The Role of Ergonomics in Green Building Caitlin Sass and John Smallwood

Transcription

1 The Role of Ergonomics in Green Building Caitlin Sass and John Smallwood Department of Construction Management, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, PO Box 77000, Port Elizabeth, 6031, SOUTH AFRICA Green building is intended to promote and enhance sustainability. However, historically green building has focused on the environment as opposed to people, and within the context of so called green building, ergonomics is still not afforded the status it deserves. The purpose of the paper is to present the results of a study conducted among general contractors (GCs). The following constitute the salient findings: a range of ergonomic problems are experienced by construction workers; a range of factors contribute to construction workers experiencing stress; construction worker H&S is the least important of sixteen aspects in terms of green building, and the design of traditional and green buildings should address the H&S of construction workers. The paper concludes that: the construction industry is a very hazardous industry to work in; the range of ergonomic problems experienced by construction workers and the factors that contribute to them experiencing stress have their origins in the structure of the industry, design, the nature of the construction process and activities, and work organisation, and it has yet to be realised that construction worker H&S and wellbeing is an integral aspect of sustainability and green building. Recommendations include that: designers should conduct HIRAs and consider construction worker ergonomics and H&S regardless of whether a project entails the construction of a traditional or green building; Green Building Councils and sustainable building systems worldwide should include construction ergonomics and H&S as a criterion for inclusion in the assessment of green building status, and contractors should include stress and ergonomics in construction H&S programmes. Practitioner Summary: Construction workers are exposed to a range of hazards and experience stress. Given that green building is intended to promote and enhance sustainability, it is essential that construction ergonomics and construction worker H&S are considered during all stages of projects, including design. Keywords: construction, design, ergonomics, green building 1. Introduction According to Dhaliwal (2012), green building is a structure, technology, or building process that is environmentally accountable and resource efficient from the siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition of a building. In essence, green building is intended to promote and enhance sustainability. However, historically green building has focused on the environment as opposed to people. However, in 2012 the South African Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA) initiated the inclusion of a socio-economic category in their green star rating tool. This led to the introduction of the Green Star SA Socio-Economic Category Pilot of 2014, which includes seven categories, No. 6 being S&H. Despite this and the mention of ergonomics in the Construction Regulations, within the context of so called green building, ergonomics is still not afforded the status it deserves. The South African Construction Regulations (2014) state that during the design stage, designers must take cognizance of ergonomic design principles in order to minimize ergonomic related hazards in all phases of the life cycle of a structure, and that contractors must in general identify the hazards and the risks to which persons may be exposed. Furthermore, Hecker et al. (2006) contend that H&S through design is a fundamental principle of ergonomics. They further contend that architects and engineers regularly address ergonomics in their designs, but with a significant limitation, namely that the concerns apply almost exclusively to the end-user of a facility, rather than the workers who construct it. They also cite Behm who states that such an approach is problematical in that there is growing evidence that the design of permanent structures has a significant impact on risks to those who construct them. 1

2 Given the aforementioned, a study was conducted to interrogate green building and construction ergonomics related issues, the specific objectives of the study being to: investigate the need for green building to address construction worker ergonomics and H&S; investigate the causes of construction workers becoming stressed; determine the frequency at which construction workers experience ergonomic problems, and discover why workers experience WMSDs. 2. Review of the Introduction 2.1 Legislation and recommendations pertaining to Construction Managers The South African OH&S Act (1993) requires employers to provide a healthy and safe workplace, and contractors as employers are specifically required to not allow work unless hazards have been established and precautionary measures taken or hazards eliminated. The Construction Regulations (Republic of South Africa, 2014) lay down important requirements with respect to clients and designers. Clients are required to, inter alia: prepare a baseline risk assessment (BRA); prepare an H&S specification based on the BRA; provide the designer with the H&S specification; ensure that the designer takes the H&S specification into account during design; ensure that the designer carries out the duties in Regulation 6 Duties of designers ; include the H&S specification in the tender documents; ensure that potential principal contractors (PCs) have made provision for the cost of H&S in their tenders; ensure that the PC to be appointed has the necessary competencies and resources, and discuss and approve the PC s H&S plan. Designers are required to, inter alia: take the H&S specification into consideration; include in a report to the client before tender stage all relevant H&S information about the design that may affect the pricing of the work, the geotechnical-science aspects, and the loading that the structure is designed to withstand; inform the client of any known or anticipated dangers or hazards relating to the construction work, and make available all relevant information required for the safe execution of the work upon being designed or when the design is changed; modify the design or make use of substitute materials where the design necessitates the use of dangerous procedures or materials hazardous to H&S, and consider hazards relating to subsequent maintenance of the structure and make provision in the design for that work to be performed to minimize the risk. In terms of the Construction Regulations contractors must identify the hazards and the risks to which persons may be exposed. They must then analyze and evaluate the hazards and the risks using a documented method, and produce a plan and applicable safe work procedures to mitigate, reduce, or control the hazards and risks. 2.2 Ergonomic problems Previous research conducted in South Africa investigated, inter alia, the frequency at which ergonomic problems were encountered (Smallwood, 1997; Smallwood, Deacon and Venter, 2000; Smallwood, 2002). The problems are ranked in Table 1 based upon an importance index (II) with a minimum value of 0.00, and a maximum value of 4.00, which in turn was based upon percentage responses to a range never to daily. The findings emanating from four sample strata surveyed during three studies are presented: general contractor (GC)*; worker*; worker**, and better practice health and safety general contractor (BPGC)***. The first study, which entailed the survey of both general contractors and workers, was undertaken in 1997*, the second study which entailed the survey of solely workers, was undertaken in 2000**, and the third study, which entailed the survey of BPGCs, was undertaken in 2002***. A mean II computed from the IIs from the four sample strata is also presented. Table 1. Frequency of ergonomic problems encountered in South African construction according to management and workers. Problem II Rank II Rank II Rank II Rank II Rank Repetitive movements

3 Climbing and descending Handling heavy materials = = Use of body force Exposure to noise = Bending or twisting the back = Reaching overhead = Reaching away from the body Working in awkward positions = Handling heavy equipment Working in hot conditions = Vibrating tools and equipment = = Working in cramped positions Staying in the same position for long periods Working in humid conditions Working in cold conditions Working in wet conditions Working while injured or hurt Stress Smallwood & Ehrlich (1999) state that the construction industry can be a very stressful industry to work in due to the fact that managers and supervisors experience shortened contract periods, reduced margins, poorly defined problems, and long-term shortages of adequately qualified staff. Buyens, Van Dijk, Dewilde and De Vos (2009) declare that employees at the professional and managerial levels are a lot less prone to experiencing stress than general workers, as workers work in a crisis-ridden work environment and also have limited control over their rewards and resources. Petersen and Zwerling (1998, cited by Leung, Chan, & Yuen, 2010) report that construction workers face repetitive, but physically demanding tasks, have little power, and lack of support and concern from organisations and the public. Leung, Chan & Yuen (2010) identify five categories of organisational stressors, namely unfair reward and treatment, inappropriate H&S equipment, inadequate training, lack of goal setting, and a poor physical environment. The resultant stress in the form of emotional stress and physical stress results in certain H&S behaviours on the part of workers, which in turn result in incidents. Smallwood and Ehrlich (1999) declare that the causes of stress in construction can be divided into nine categories, namely physical work environment, the organisation itself, the way in which the organisation is managed, the individual s role within the organisation, relations within the organisation, career development, personal and social relationships, equipment and the individual s anxieties. Causes of stress-related problems include noise, heat, humidity or poor lighting, but they are usually due to unrealistic time for activities, lack of breaks, poor training and poor working design (Hughes & Ferrett, 2008). 2.4 Green building issues Chen (2010) states that new technology which green building presents can expose workers to the risk of falls from heights. For example, skylights which are an important element of green building are not built to withstand heavy loads and therefore workers installing them or even working on them face the risk of falling through them. According to Chen (2010), another important element of green building is atriums. Although atriums assist in bringing natural light into a building, they can be extremely high, which means that 3

4 scaffolding needs to be erected to construct or maintain them, which will expose workers to a greater risk of falls from heights. Chen (2010) further argues that green construction will become more prevalent in the construction industry in time to come, thereby challenging this emerging sector to control occupational hazards such as falls from roofs while installing solar panels, electrical hazards posed by wind turbines, and exposure to toxic materials used in insulation products, recycled materials and solar panels, to those involved in the occupational health community. Rajendran, Gambatese, & Behm (2009), are emphatic and contend that if a building is to be labelled as sustainable, then the sustainability of the building needs to be considered across the whole life-cycle of the building, including the construction phase, and the green design and construction practices must also take into account the H&S of the construction workers. Furthermore, historically, green rating systems have not addressed the H&S of construction workers, which view is supported by Rajendran (2006, cited by Rajendran & Gambatese, 2009) who reports that official consideration in connection with construction worker H&S within the LEED rating system is minimal. 2.4 Green Star rating and safety and health (S&H) The aforementioned is notable as the South African Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA) (2014) Green Star SA Socio-Economic Category Pilot of 2014 includes seven categories, No. 6 being S&H. There is a total of 13 points available, one point being relative to S&H. The rationale for the inclusion of S&H is that there is a lack of H&S systems, procedures and adherence within the South African construction industry, the fatality and accident rates being approximately five times of those in developed countries. Furthermore, according to the Construction Industry Development Board (cidb) (2009), approximately 50% of construction sites are non-compliant and the cost of accidents (COA) is approximately 5% of the value of completed construction, which costs are ultimately passed on to clients. Despite the aforementioned, the GBCSA argues that the primary reason for including S&H is that H&S issues have a profound impact on low-income people in developing countries in that should the breadwinner be injured, fall ill, or be disabled the extended family is impacted substantially. However, the credit is not concerned with compliance, but going beyond that through promoting primary health (PH) interventions that improve the quality of life of construction workers and promoting better practice H&S. In order to qualify for the credit, contractors must prove compliance with the OH&S Act and the Construction Regulations. Furthermore, the designers and the contractor must be able to prove that optimum design and construction HIRAs have been conducted. In order to earn the credit a comprehensive primary health programme (PHP) must have been implemented. The PHP must include PH assessments, including referrals and PH awareness interventions that address drug and alcohol abuse, HIV and AIDS, malaria if applicable, and Tuberculosis. The PH assessments must have been conducted at least once during the construction stage and preferably at the beginning of the project, the expenditure per person being at least R Research 3.1 Research Method The primary data for this study was obtained through a questionnaire survey that was sent to medium to large GC members of the East Cape Master Builders Association (ECMBA) based in Port Elizabeth. The sample stratum was selected as the GCs are involved in the construction of projects and therefore, may have been exposed to green and traditional buildings and would most likely have knowledge on the subject of this study. The questionnaire which consisted of 12 questions, including a cover lettering, briefly explaining the purpose of the study, was posted as well as ed. 18 ECMBA GC members returned questionnaires, which equates to a response rate of 29%. 3.1 Research Findings Table 2 indicates the extent to which various factors contribute to construction workers experiencing stress according to GCs in terms of percentage responses to a range of 1 (minor) to 5 (major), and a MS with a minimum value of 1.00 and a maximum value of % (15 / 22) of MSs > 3.00, which indicates that 4

5 GCs perceive these factors contribute to construction workers experiencing stress to a major, as opposed to a minor extent. MSs 3.00 indicate the converse applies to 7 / 22 factors (31.8%). It is notable that no MSs > GCs perceive factors contribute to workers experiencing stress between a near major to major / major extent. The joint first ranked factors job security and unrealistic time for activities have MSs > 3.40 to 4.20, which indicates that GCs perceive these factors contribute to workers experiencing stress between some extent to a near major / near major extent. The other six factors that fall within this range are hazardous work, demanding construction activities / tasks, poor remuneration, incompetent staff, long working hours, and unsafe and unhealthy sites. The twelve factors ranked 9th to 20th (54.5%) have MSs > 2.60 to 3.40, which indicates that GCs perceive these factors contribute to workers experiencing stress between a near minor to some / some extent. The last two (9.9%) ranked factors, repetitive construction activities / tasks, and lack of privacy, have MSs > 1.80 to 2.60 indicating that GCs perceive these factors contribute to workers experiencing stress between a minor to a near minor / minor extent. The findings corroborate with those reported on in the review of the literature by various authors (Leung, Chan & Yuen, 2010; Smallwood & Ehrlich, 1999). Table 2. Extent to which various factors contribute to workers experiencing stress according to GCs. Factor Minor..... Major MS Rank Job insecurity = Unrealistic time for activities = Hazardous work Demanding construction activities / tasks Poor remuneration Incompetent staff Long working hours Unsafe and unhealthy sites Lack of training Unsatisfactory working conditions Poor welfare facilities Temperature Travelling long distances Poor illumination Poor career opportunities Temporary accommodation Inadequate ventilation Shift work Excessive noise Inadequate supervision Repetitive construction activities / tasks Lack of privacy Table 3 presents the frequency that workers experience ergonomic problems in terms of percentage responses to a scale of never to daily and MSs between 1.00 and It is notable that only 9 / 15 (60%) MSs > 3.00, which indicates that respondents perceive the frequency that workers experience these ergonomic problems is frequent as opposed to infrequent. The converse applies in the case of MSs It is notable that 4 / 15 (26.7%) of the MSs > , which indicates that the GCs perceive the problems to be experienced between weekly to daily / daily. Furthermore, it is notable that five of the top six problems in terms of the mean MS arising from the three previous studies (Smallwood, 1997; Smallwood, Deacon and Venter, 2000; Smallwood, 2002) as presented in Table 1 feature in the top five. The problems ranked fifth to eighth (26.7%) have MSs > 3.40 to 4.20, which indicates that the GCs perceive the problems to be experienced between fortnightly to weekly / weekly. The problems ranked ninth to fourteenth 5

6 (40%) have MSs > 2.60 to 3.40, which indicates that the GCs perceive the problems to be experienced between fortnightly to weekly / weekly. Working when injured or hurt has a MS of 1.50, which is > 1.00 to 1.80, which indicates that the GCs perceive the problem to be experienced between never to monthly. The results in Table 3 reinforce the fact that workers experience certain ergonomic problems frequently as opposed to infrequently in their daily activities, which can result in workers experiencing health problems, including the development of work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). The frequency at which exposure to noise, climbing / descending, repetitive motions, bending and twisting, handling heavy materials, working in the same position for long periods of time, and handling heavy equipment are experienced, which literature indicates contributes to the development of WMSDs, confirms the likelihood of construction workers developing WMSDs. Table 3. Frequency at which construction workers experience ergonomic problems according to GCs. Problem Never Monthly Fortnightly Weekly Daily MS Rank Exposure to noise Climbing / Descending Repetitive motions Bending and twisting Handling heavy materials Working in the same position for long periods of time Handling heavy equipment Use of body force Hand arm vibration Working in awkward / cramped positions Overexertion in lifting Psychosocial factors e.g. stress Whole body vibration Overexertion, except lifting Working when injured or hurt Respondents were required to indicate on a scale of not important to very important, the importance of sixteen aspects when designing a green building. Energy efficiency e.g. lighting & electricity was ranked first with a MS of 4.79, and construction worker H&S was ranked sixteenth, last, with a MS of However, given that the MS is 3.76, construction worker H&S can be deemed to be between important to more than / more than important in terms of designing a green building. Respondents were required to indicate whether they had constructed a green building project or not. 33% of GC respondents responded that they had and 67% not. Table 4 indicates the importance of addressing the H&S of construction workers during the design of traditional and green buildings according to GCs in terms of percentage responses to a range of 1 (not) to 5 (very), and a MS with a minimum value of 1.00 and a maximum value of Both MSs > 3.00, which indicates the GCs perceive that addressing the H&S of construction workers is important as opposed to not important, when designing a traditional or green building. However, green building is ranked first with a MS of 4.07 marginally higher than that of traditional building, namely 3.88, which both fall within the range > 3.40 to 4.20, indicating that GCs perceive that addressing the H&S of construction workers during the design of these types of buildings is between important to more than / more than important. Table 4. Importance of addressing the H&S of construction workers during the design of traditional and green buildings according to GCs. 6

7 Type Not Very MS Rank Green Traditional Table 5 indicates the extent to which the design of traditional and green buildings address the H&S of construction workers according to GCs in terms of percentage responses to a five point scale ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major), and a MS ranging between 1.00 and Both MSs 3.00, which indicates that GCs perceive the extent to which the design of traditional and green buildings address the H&S of construction workers to be minor as opposed to major. Both MSs fall within the range > 2.60 to 3.40, which indicates that GC respondents perceive the extent to be between a near minor extent to some extent / some extent. However, both MSs are close to the lower limit of the range. Table 5. Extent to which the design of traditional and green buildings address the H&S of construction workers according to GCs. Type Minor Major MS Rank Traditional Green Table 6 indicates the extent to which the design of traditional and green buildings should address the H&S of construction workers according to GCs in terms of percentage responses to a five point scale ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major), and a MS ranging between 1.00 and Both MSs > 3.00, which indicates the GC respondents perceive the extent to which the design of traditional and green buildings should address the H&S of construction workers to be major as opposed to minor. Both MSs fall within the range > 3.40 to 4.20, which indicates that GC respondents perceive the extent to be between some extent to a near major / near major extent. However, both MSs are close to the lower limit of the upper range - between a near major extent to a major / major extent. Table 6. Extent to which the design of traditional and green buildings should address the H&S of construction workers according to GCs. Type Minor Major MS Rank Traditional = Green = 4. Conclusions Construction workers are exposed to many ergonomic and H&S hazards which can cause them to become ill, experience stress, experience WMSDs, experience injuries and in some cases death, and also be absent from work. Therefore, even though buildings may be rated green, it can be concluded that from a construction worker perspective they may not be green per se. The range of ergonomic problems experienced by construction workers have their origins in design, the nature of the construction process and activities, and work organisation. Therefore, it can be concluded that a range of stakeholders trigger and contribute to the existence of ergonomic hazards. The various factors that contribute to workers experiencing stress have their origins in the structure of the construction industry, design, the nature of the construction process and activities, and work organisation. 7

8 Although construction worker H&S is deemed to be between important to more than / more than important in terms of designing a green building, it was ranked last out of sixteen aspects, therefore, it can be concluded that construction worker H&S is important, but that all other aspects are more important. Furthermore, it can be concluded that it has yet to be realised that people are the most important resource and that construction worker H&S and wellbeing is an integral aspect of sustainability and green building. 5. Recommendations Clients and principal agents and / or project managers should deliberate project duration to ensure that it is compatible with the nature, scope, volume, complexity, and monetary value of the works. Designers should conduct design HIRAs and consider construction worker ergonomics and H&S regardless of whether a project entails the construction of a traditional or green building. Green Building Councils and sustainable building systems worldwide should include construction ergonomics and H&S as a criterion for inclusion in the assessment of green building status. Contractors should include stress and ergonomics in construction H&S programmes. Furthermore, when conducting construction HIRAs, contractors should be conscious and mindful of ergonomic hazards. Built environment statutory councils and professional associations should evolve construction H&S and ergonomics practice notes, and promote continuing professional development (CPD) relative to construction H&S and ergonomics. Furthermore, they should lobby the sustainable community in terms of raising the profile of construction H&S and ergonomics. References Buyens, D., Van Dijk, H., Dewilde, T., De Vos, A The ageing workforce: perceptions of career ending. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24: Construction Industry Development Board (cidb) Construction Health and Safety in South Africa: Status and Recommendations. Pretoria: cidb. Dhaliwal, A Understanding the costs of green building with regard to the incentives. San Diego: University of California Gambatese, J., Rajendran, S., & Behm, M Green Design & Construction. Professional Safety 52(5): Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA) Green Star SA Socio-Economic Category Pilot Design and Socio-Economic Category Pilot As Built Second edition. Cape Town: GBCSA. Hecker, S.F., Gambatese, J.A. and Weinstein, M Designing for construction safety in the US: Progress, needs, and future directions. In Proceedings of the 16th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Maastricht, The Netherlands, July 2006, D:\data\pdfs\art0563.pdf, Hughes, P. and Ferrett, E Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. Leung, M., Chan, I. and Yu, J Preventing construction worker injury incidents through the management of personal stress and organisational stressors. Accident Analysis & Prevention 48, Rajendran, S. and Gambatese, J Development and Initial Validation of Sustainable Construction Safety and Health Rating System. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management 135(10): Rajendran, S., Gambatese, J. and Behm, M Impact of Green Building Design and Construction on Worker Safety and Health. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management 135(10): Republic of South Africa Government Gazette No Occupational Health & Safety Act: No. 85 of Pretoria. Republic of South Africa No. R. 84 Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 Construction Regulations Government Gazette No Pretoria. Smallwood, J.J Ergonomics in construction. ergonomicssa 9(1): Smallwood, J.J Construction Ergonomics: General Contractor (GC) Perceptions. ergonomicssa 14(1): Smallwood, J.J., Deacon, C.H. and Venter, D.J.L Ergonomics in construction: Workers perceptions of strain. ergonomicssa 12(1): Smallwood, J.J. and Ehrlich, R Stress and construction: Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction Sites. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference of CIB Working Commission W99, Honolulu, Hawaii, March (edited by A. Singh, J.W. Hinze, and R.J. Coble), Balkema: Rotterdam. 8