Next Article in Journal
Retraction: Pavarin R.M. Alcohol Misuse Among Young Adults in Northern Italy. Safety 2019, 5, 31
Next Article in Special Issue
Incident Causal Factors and the Reasons for Conducting Investigations: A Study of Five Ghanaian Large-Scale Mines
Previous Article in Journal
Quality Control of the Anchoring of Steel Bridge Barriers by Non-Destructive Testing
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Much Practice Is Required to Reduce Performance Variability in a Virtual Reality Mining Simulator?
Open AccessArticle

Analysis of Recommendations from Mining Incident Investigative Reports: A 50-Year Review

1
Centre for Research in Occupational Safety and Health, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, ON P3E 2C6, Canada
2
School of Human Kinetics, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, ON P3E 2C6, Canada
3
Radiation Safety Institute of Canada, 100 Sheppard Ave. East, Suite 760, North York, ON M2N 6N5, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 29 November 2019 / Revised: 17 December 2019 / Accepted: 3 January 2020 / Published: 7 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mine Safety)
A systematic analysis was conducted using ten occupational health and safety commissioned reports from Canada, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, and Australia spanning from 1967 to 2015. The objective was to identify commonalities and differences in the key recommendations across the identified reports. The text-mining software Leximancer was utilized to analyze the content of the recommendations through the semantic extraction of dominant themes, and the relational extraction and mapping of thematic relationships against each other. The identified themes were then analyzed within the concept map to fully understand the relationships. Based on the concept map, the thematic analysis provided a longitudinal perspective of the recommendations, identifying six key themes and 49 sets of overlapping recommendations. Key themes included: health and safety hazards (n = 10), legislation, regulations and organizational structure (n = 13), emergency management and mine rescue (n = 9), training, education and competence (n = 10), technology (n = 4), and research (n = 3). The results of this analysis illustrate that the same hazards continue to be identified across reports and recommendations, regardless of time or country of origin. This indicates that the communication of recommendations and/or the strategies developed in response to the recommendations need to be further addressed. View Full-Text
Keywords: health; safety; mining; accident; investigation; recommendations; leximancer health; safety; mining; accident; investigation; recommendations; leximancer
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Tetzlaff, E.; Eger, T.; Pegoraro, A.; Dorman, S.; Pakalnis, V. Analysis of Recommendations from Mining Incident Investigative Reports: A 50-Year Review. Safety 2020, 6, 3.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop