for the surveying industry. This model addresses diverse stakeholder needs and operational conditions by integrating both rate-based and actual-cost methodologies, thereby ensuring administrative flexibility, financial transparency, and institutional relevance.

To support the design of this framework with in-depth contextual understanding, qualitative data from expert interviews were systematically analyzed using established coding techniques. Through open and axial coding, recurring themes were identified concerning safety policy implementation, rationale for cost allocation, and challenges in regulatory execution. These insights, grounded in the practical experiences of field professionals, provide essential input for constructing a viable and consensus-driven safety cost model that aligns with both institutional objectives and the operational realities of the surveying sector.

These expert interviews revealed multiple institutional and operational barriers that must be addressed to ensure the viability of any proposed safety cost framework.

A particularly salient issue was the absence of regulatory clarity regarding the appointment and responsibilities of safety managers in surveying projects. In contrast to the construction sector, the surveying field lacks standardized guidelines for assigning safety oversight roles, often resulting in inconsistent delegation or omission of safety-related duties.

Additionally, participants highlighted systemic issues in the budgeting process, where safety costs are either excluded altogether or calculated using arbitrary benchmarks derived from unrelated sectors. The commonly applied 1.85% construction rate was considered ill-suited to the operational characteristics of surveying work. Experts emphasized the need for a dedicated and empirically grounded rate structure that reflects sector-specific risks and administrative realities.

Another critical concern was the lack of institutional infrastructure to support safety capacity-building. Many small and mid-sized firms—representing the bulk of the industry—reported limited access to standardized safety manuals, training programs, or certified educational pathways. This systemic gap has fostered a perception that safety management is discretionary rather than a core operational obligation.

Regarding cost estimation mechanisms, expert opinions were divided. While a rate-based model was favored for its simplicity and administrative feasibility, stakeholders from larger organizations advocated for a cost-reimbursement model that reflects actual expenditures for labor, training, and equipment. Rate-based models are typically used for their ease of application, especially in early project phases or small-scale projects, where rapid budgeting is prioritized over [32,33,34]. However, they often lack the accuracy and transparency needed for complex operational environments such as surveying.

In contrast, cost-reimbursement models offer greater accuracy and accountability by relying on real expenditure data, allowing for more defensible budgeting and auditability, particularly in regulated or high-risk industries [35,36]. Many participants emphasized that safety costs should be treated as direct expenditures rather than overhead, to shield them from downstream budgetary cuts and to ensure financial transparency. Direct cost allocation is especially important in safety-critical fields, where traceability and justification of expenses are essential for regulatory compliance and stakeholder confidence [35,36].

Finally, the successful implementation of a safety cost framework was seen as contingent upon broader institutional coordination. Participants identified critical obstacles such as inconsistent procurement practices, limited administrative capacity in smaller firms, and potential resistance from regulatory and fiscal oversight agencies. These findings underscore the importance of phased policy rollout, capacity-building support, and interagency collaboration.

In conclusion, the expert interviews provided indispensable insight into the institutional, financial, and operational conditions that shape safety cost management in the surveying sector. These qualitative findings complement the survey analysis and directly inform the dual-mode cost model introduced in the next section, ensuring that the proposed framework is both evidence-based and practically implementable across a diverse range of organizational contexts.

This integration of qualitative and quantitative methods—commonly referred to as a mixed-methods approach—offers a robust foundation for safety cost modeling by combining the statistical reliability of quantitative data with the contextual depth of qualitative insights. Quantitative surveys offer objective, measurable patterns in cost allocation and compliance behaviors, while qualitative interviews uncover the nuanced institutional dynamics and real-world constraints that often elude numerical analysis [37,38].

Mixed-methods approaches are particularly valuable in developing holistic frameworks that are both operationally viable and context-sensitive. As shown in safety culture and risk modeling studies, qualitative insights can identify hidden drivers of behavior—such as leadership engagement, organizational inertia, and stakeholder perceptions—that are essential for accurate and adaptable framework design [38,39]. This dual perspective enables decision-makers to bridge the gap between policy intent and field-level implementation, thereby enhancing both model effectiveness and stakeholder acceptance [1,40].

Therefore, the fusion of methodological perspectives used in this study not only improves explanatory power, but also enhances the strategic relevance and applicability of the proposed safety cost framework in diverse operational environments.

2.4. Dual-Mode Framework Design for Safety Cost Allocation in Surveying Projects

Building on empirical insights from both survey data and expert interviews, this section presents the conceptual and operational basis for the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework tailored to the surveying industry. The qualitative findings revealed a strong stakeholder demand for a system that is not only practically applicable in field settings but also adaptable to the diverse range of project types and organizational capacities.

To meet this demand, the framework introduces a dual-mode structure comprising two complementary cost estimation approaches: a rate-based model and a cost-reimbursement (actual-cost) model. The rate-based model applies a fixed percentage to total project costs, offering administrative simplicity and predictability [32,33]. It is particularly suitable for small- to medium-scale projects or public-sector procurement systems with limited risk assessment capacity. In contrast, the cost-reimbursement model itemizes safety expenditures—including labor, training, and equipment costs—allowing for greater precision and accountability in budgeting, especially for large-scale or high-risk projects.

This dual structure supports phased institutional adoption by allowing project owners to select the model that aligns best with their project scale, internal resources, and risk profile [34]. Based on expert consultations and field-level project audits, this study proposes a provisional rate of 3.5% for short-term application under the rate-based model. Supporting this, a recent simulation study by ref. [13] found that the optimal Safety Investment Ratio (SIR) for small and medium-sized construction enterprises is approximately 3.8% of the total project value—significantly higher than the 1% often applied in larger-scale projects.

Such phased adoption reflects broader organizational behavior patterns observed in the diffusion of technical and managerial innovations. Prior studies have shown that phased institutional adoption and model selection by project owners are essential for aligning delivery strategies with organizational capacity, risk tolerance, and project scale [41,42,43].

Institutional pressures—whether regulatory, normative, or cognitive—significantly influence the timing and extent of adoption, particularly in public-sector projects [44,45]. Organizational factors such as leadership commitment, internal technical capabilities, and perceived value of innovation play a decisive role in shaping early adoption behavior and in sustaining implementation during later stages [41,46]. For example, in the context of BIM adoption, studies have shown that large owner organizations adopt a phased model that progresses from pilot testing to full-scale institutionalization, with adoption rates rising significantly—up to 60–80%—once internal alignment and top management support are achieved [41,42,45].

In summary, the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework provides a structured and adaptable approach to overcoming long-standing challenges in the budgeting and management of safety investments within the surveying industry. By offering both a rate-based model for administrative simplicity and a cost-reimbursement model for precision and accountability, the framework accommodates the operational diversity and varying institutional capacities across firms and project types. Key design features—such as the treatment of safety costs as direct expenditures and the incorporation of context-sensitive variables—enhance the model’s transparency and scalability.

Simulation results suggest that the actual-cost model may account for 6–7% of the total project budget, particularly in high-risk environments where personnel and equipment costs are substantial. Meanwhile, the rate-based model, guided by a provisional 3.5% benchmark, enables immediate policy implementation, particularly for small to medium-sized firms. The framework’s flexibility allows for phased institutional adoption, with organizations able to transition toward the actual-cost model as administrative capabilities and data infrastructure mature.

Ultimately, the framework is designed not only to ensure regulatory compliance but also to promote a proactive safety culture through standardized, evidence-informed budgeting practices. The next section presents results from pilot case studies that validate the model’s feasibility, assess its operational impacts, and explore its broader policy implications for industry-wide adoption.

2.5. Initial Validation and Implementation Strategy of the Dual-Mode Framework

To assess the practical feasibility and responsiveness of the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework, case simulations were conducted using real-world surveying projects as reference scenarios. These pilot applications aimed to evaluate the cost outcomes, administrative applicability, and institutional acceptability of both the rate-based and actual-cost models under different project conditions.

The simulations focused on typical public-sector surveying tasks—including national geodetic control surveys, underground utility mapping, and corridor surveys in high-risk environments such as roadways or urban centers. Each project scenario was analyzed for safety risk exposure, personnel deployment, equipment needs, and environmental complexity. The cost models were then applied to calculate and compare projected safety expenses.

This section presents the simulation results and interprets them in light of industry feedback and regulatory standards. It also identifies practical adjustments and policy refinements necessary for future field implementation. Through this validation process, the proposed framework is tested not only as a theoretical model but as a field-adaptable solution aligned with Korea’s evolving safety governance landscape.

To verify the applicability of the proposed safety cost framework under realistic conditions, simulation exercises were conducted using representative public-sector surveying projects. These included three categories: (1) national geodetic control surveys in low-risk open fields, (2) underground utility surveys in dense urban areas, (3) transportation corridor surveys near roadways with moderate-to-high safety risks.

Each project type was assessed for safety risk levels, field personnel requirements, the need for signalers or safety managers, use of protective equipment, and training demands. Based on these parameters, both the rate-based and actual-cost models were applied to compute safety cost projections. The resulting figures were compared to evaluate their proportional impact on total project budgets and administrative manageability.

In low-risk geodetic projects, the rate-based model (3.5%) provided sufficient coverage of minimal safety requirements, confirming its suitability for standardized small-scale tasks. In contrast, for urban underground mapping and high-risk corridor projects, the actual-cost model captured more granular safety needs—such as PPE upgrades, signaler deployment, and pre-field training—resulting in safety cost ratios ranging from 5.8% to 7.2% of the total project cost. This divergence confirms that a uniform rate approach may be inadequate for complex or high-risk assignments.

Stakeholder feedback from field engineers and safety officers further reinforced the practical advantages of model selection flexibility. Rate-based application was favored for its simplicity in budget proposals and audits, whereas actual-cost accounting was preferred for projects with heightened scrutiny or legal exposure under Korea’s Serious Accidents Punishment Act.

Moreover, the simulations highlighted key considerations for institutionalizing the framework—namely, the need for standardized documentation templates, cost coding systems within public procurement portals, and reviewer training to assess safety budget legitimacy.

In conclusion, the simulation results support the operational relevance of the dual-mode safety cost framework. The rate-based model is well-suited for routine tasks with moderate risk, while the actual-cost model ensures comprehensive coverage in complex and regulated environments. To enhance implementation consistency across agencies and project types, the next section introduces a structured workflow model that guides users in selecting, applying, and auditing the appropriate cost estimation method.

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework and research process employed in this study to develop and validate a dual-mode safety cost estimation system for the surveying industry. Beginning with institutional gap identification, the framework integrates needs assessment through a national practitioner survey (n = 63) and expert panel interviews (n = 4), leading to the formulation of a dual-mode model comprising rate-based and actual-cost approaches. These models were tested through scenario-based simulations across three representative project types—national control surveys, urban utility surveys, and road corridor surveys. The outcomes informed the development of a structured workflow and key implementation strategies aimed at institutionalizing a risk-tiered safety cost budgeting system.

3. Results

3.1. Survey-Based Assessment of Safety Practices and Cost Preferences in the Surveying Industry

To investigate the current state of safety management within the Korean surveying industry, a structured questionnaire was administered to 63 practitioners across government, private, and academic sectors (see Appendix B for detailed survey results). The survey covered topics such as the presence of safety protocols, designation of responsible personnel, training provision, and the integration of safety costs in project budgets. Respondents also expressed their perceptions of regulatory compliance burdens and cost estimation methods.

The results revealed that a significant portion of respondents—particularly those from small and medium-sized enterprises—reported the absence of formally designated safety managers in their organizations. Approximately 68% of the surveyed entities had no clear personnel assignment for safety oversight, indicating a critical institutional gap in frontline safety accountability.

Moreover, nearly 73% of respondents indicated that safety costs were not explicitly budgeted in their project planning processes. In many cases, respondents noted that safety measures were either absorbed into general overhead or entirely omitted due to the lack of guidelines within the Standard Surveying Fee Criteria. This omission was particularly pronounced among firms with fewer than 50 employees.

Training and documentation practices were also notably underdeveloped. Only 21% of respondents stated that their organization offered standardized safety manuals or field protocols, and just 16% had access to formal safety training programs. These findings suggest that safety is not yet institutionalized as an operational priority in many segments of the industry.

When asked about their preferred cost estimation model, a majority of respondents (61%) indicated a preference for the rate-based approach, citing administrative simplicity and transparency during public procurement processes. However, a substantial minority (39%) favored the reimbursement-based model, particularly for large-scale or high-risk projects where safety requirements are more complex and variable.

Overall, the survey findings point to a fragmented and underregulated safety management environment within the surveying industry. The lack of clearly defined safety roles, formalized training systems, and budget integration underscores the urgent need for an enforceable framework—one that is both flexible enough to accommodate organizational diversity and robust enough to ensure baseline compliance with national safety regulations.

Table 2. Cross-tabulation of safety manager assignment by organization size in the surveying industry.

Organization Size	Safety Manager Designated	No Safety Manager	Total	Manager Assignment Rate
<5 employees	10	5	15	66.7%
5–49 employees	8	18	26	30.8%
50–99 employees	5	3	8	62.5%
100+ employees	4	1	5	80.0%

presents a cross-tabulation of safety manager assignments by organization size. The results reveal a significant disparity in designation practices, with smaller organizations (fewer than 50 employees) reporting markedly lower rates of formally appointed safety personnel. This gap highlights a systemic vulnerability in safety accountability among the most common types of firms operating within the surveying industry.

Table 3. Preferences for safety cost estimation methods by organization size.

Organization Size	Rate-Based Preference	Actual-Cost Preference	Total	Rate-Based Preference
<5 employees	8	7	15	53.3%
5–49 employees	14	12	26	53.9%
50–99 employees	3	5	8	37.5%
100+ employees	3	2	5	60.0%

summarizes the preferences for safety cost estimation methods by organization size. While the rate-based approach is generally preferred across all groups, its dominance is especially pronounced in firms with fewer than 50 employees. In contrast, larger organizations show a relatively higher preference for the actual-cost method, suggesting an association between organizational capacity and preference for precision and accountability in cost management.

The results presented in Table 2 and Table 3 highlight critical institutional shortcomings in safety management across the surveying industry. A substantial proportion of surveyed organizations—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—lack formally designated safety managers, with firms employing fewer than 50 people exhibiting especially low assignment rates. This reflects a widespread absence of structured accountability mechanisms for safety oversight, a concern that is particularly acute among the most prevalent organizational types in the sector.

The gap in safety manager designation underscores a broader systemic issue: many firms, especially smaller ones, may lack the administrative capacity or regulatory incentives to formalize safety roles. Without clearly assigned responsibilities, the implementation of safety protocols, documentation practices, and compliance monitoring is likely to remain inconsistent. These findings support the need for a flexible safety cost framework that can address such disparities while promoting baseline safety accountability.

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between organizational size and safety cost estimation preferences. The chart shows that smaller firms predominantly favor the rate-based model, while larger organizations tend to prefer the actual-cost approach.

As shown in Figure 2, preferences for safety cost estimation methods vary by organizational size. Smaller firms tend to favor the rate-based model due to its simplicity and administrative convenience, while larger firms show a stronger preference for the actual-cost model, likely reflecting their greater capacity for detailed budgeting. This pattern suggests that cost model selection is influenced by both organizational scale and project complexity.

These findings reinforce the rationale for adopting a dual-mode safety cost framework that accommodates both administrative simplicity and budgeting precision. The rate-based method offers a practical solution for small-scale firms and routine projects, facilitating compliance and predictability. In contrast, the actual-cost model is more suitable for larger organizations or high-risk environments, where detailed accounting is essential. This trend highlights the need for scalable policy implementation aligned with organizational capacity and project complexity.

To complement these methodological preferences, Figure 3 illustrates the composition of survey respondents by organizational affiliation and years of professional experience. This demographic breakdown provides critical context for interpreting the preceding trends, as respondents’ institutional backgrounds and levels of field experience likely influence their perceptions of safety cost estimation practices. The diversity of affiliations—from government and academia to industry—alongside a wide range of experience levels, particularly those with over two decades in the field, underscores the representativeness and practical relevance of the survey data.

As shown in Figure 3, the majority of survey respondents were affiliated with the private sector, reflecting the central role of industry practitioners in the implementation of safety cost estimation frameworks. Respondents from academia and the public sector were less represented but still contributed meaningful perspectives, particularly regarding policy and research alignment. This distribution highlights the practical orientation of the survey and ensures that the data reflect operational realities in the field.

In terms of professional experience, a significant portion of respondents reported more than 20 years in the surveying industry. This high level of experience indicates that the survey captured insights from seasoned professionals with substantial exposure to both traditional and evolving safety management practices. Notably, respondents with less than 10 years of experience formed a smaller but still relevant group, offering views that may reflect more recent institutional training or regulatory shifts.

The combined diversity in affiliation and experience strengthens the interpretability of preceding findings on cost model preferences. It suggests that the observed inclination toward rate-based or actual-cost methods is not merely theoretical, but grounded in the lived practices and organizational contexts of a broad professional spectrum. These demographic characteristics provide a credible foundation for advancing a flexible, dual-mode safety cost framework tailored to the heterogeneous nature of the surveying sector.

To further explore the operational components underlying safety performance in the surveying industry, Figure 4 presents the critical personnel identified by respondents as essential to ensuring field safety. The left panel highlights the top five personnel categories considered most crucial, including signal and traffic control staff, equipment inspectors, and hazardous material managers. These roles are directly associated with front-line risk mitigation during field operations. Complementing this, the right panel provides an overview of personnel composition by functional category, emphasizing the predominance of field support and control roles, followed by safety management/supervision and emergency response/training personnel. This workforce structure reflects the sector’s prioritization of immediate on-site risk management capabilities.

As illustrated in Figure 4, field-level personnel play a central role in maintaining safety within surveying operations. Among the five most critical roles, signal and traffic control staff and equipment inspectors were cited most frequently, reflecting the high-risk nature of traffic-prone and equipment-intensive worksites. The identification of hazardous material managers and safety training staff further indicates growing awareness of chemical risk management and the institutionalization of safety education within the sector.

The personnel composition by functional category reinforces this emphasis. Nearly half of the workforce involved in safety is allocated to field support and control roles, demonstrating a direct response to site-specific hazards and operational immediacy. Meanwhile, safety management and supervision accounts for approximately one-third of the total, indicating the importance of oversight, planning, and procedural enforcement. The relatively smaller share of emergency and training roles, while still significant, suggests a supporting rather than leading function in daily safety operations.

These results collectively highlight a workforce model that prioritizes operational presence and real-time intervention, aligning with the dynamic risk environments typical of surveying activities. The findings also point to a need for integrated personnel planning, where technical control, procedural oversight, and emergency readiness are strategically balanced to enhance overall safety performance.

In summary, the survey results reveal clear patterns in safety cost estimation preferences, personnel deployment, and organizational perceptions of safety-critical roles. Rate-based models remain prevalent among smaller firms due to their administrative efficiency, whereas actual-cost approaches are increasingly adopted by larger organizations with greater operational capacity. The prioritization of field-level roles and direct risk control further underscores the industry’s practical orientation toward site-specific safety management. These insights support the necessity of a dual-mode safety cost framework tailored to organizational diversity and project complexity. The findings also provide a foundation for the development of more targeted safety investment strategies and institutional policies, which will be further elaborated in the following sections.

3.2. Expert Insights on Institutional Gaps and Policy Needs in Surveying Safety Management

To complement the quantitative findings, we conducted in-depth interviews with professionals from across the surveying industry, including a government official, an academic researcher, and two safety officers from private firms. These interviews, carried out between September and October 2024, followed a semi-structured protocol aimed at eliciting expert perspectives on institutional barriers, implementation challenges, and safety cost classification. All interviews were recorded with informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to inductive thematic analysis. Recurring concepts were systematically coded and grouped into core themes. To enhance analytical validity, two researchers independently reviewed and cross-validated the coding results.

The interview findings were also triangulated with the survey data to assess convergence and divergence between qualitative insights and quantitative trends. For example, while the survey responses indicated broad consensus on safety needs in routine projects, interviewees highlighted unresolved legal ambiguities in safety role assignment—further supporting the rationale for the dual-model framework. This integrative approach provided both contextual depth and institutional relevance, strengthening the empirical foundation of the proposed framework.

These qualitative findings were used to complement the survey data in Section 3.5 by offering explanatory depth on how institutional and legal conditions shape actual field-level practices.

Participants identified several critical policy gaps, including the absence of formal criteria for assigning safety managers, the lack of standardized training materials tailored to surveying operations, and persistent ambiguity regarding the budgeting of safety-related expenses. Additional concerns were raised about the limited legal integration of safety responsibilities in small and medium-sized enterprises, which constitute the majority of surveying contractors in Korea.

This section summarizes the key themes that emerged from expert interviews, focusing on institutional barriers, policy reform directions, and practical conditions for implementation. These insights form a foundational basis for developing a realistic and field-adaptable safety cost system tailored to the surveying industry.

Interview participants consistently emphasized that safety management in the surveying industry remains underdeveloped at the institutional level. A recurring concern was the lack of formal criteria for assigning safety managers. Unlike construction projects, which are governed by explicit legal standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, surveying projects currently lack comparable codified requirements. This regulatory gap often results in either informal delegation of safety responsibilities or their complete omission in practice.

A second major issue was the lack of standardized safety protocols and manuals tailored to surveying operations. While general safety guidelines exist, experts noted that they rarely address the unique characteristics of surveying—such as frequent outdoor work in traffic-heavy or elevated environments, or the use of small, mobile field teams. The absence of accredited training programs was also cited as a structural limitation, particularly for small firms with limited access to safety education resources.

Cost-related concerns emerged as another prominent theme. Many interviewees expressed frustration over the exclusion of safety management expenses from the Standard Surveying Fee Criteria, which often leads to inconsistent or arbitrary treatment of safety costs during budget planning. Some public-sector project managers reported being forced to apply construction-specific guidelines (e.g., a 1.85% rate) without clear justification, despite significant differences in work structure. This ambiguity undermines transparency and weakens the foundation of safety planning from the outset.

Regarding preferred solutions, many experts advocated for a rate-based model as a short-term approach, particularly for routine surveying projects, due to its predictability and administrative simplicity. In contrast, the actual-cost model was favored for more complex or high-risk projects, especially where legal accountability is heightened, such as under national accident prevention legislation.

Most participants also agreed that safety-related expenses should be classified as direct costs rather than indirect overhead, ensuring they are explicitly planned, traceable, and protected within project budgets.

Additionally, several experts emphasized the need for institutional coordination—particularly with relevant regulatory and geospatial information authorities—to ensure that any revised cost framework is compatible with public procurement systems. Practical implementation challenges, including signaler wage standardization and administrative burdens associated with documentation review, were also identified as critical considerations in the early stages of policy design.

These insights underscore the need for a safety cost framework that is both flexible and enforceable, reflecting legal obligations as well as operational realities in the field. The expert feedback directly informed the development of the dual-mode framework proposed in this study and highlights the importance of a phased and context-sensitive policy implementation strategy.

Table 4. Summary of key expert insights on safety cost issues.

Key Issue	Expert Insight (Condensed)
No formal criteria for safety roles	Absence of legal designation; informal or omitted assignment
Lack of tailored manuals/training	No surveying-specific guides; limited access to safety training
Unclear budgeting standards	Safety costs excluded from fee structure; arbitrary or inconsistent treatment
Need for dual-model flexibility	Rate-based for small/routine projects; actual-cost for large/high-risk projects
Safety costs as direct expenses	Direct classification ensures transparency and auditability
Lack of institutional coordination	Integration with procurement/regulatory bodies needed for system adoption
Implementation constraints	Issues include wage standards, document burden, and need for support tools

summarizes the key insights drawn from the expert interviews. The table categorizes major institutional deficiencies and implementation challenges consistently identified by stakeholders, including those from the surveying industry, government agencies, and academia. These responses reflect both systemic issues—such as the lack of formalized roles and cost integration—and practical concerns related to policy application and regulatory enforcement. Collectively, these findings provided a critical foundation for the design and validation of the proposed framework.

3.3. Modeling of Rate-Based and Actual-Cost Approaches in Surveying Safety Budgeting

To validate the applicability of the dual-mode safety cost framework, two estimation models—rate-based and actual-cost—were applied to three representative public-sector surveying scenarios. Each scenario was designed to reflect distinct risk levels, operational complexities, and regulatory constraints. Beyond general cost comparisons, the simulations incorporated specific risk factors, personnel roles, and required safety measures to approximate field-level implementation.

Scenario 1: Low-Risk—National Control Survey in Rural Fields

This project involved establishing geodetic control points in open rural areas with minimal environmental hazards and low public interface. Field crews consisted of two surveyors and one technician, with short-duration deployments and limited equipment use.

• Risk Factors: Sun exposure, vehicle transport hazards, minor terrain unevenness.

• Safety Measures:
  • Basic PPE (helmets, vests, gloves).
  • Daily toolbox meetings.
  • Vehicle inspection checklists.
• Rate-Based Estimate: 3.5% of USD 100,000 = USD 3500.
  • Actual-Cost Breakdown:
  • PPE (USD 300)
    • Safety training session (USD 600).
    • Personnel standby time + basic first aid kit: (USD 1200).
    • Documentation and checklists: (USD 600).
    • Miscellaneous (signage, hydration): (USD 1500).
    • Total: USD 4200 (4.2%).
• Summary: Both models were feasible; actual-cost allowed for more traceable justification, though the difference was marginal.

Scenario 2: Medium-Risk—Urban Underground Utility Mapping

Conducted in a dense metropolitan area, this task involved mapping water and gas pipelines beneath roads and sidewalks. Crews operated in confined spaces and pedestrian-heavy zones, requiring coordination with municipal safety agencies.

2.

Risk Factors: Gas leakage, confined space, pedestrian traffic, ventilation hazards.

• Personnel: Three-person field team, one signaler, and one safety officer (rotating).
• Safety Measures:
  • Confined space entry training.
  • Gas monitoring devices.
  • Signalers with LED batons.
  • Portable ventilation units.
  • Safety briefings and documentation logs.
• Rate-Based Estimate: 3.5% of USD 150,000 = USD 5250.
  • Actual-Cost Breakdown:
  • Training (confined space, gas monitoring): (USD 2000).
  • Gas detectors (rental): (USD 1200).
  • Signaler wages (3 days): (USD 1800).
  • PPE + ventilation unit: (USD 2000).
  • Supervision and safety logs: (USD 2000).
  • Total: USD 9000 (6.0%).
• Summary: Actual-cost better captured project-specific needs, such as gas monitoring and rotating signaler coverage. Rate-based approach risked underestimating essential equipment.

Scenario 3: High-Risk—Road Corridor Survey Along Active Roadways

This complex project involved surveying an elevated road corridor adjacent to active traffic lanes. The crew worked in elevated zones with frequent vehicle proximity, requiring advanced safety control.

3.

Risk Factors: Traffic collision, fall hazards, limited space for equipment setup.

• Personnel: two field surveyors, two signalers, and one dedicated safety supervisor.
• Safety Measures:
  • Double-signalers per direction.
  • Temporary traffic control (barricades, warning signs).
  • Harnesses and elevated access PPE.
  • Pre-work risk assessment submission.
  • Full-time safety supervision and compliance log.
• Rate-Based Estimate: 3.5% of USD 200,000 = USD 7000.
• Actual-Cost Breakdown:
  • Traffic signalers (5 days): (USD 3600).
  • Traffic control equipment rental: (USD 2400).
  • PPE (harnesses, high-visibility gear): (USD 1500).
  • Safety supervisor (3 days): (USD 3000).
  • Pre-field safety assessment and documentation: (USD 3300).
  • Total: USD 13,800 (6.9%).
• Summary: Fixed percentage was insufficient. The actual-cost model allowed for flexible adjustment based on intensive risk conditions and legal obligations (e.g., SAPA compliance).

These simulations demonstrate how risk-informed, itemized budgeting provides greater accuracy and accountability in high-stakes projects. While the rate-based model offers administrative efficiency for low-risk, routine surveys, it lacks the capacity to scale with project risk. The actual-cost model, despite its complexity, ensures defensible and transparent budgeting aligned with operational realities and regulatory scrutiny.

To assess the practical applicability of the dual-mode safety cost framework,

Table 5. Comparative modeling outcomes of rate-based and actual-cost approaches.

Project Type	Rate-Based (3.5%)	Actual-Cost	Actual-Cost	Complexity	Suitability
Low Risk (Control)	USD 3500	USD 4200	4.2%	Low	High
Medium Risk (Utility)	USD 5250	USD 9000	6.0%	Medium	Moderate
High Risk (Corridor)	USD 7000	USD 13,800	6.9%	High	Low

presents a comparative summary of cost estimation outcomes across different project types using both the rate-based and actual-cost approaches. The table includes three representative project scenarios—low-risk (control), medium-risk (utility), and high-risk (corridor)—and reports corresponding cost estimates, calculated cost ratios, project complexity levels, and relative model suitability. This comparative structure provides an empirical basis for evaluating how each method performs under varying risk and complexity conditions.

To visually supplement the comparative modeling outcomes summarized in Table 5, Figure 5 illustrates the divergence between rate-based and actual-cost estimates across three project risk scenarios. The left panel presents the proportional distribution of actual safety costs by project type, highlighting how higher-risk projects account for a significantly larger share of the total safety expenditures. The right panel decomposes the actual-cost estimates into five component categories—PPE, training, personnel, documentation/logging, and miscellaneous/equipment—while overlaying the corresponding rate-based estimates for each scenario. This dual visualization offers a clear depiction of how cost structure and magnitude vary with project complexity, providing further empirical support for the dual-mode framework’s adaptability

Figure 5 illustrates the comparative outcomes of safety cost estimation under two distinct approaches—rate-based and actual-cost—across three representative surveying scenarios with varying risk levels. The pie chart on the left summarizes the distribution of actual safety expenditures, revealing a disproportionate allocation toward high-risk projects, which accounted for over half (51.1%) of the total safety-related costs. This pattern underscores the increased resource demand and complexity associated with hazardous working environments, such as active road corridors.

The stacked bar chart on the right further decomposes the actual-cost estimates into key safety components, including PPE, training, personnel, documentation, and miscellaneous items. Notably, while the rate-based estimates (3.5% of project cost) remain constant across scenarios, the actual costs exhibit significant escalation with project risk. For the high-risk case, actual expenditures nearly doubled the rate-based estimate (USD 13,800 vs. USD 7000), whereas even the medium-risk case exceeded the baseline (USD 9000 vs. USD 5250). These divergences highlight the limitations of applying a uniform percentage-based model, particularly in contexts where project-specific hazards impose non-linear cost burdens.

The results reinforce the relevance of a risk-tiered, actual-cost approach that captures operational realities more effectively, offering enhanced accuracy for budgeting, policy design, and institutional implementation in safety-critical sectors like surveying.

This divergence underscores a critical insight: while the rate-based model facilitates predictable budgeting with minimal administrative burden, it may fall short in capturing the true safety requirements of complex or high-risk operations. The actual-cost model, though more administratively demanding, supports defensible and risk-aligned resource allocation—an increasingly important factor under evolving safety regulations such as the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. These results reinforce the need for a flexible framework that enables selective application of each model based on project type, scale, and risk profile. The next section presents a decision-making workflow designed to support institutional adoption and guide the appropriate use of rate-based or actual-cost budgeting methods in diverse project contexts.

3.4. Simulation-Based Validation and Workflow Structuring for Dual-Mode Safety Cost Estimation

To assess the practical feasibility of the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework, simulation exercises were conducted using parameter values derived from three official sources: two detailed design budgeting documents from 2025 public-sector surveying projects (Geodetic Road Map Production—Zone 1 and National Base Map Integration—Gangwon North 2) and a safety cost application guideline report prepared by the National Geographic Information Institute. These documents provided itemized cost references for signaler deployment, personal protective equipment (PPE), and safety training—such as USD 59 per kilometer for signalers, USD 4.15 for safety vests, USD 8.54 for traffic batons, and USD 154 per 10-person team for biannual safety training. While some components remain illustrative, these inputs were validated through comparison with policy guidelines and expert review, thereby enhancing the simulations’ relevance to actual institutional contexts.

Three representative project types were selected to reflect distinct levels of operational risk, environmental complexity, and regulatory sensitivity commonly encountered in the surveying domain:

• A national geodetic control survey (low risk), representing routine topographic work in low-traffic, open rural areas;
• An urban underground utility survey (medium risk), involving subsurface data collection in congested areas with vehicular and pedestrian conflict points;
• A road corridor survey along active highways (high risk), where field teams operate in proximity to fast-moving traffic and elevated structures.

The classification was informed by field conditions, legal obligations, and technical requirements associated with each scenario, consistent with risk-based safety planning practices in infrastructure and geospatial sectors. For each scenario, the dual-mode models (rate-based and actual-cost) were applied to compute safety-related expenditures. Input variables included personnel structure, equipment deployment, training needs, and documentation tasks. This approach enabled comparison not only of the total cost estimates but also of administrative feasibility and traceability.

The simulation results demonstrate how the dual-mode framework adapts to varying project conditions. The rate-based model offers simplicity and predictability but underestimates risk in more complex projects. In contrast, the actual-cost model provides greater legal defensibility and risk coverage but entails a higher administrative load. These findings support the need for risk-tiered budgeting mechanisms in surveying projects, calibrated to both operational realities and evolving regulatory expectations.

The simulation applied both the rate-based and actual-cost models to three distinct project types, each representing different levels of complexity and risk.

• National Geodetic Control Survey (Low Risk)

This scenario involves the establishment of geodetic control points across open rural terrain, where physical hazards and environmental complexities are minimal. Field operations were assumed to take place in flat, low-traffic areas with favorable weather conditions. Safety risks were limited to common site hazards such as minor slips or equipment handling issues.

Under the rate-based model, a flat 3.5% was applied to the total project budget of USD 100,000, resulting in a safety cost estimate of USD 3500. This model assumes that safety provisions—such as basic field briefings and first aid kits—are sufficiently covered under a standardized allowance.

In contrast, the actual-cost model incorporated itemized expenses including

• Deployment of one certified safety supervisor across the full project duration;
• Basic PPE (helmets, vests, gloves) for a two-person survey team;
• Preparation of a standard site hazard checklist;
• Daily safety log documentation.

These components produced a total estimate of USD 4200 (4.2%), slightly higher than the rate-based figure. Experts assessed both models as appropriate in this context, noting that while the actual-cost model offers better traceability, the rate-based approach provides superior administrative simplicity and speed—critical for routine or small-scale government-commissioned surveys.

2.

Urban Underground Utility Survey (Medium Risk)

This scenario involves surveying subsurface utility lines in densely populated urban environments, requiring frequent access to confined spaces such as manholes and cable ducts. The operational risks include exposure to vehicle traffic, limited ventilation, potential gas leaks, and pedestrian interference. The project area was assumed to span multiple downtown blocks, requiring temporary lane closures and coordination with municipal authorities.

Under the rate-based model, applying the standard 3.5% to the total project cost of USD 150,000 yields a safety cost estimate of USD 5250. While administratively straightforward, this estimate does not distinguish between surface and subsurface risks or account for site-specific hazards.

The actual-cost model included the following itemized components:

• Assignment of two safety personnel per team (one surface signaler and one confined-space supervisor);
• Gas detectors and real-time air quality monitors;
• Mandatory confined space entry training for all field staff;
• Temporary pedestrian barrier rentals and reflective warning signage;
• Daily safety toolbox meetings and regulatory documentation procedures.

This model produced a cost estimate of USD 9000 (6.0%), reflecting the specialized equipment and procedural safeguards required in urban confined-space environments. According to expert reviewers, this estimate more accurately captures the true scale and cost of mitigating operational risks in city-based surveying. However, it also implies a higher administrative burden in terms of documentation, procurement, and training oversight.

3.

Road Corridor Survey (High Risk)

This scenario simulates a linear survey project conducted along a major highway corridor with ongoing vehicular traffic and elevated terrain. Field teams are exposed to high-speed traffic lanes, blind curves, and elevated structures such as overpasses or embankments. The work involves both daytime and early-morning operations to minimize public disruption, increasing exposure to visibility and coordination challenges.

Under the rate-based model, 3.5% of the total project budget (USD 200,000) produced a safety cost estimate of USD 7000. While convenient for budgeting, this method failed to reflect the heightened operational complexity and stringent legal requirements applicable to traffic-adjacent worksites.

The actual-cost model incorporated a detailed breakdown of safety-related expenses, including

• Deployment of four-person traffic control teams (two signalers, one supervisor, one flagger coordinator) per shift;
• Use of mobile barriers, flashing LED beacons, and radar-based speed warning signs;
• Provision of high-visibility protective gear and anti-fall equipment for elevated work zones;
• Engagement of an external safety auditor for pre-survey hazard assessment and mid-project inspections;
• Preparation of a risk mitigation plan aligned with the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, including documentation templates and compliance logs.

These elements brought the estimated cost to USD 13,800 (6.9%), nearly double the rate-based figure. Experts emphasized that this detailed estimate provides legal defensibility and procedural transparency—especially crucial in high-risk projects subject to strict post-incident investigation protocols.

Unlike the comparative abstraction presented in Section 3.3, the simulation results discussed here are grounded in detailed operational scenarios, incorporating specific factors such as personnel configuration, equipment requirements, and compliance procedures. This enriched contextualization allows for a more realistic evaluation of how each estimation model performs under actual field conditions. It reinforces the practical advantage of the dual-mode safety cost framework—namely, its adaptability to project-specific risks and regulatory demands.

These findings also highlight the importance of implementing a structured workflow for model selection and application, as illustrated in Figure 6. Such a framework not only guides users in choosing between rate-based and actual-cost approaches but also supports essential processes like cost justification and documentation planning. This is particularly critical in public-sector projects, where administrative procedures must align with legal accountability and budget transparency.

For low-risk and standardized surveys, the rate-based model continues to offer administrative efficiency and budget predictability. However, as the level of risk and project complexity increases, the actual-cost model becomes essential for ensuring that safety investments are both proportionate and defensible. In this way, the dual-mode approach addresses not only financial estimation but also the broader institutional responsibilities associated with managing occupational safety in the surveying industry.

To evaluate the operational applicability of the dual-mode safety cost framework, a workflow for simulating and validating cost estimates was implemented across three representative project risk scenarios: low, medium, and high. This process aimed to compare rate-based and actual-cost estimates while identifying key cost drivers under varying risk conditions. Figure 6 presents the outcome of this simulation, offering both a scenario-wise distribution of actual costs and a detailed breakdown of cost components in relation to rate-based benchmarks.

The simulation outcomes presented in this section demonstrate the practical adaptability of the dual-mode safety cost framework across varying project types, risk levels, and operational conditions. More than a comparative budgeting exercise, the simulations reflect how model selection must respond to context-specific demands, including personnel deployment strategies, regulatory constraints, and safety planning complexity. The results affirm that while the rate-based model offers administrative efficiency for low-risk, standardized projects, the actual-cost model provides defensible budgeting aligned with risk exposure in more complex environments. Importantly, the framework exhibits flexibility to accommodate diverse applications, such as surveying in mountainous terrain, coastal zones, or post-disaster scenarios, thereby extending its utility beyond conventional project planning.

Unlike the quantitative model comparison in Section 3.3, which focused on aggregate cost differentials and computational feasibility, this section emphasizes operational realism and institutional relevance. Figure 4 consolidates these insights by presenting a structured workflow that links project risk classification to the appropriate estimation method, ensuring clarity in documentation, budgeting, and review processes. This dual-track approach not only enhances transparency but also supports regulatory compliance and procurement alignment—particularly vital in public-sector implementation. Together, the simulation findings and workflow validation reinforce the framework’s readiness for field application and provide a foundational basis for the policy design and adoption strategies discussed in the following section.

3.5. Key Implementation Priorities for a Dual-Mode Safety Cost Framework

Building upon the preceding modeling, simulation, and expert analyses, this section distills key insights for the institutionalization of the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework. As regulatory and operational demands on the surveying industry grow, a structured yet flexible budgeting mechanism is critical for translating policy into practice.

The framework introduces a risk-tiered logic that enables scalable application, reduces administrative burden for routine projects, and enhances accountability for complex or high-risk tasks. These findings carry direct relevance for procurement agencies, regulatory authorities, and surveying firms seeking to integrate safety cost allocation in accordance with legal mandates and project-specific needs.

The triangulated methodology—combining survey data, expert perspectives, and case simulations—provides robust empirical support for advancing a differentiated model of safety cost estimation.

Building on the theoretical foundation and empirical inputs from survey responses, Figure 7 presents the workforce composition and safety training needs perceived as essential for safe surveying operations. The left panel illustrates the personnel roles most frequently identified as necessary for on-site safety management, while the right panel shows the distribution of responses related to pre-survey training priorities. These charts reflect the preferences of 63 survey participants discussed in Section 3.1 and provide field-based context for interpreting the proposed risk-tiered safety cost framework.

The descriptive results indicate that signal and traffic control (S&T), site manager and supervisor (Site Mgr), and basic or traffic-specific training were consistently selected by a majority of respondents, suggesting that such roles and competencies are considered foundational in low-risk or routine surveying environments. In contrast, roles such as high-risk supervisor and training types such as hazardous materials handling or PPE training were selected by fewer respondents, implying that these needs arise primarily in specialized, high-risk contexts.

This empirical pattern supports the rationale for a two-track budgeting approach: a rate-based model for standard, lower-risk projects where safety demands are relatively uniform, and an actual-cost model for higher-risk operations requiring tailored resource allocation. However, it is important to note that the analysis remains exploratory and relies solely on descriptive statistics. No inferential statistical techniques (e.g., chi-square tests or regression models) were employed to assess the statistical significance of observed differences in responses across risk categories.

While the descriptive approach aligns with the study’s initial objective to establish baseline empirical insights in a largely underexplored domain, future studies should apply hypothesis-driven modeling or multivariate analysis to validate the association between project typologies, risk levels, and safety cost structures. Doing so would strengthen the analytical rigor and generalizability of the dual-mode framework.

The survey items corresponding to these figures asked: “What types of personnel are necessary to ensure the safety of surveying work? (Select up to three in order of importance),” and “Which safety training and education items should be implemented before conducting surveying work? (Select up to three in order of importance).” The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

Accordingly, the following key implications are proposed as strategic priorities for effective implementation:

• Model Selection Based on Risk Tiering

Safety cost models should be selected using standardized risk classification. A rate-based approach is recommended for low-risk projects, while actual-cost methods are better suited for high-risk or non-routine operations.

• Revision of Standard Survey Fee Criteria

The Standard Surveying Fee Criteria should be amended to explicitly incorporate safety management costs as a direct expense item, allowing flexible application of either model.

• Administrative Support Structures

For the actual-cost approach to be viable, guidelines for itemized budgeting, documentation templates, and unit cost references must be provided to prevent ambiguity and dispute during project approval.

• Training and Outreach to Field Operators

Dissemination of the proposed framework should include manuals, standard forms, and workflow guidance targeted at survey firms and public procurement officers to ensure consistent adoption.

• Policy Coordination across Agencies

Collaboration with MOEF and NGII is necessary to align procurement rules with safety cost integration. This includes prior review, legal revision, and pilot implementation stages.

• Evaluation and Feedback Mechanism

A feedback loop based on pilot applications is essential to refine cost coefficients, validate field applicability, and adjust regulatory requirements accordingly. Given the diversity in project types and organizational capacities across the surveying industry, the framework should be implemented with procedural flexibility. Pilot programs should actively incorporate feedback from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to ensure practical fit and operational viability.

Additionally, the observed distribution of responses in Figure 7 highlights a clear differentiation in required safety management resources based on the risk level of surveying operations. In standardized, routine fieldwork, respondents prioritized common safety elements such as signal and traffic control, site management, and basic or traffic-related training—suggesting a shared baseline of safety needs across low-risk projects. Conversely, high-risk operations—such as work involving confined spaces, hazardous materials, or complex traffic environments—were associated with the need for specialized supervisors and targeted training like hazardous material handling or PPE use.

This distinction reinforces the rationale for a dual-track budgeting approach. The rate-based model offers an administratively efficient mechanism for addressing routine safety requirements in repetitive, low-risk settings, where predefined coefficients can adequately capture cost expectations. In contrast, the actual-cost model is more appropriate in high-risk or non-standard scenarios, where safety demands are highly variable and must be captured through itemized budgeting to ensure regulatory compliance and operational realism.

Although this study focuses primarily on descriptive analysis of survey results, future research should apply inferential statistical methods or structural modeling to validate the hypothesized relationships between risk classifications and safety cost structures. This would enhance the analytical strength and predictive utility of the dual-mode framework. For example, multivariate regression or SEM could be used to model the influence of project scale, risk typology, and organizational capacity on safety budget allocation.

Looking ahead, technological integration will be crucial for scalability. Integration with digital field monitoring tools, geospatial information platforms, and AI-assisted risk diagnostics may enable real-time estimation and site-specific adaptation of safety costs. Such convergence-oriented enhancements could elevate the proposed framework from a static budgeting model to a dynamic safety governance tool.

Collectively, these implications affirm the operational viability of a dual-mode safety cost estimation system calibrated to the diverse risk profiles in contemporary surveying practice. The convergence of empirical evidence and implementation strategy underscores the framework’s readiness for structured integration within existing institutional systems. By delineating model applicability, administrative prerequisites, and procedural steps, this framework offers a practical foundation for embedding safety budgeting into both routine and high-risk project environments. These findings pave the way for further exploration of institutional feasibility, regulatory adaptation, and long-term scalability in the subsequent section.

4. Discussion

The results presented in Section 3 provide a structured empirical foundation for analyzing the applicability of a differentiated safety cost estimation framework in the surveying industry. This section expands upon those findings to explore their broader implications in terms of institutional readiness, regulatory feasibility, and operational integration. Specifically, the discussion addresses three core themes: (1) the adequacy of the dual-mode model in meeting diverse project conditions; (2) the practical requirements for implementation across public-sector surveying contracts; (3) the potential alignment of the proposed approach with existing legal and budgetary systems, including recent updates under occupational safety legislation.

By synthesizing insights from quantitative analysis, expert feedback, and policy literature, this section aims to contextualize the proposed framework within ongoing efforts to enhance safety accountability in geospatial and engineering service domains. Limitations and future directions are also outlined to inform subsequent research and pilot-based policy refinement.

4.1. Risk-Aligned Budgeting Logic for Dual-Mode Safety Cost Models

The comparative analysis conducted in Section 3 offers valuable insights into the practical effectiveness and limitations of both the rate-based and actual-cost safety cost models. Interpreting these results in the context of surveying project types and risk levels reveals clear patterns in model applicability and performance.

The simulation findings demonstrate that the rate-based model is most suitable for low-risk and standardized surveying operations, such as national geodetic control surveys. In these cases, the safety requirements are relatively predictable, and administrative simplicity is prioritized. The fixed-percentage approach allows for faster budget approval and minimal documentation, which aligns well with smaller-scale public procurement processes.

In contrast, the actual-cost model showed significantly greater responsiveness in medium- to high-risk environments, such as underground utility surveys or road corridor operations. This model captures specific cost elements—such as additional personnel, equipment, or training—that are often overlooked by the rate-based method. The ability to reflect real, project-specific safety needs enhances accountability and ensures compliance with regulatory frameworks such as the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.

Expert interview data further reinforce this distinction. Respondents from both the public and private sectors emphasized the need for a flexible, risk-sensitive budgeting mechanism, particularly in projects where safety risk fluctuates based on location, season, or scope. The dual-mode structure proposed in this study aligns with those operational demands and allows for tailored application depending on the complexity of the task.

Overall, the results support a differentiated application of safety cost models: the rate-based model for simplicity and baseline coverage, and the actual-cost model for accuracy and high-risk compliance. This flexibility is essential in an industry where project conditions vary widely and safety expectations are rapidly evolving.

4.2. Institutional Preconditions for Operationalizing the Dual-Mode Framework

Translating the proposed safety cost framework into institutional practice requires a thorough understanding of administrative structures, procurement policies, and the broader regulatory landscape. While the empirical results support the technical soundness of both models, their adoption within public-sector surveying projects hinges on several enabling conditions.

To address the practical concerns surrounding institutional feasibility, the following four mechanisms are proposed:

1.

Adoption Pathway for Public Agencies

Implementation begins with revising the Standard Surveying Fee Criteria, which currently do not recognize safety costs as explicit budget items. This revision must formally allow both rate-based and actual-cost approaches, providing clear legal grounding for their use. Pilot projects, coordinated by NGII or local governments, may serve as transitional testbeds.

2.

Procurement Implications and Cost Structuring

Procurement systems must be updated to accommodate flexible budgeting structures. For example, rate-based models may involve fixed safety coefficients per project type, while actual-cost models require detailed safety work items (e.g., personnel, equipment, training) with unit costs listed as separate bid components.

3.

Risk-Based Project Classification

A standardized risk classification checklist should be introduced to help determine which model is applicable. Criteria may include terrain conditions, environmental hazards, operational complexity, and stakeholder scale. Responsibility for classification could be assigned to designated safety officers or procurement auditors.

4.

Auditing and Verification of Actual Costs

The actual-cost model requires robust oversight mechanisms. Agencies should develop templates for itemized documentation and require independent verification, such as third-party audits or on-site inspections. Shared reference tables for safety cost elements can facilitate transparency and consistency in reviews.

Furthermore, inter-agency collaboration is essential. Implementation would benefit from coordinated efforts among the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MOEF), the National Geographic Information Institute (NGII), and regional procurement offices. These entities must align on procedural requirements, legal interpretations, and approval workflows to ensure consistent application. This collaboration is especially crucial when integrating new cost categories into legacy systems and budget review platforms.

Finally, training and capacity building for both public officials and private-sector contractors are key. Manuals, sample forms, and decision-making flowcharts should be disseminated widely to ensure consistent understanding and uptake across the industry.

Taken together, these operational mechanisms address the core institutional challenges that determine the feasibility and sustainability of the dual-mode safety cost framework. By clearly delineating implementation responsibilities, risk classification logic, and verification procedures, the model can be translated into practice in a scalable and accountable manner.

Comparable frameworks have been proposed in international contexts, where risk-based project categorization and itemized cost documentation serve as foundational tools for integrating safety budgeting into public procurement systems. For instance, a conceptual model based on Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) was introduced in Indonesia to systematize safety cost allocation and enhance traceability within infrastructure projects [47]. Additionally, ISO 31000 provides globally recognized guidance for establishing consistent risk management processes, offering a valuable reference for standardizing the criteria used to differentiate routine and high-risk projects [48].

4.3. Challenges and Future Directions for Institutionalizing Dual-Mode Safety Cost Estimation

While the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework demonstrates promising applicability across diverse surveying contexts, several challenges and limitations must be acknowledged. These issues relate to both methodological boundaries of the current study and broader systemic factors that may affect future implementation and generalizability.

One notable limitation lies in the sample scope of the field survey and expert interviews. Although the study gathered valuable input from 63 survey professionals and conducted 4 expert consultations, the participants were primarily concentrated in national-level projects and metropolitan areas. As a result, perspectives from smaller-scale regional firms or niche surveying sectors may be underrepresented. A larger and more stratified sample in future studies would help to validate the universality of the findings and identify sector-specific needs.

In terms of data estimation, the actual-cost simulations were based on prevailing market prices and expert-informed cost coefficients. While these estimates reflect current industry practices, they are not yet institutionalized or supported by official unit price lists. Therefore, the scalability of the actual-cost model remains partially constrained by the lack of standardized cost references and real-time data integration across public procurement systems.

Furthermore, the scalability of the proposed framework across international contexts remains an open question. Variations in regulatory structures, legal mandates, and budgeting procedures across countries may hinder direct adoption of the model. Local adaptation will likely require coordinated policy alignment and adjustment of risk-tiering logic based on regional labor standards and contracting norms.

Additionally, macroeconomic factors—such as inflation, exchange rate volatility, and fluctuating labor or material costs—pose further implementation challenges. Without built-in mechanisms to account for such economic shifts, cost coefficients embedded in both rate-based and actual-cost models may become outdated, reducing the framework’s long-term reliability.

There are also legal and procedural uncertainties regarding how quickly the Standard Surveying Fee Criteria can be revised to formally incorporate safety-related expenses. Institutional inertia, budget constraints, and limited inter-agency coordination may delay formal adoption. Pilot programs and staged rollouts may serve as effective intermediaries to mitigate resistance and gather additional feedback for refinement.

Finally, the proposed framework does not account for project lifecycle dynamics, such as variations in safety needs over time or the influence of seasonal and geographic factors. Future research should explore dynamic modeling approaches, integrate risk-adjusted coefficients, and assess how digital field monitoring tools can improve real-time safety budgeting.

Despite these limitations, the present study establishes a foundational model and implementation roadmap that can inform both policy development and academic inquiry. Continued empirical testing, policy collaboration, and technical refinement are essential for the long-term institutionalization of safety budgeting in the surveying industry.

4.4. Contribution and Scope Limitations of This Study

This study provides a foundational contribution to the institutionalization of safety cost estimation within the surveying industry, which has traditionally been subsumed under general construction cost frameworks. Currently, safety management costs for surveying are often calculated using a fixed rate of approximately 1.85%, in alignment with construction industry practices. However, this approach fails to adequately reflect the distinct operational realities of surveying work—particularly the sector’s lower overall contract volumes, its engagement with diverse spatial environments, and its exposure to non-construction-specific hazards such as underground utilities, wastewater systems, or remote terrain.

While the study collected responses from a diverse range of industry professionals, the sample size (n = 63) may limit the generalizability of the findings. Although respondents represented public, private, and academic sectors and covered a range of organizational sizes, regional diversity and variation across specific surveying applications were not comprehensively analyzed. This may affect the extent to which the proposed framework can be directly extrapolated to all subdomains within the national surveying industry or to international contexts. Future studies should consider larger, stratified samples that reflect regional, functional, and technological diversity to enhance the external validity and scalability of the dual-mode model.

By leveraging insights from structured surveys and in-depth expert interviews, this research proposes a differentiated safety cost framework tailored to the surveying domain. Specifically, it recommends applying a simplified rate-based method for projects under a low-risk financial threshold (e.g., USD 5000) and adopting an actual-cost model for higher-risk or higher-value projects. This two-tiered approach reflects both the industry’s administrative capacity and the need for accurate, risk-aligned budgeting in more complex operational contexts.

Nevertheless, the study recognizes several boundaries in its current scope. As the demand for spatial information continues to grow, the surveying industry is becoming increasingly diversified in both method and scale. Specialized applications—including GNSS-based control surveys, high-precision leveling, drone photogrammetry, aerial LiDAR scanning, and subterranean mapping—each entail unique safety profiles, equipment needs, and personnel configurations. The present framework, while adaptable, may not yet capture the full granularity required for these subfields.

Future research is therefore warranted to refine the actual-cost model for specific survey types, incorporating discipline-specific risk coefficients and standardized cost baselines. By doing so, the framework can evolve into a more nuanced tool capable of supporting differentiated safety planning across the full spectrum of contemporary geospatial practices.

This study provides a foundational framework for the differentiated estimation of safety costs in the surveying industry and offers practical pathways for institutional implementation. As spatial data technologies and intelligent safety management systems continue to evolve, future research should move beyond static budgeting models toward dynamic, data-integrated safety cost frameworks capable of real-time adaptation to site-specific conditions.

Recent convergence-oriented studies underscore the feasibility and necessity of this direction. Ref. [49] evaluated real-time monitoring technologies for fall risk in construction and emphasized their role in supporting proactive and cost-effective safety management. Ref. [50] highlighted how UAV adoption enhances safety assessment and cost estimation in complex construction environments through continuous spatial data acquisition. Furthermore, ref. [51] discussed the interrelations of cost-influencing factors across a project’s lifecycle, stressing the importance of integrating risk-responsive budgeting mechanisms into early planning and procurement stages.

These studies collectively support the expansion of the proposed dual-mode safety cost framework into a more holistic policy tool—one that integrates geospatial data platforms, real-time risk diagnostics, and digital procurement systems. Future research should focus on the interdisciplinary refinement of cost estimation models by incorporating AI, IoT, and BIM-based analytics to accommodate the growing complexity and diversity of surveying operations. This study lays the groundwork for such innovation and encourages further exploration through pilot implementations, standardized cost coefficients, and inter-agency coordination.

5. Conclusions

This study proposed and validated a dual-mode safety cost estimation framework tailored to the operational, legal, and risk characteristics of the surveying industry. Addressing a critical gap in current practice, the framework introduces a structured, risk-tiered budgeting logic that enables differentiated treatment of occupational safety costs across project types and organizational capacities.

The primary theoretical contribution lies in formalizing a hybrid model that integrates rate-based and actual-cost estimation methods, operationalized through legal analysis, national-level surveys, expert interviews, and simulation modeling. Practically, the model supports scalable implementation by aligning with both routine and complex project requirements, particularly under expanding regulatory obligations such as the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.

Simulation-based validation further confirms that a low-risk, standardized fieldwork can be efficiently covered by the rate-based approach, while atypical or high-hazard tasks—such as subsurface utility detection and roadside surveying—necessitate the actual-cost method. A cost-risk threshold is proposed: projects under USD 5000 and classified as low-risk may apply the rate-based method, whereas all other cases should default to the actual-cost method to ensure compliance and safety accountability.

To support institutional uptake, the study outlines a multi-pronged implementation pathway, including formal revision of the Standard Surveying Fee Criteria, development of administrative budgeting tools, targeted training for procurement and field personnel, and coordinated legal alignment through inter-agency collaboration. These steps establish the framework as not only technically robust but also administratively feasible for national integration.

Looking forward, future research should expand the empirical basis of the framework through pilot projects across varying regional and international contexts, accounting for differences in regulatory environments, labor markets, and procurement systems. Enhancing the actual-cost model with discipline-specific coefficients, inflation-adjustment mechanisms, and integration with digital platforms such as AI-based risk assessment and lifecycle costing will be critical for long-term scalability. Additionally, comparative studies across sectors may inform the model’s adaptability to other high-risk fields within civil infrastructure and geospatial services.

By bridging technical innovation with policy readiness, the proposed dual-mode framework provides a foundational platform for advancing evidence-based, context-sensitive safety governance in the surveying industry.