An investigation into occupational health and safety of scaffolding practices on construction sites in Malaysia

AbdulLateef Olanrewaju (Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia)
Jack Son Khor (Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia)
Christopher Nigel Preece (Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates)

Frontiers in Engineering and Built Environment

ISSN: 2634-2499

Article publication date: 12 October 2021

Downloads
557

Abstract

Purpose

Statistics show that the construction sector has the second-highest number of accident cases in Malaysia. A total of 100, 000 construction workers suffer from work-related bad health each year. Scaffolding accidents are the second cause of accidents on construction sites. Therefore, this present research provided answers to the following questions: (1) what are the causes of scaffolding accidents and (2) what are the possible measures to reduce scaffolding accidents?

Design/methodology/approach

The research developed a questionnaire instrument that included 24 causes of scaffolding accidents and 21 remedial actions. The research was based on a cross-sectional survey questionnaire administered to 129 members of construction organizations.

Findings

Data revealed that scaffolding-related cases caused a total of 70% of the deaths/injuries on sites. Furthermore, scaffolding accidents were mainly caused by a lack of guard rails on scaffoldings, poor inspections, improper assembly, a poor safety culture, poor attitudes towards safety, poor footing of scaffoldings and unsecured planking. To reduce scaffolding accidents, there must be a lifeline on scaffolding, proper guardrails and proper assembling of scaffoldings, and preventing access to incomplete or defective scaffoldings. The 24 causes are structured into six factors through factor analysis and the 21 remedial actions into six factors.

Originality/value

This research serves as the first attempt to conduct broad research on the causes and remedial actions concerning scaffolding accidents on construction sites in Malaysia. Theoretically, the research has provided fresh insights into the impact of scaffolding accidents.

Keywords

Citation

Olanrewaju, A., Khor, J.S. and Preece, C.N. (2021), "An investigation into occupational health and safety of scaffolding practices on construction sites in Malaysia ", Frontiers in Engineering and Built Environment, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/FEBE-08-2021-0037

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, AbdulLateef Olanrewaju, Jack Son Khor and Christopher Nigel Preece

License

Published in Frontiers in Engineering and Built Environment. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

The construction sector plays a significant role by demanding a large-scale workforce in the labour market, and it contributes about 10% to the gross domestic product in many countries (Schilling, 2013; Research and Markets, 2020). However, the safety levels within the construction sector are low, and accidents on construction sites are increasing and have remained a global phenomenon (Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz, 2015; Zhou et al., 2015; Chong and Low, 2014; HSE, 2019). Between 2014 and 2017, close to 30% of all fatal accidents at work in the EU-28 took place within the construction sector (Eurostat, 2019). Similarly, the construction sector has the highest fatalities in Singapore at 29% (OSHD, 2017). The cost of workplace injuries in the UK construction sector was £1,204 m in 2018 (HSE, 2019b). The annual compensation for industrial accidents in Malaysia is RM 1.034 bn (Bakar, 2018). Therefore, a reduction in accidents on sites will lead to a reduction in workers' compensation, insurance claims, a decrease in litigation charges, reduced time loss and increased productivity.

Most construction site accidents are caused by scaffolding erection, dismantling, malfunctioning and collapsing (Zhou et al., 2015; Winge and Albrechtsen, 2018; Eurostat, 2019). Like in most countries, the rates of accidents on Malaysian construction sites due to scaffolding are increasing (Olanrewaju et al., 2021). For instance, in 2012, the number of accidents due to scaffolding totalled 30 and that number increased to 227 in 2016 (Social Security Organization Annual Report, 2012–2016). Ayob et al. (2018) found that 46.28% of the accidents are related to scaffolding. Furthermore, government-sponsored research shows that work at height is the biggest single cause of accidents in the Malaysian construction sector (CIDB, 2018). The alarming rate of scaffolding accidents led to a special committee (the Position Paper Committee) in 2013 by the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, 2015). Yet, there have been more studies and reports on accidents relating to scaffolding on construction sites in Malaysia (Abas et al., 2020; Ayob et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2017; Ulang et al., 2014; Keng and Abdul Razak, 2014; Lee et al., 2018; CIDB, 2018). As much as the findings and recommendations for the studies are helpful, the studies tend not to go into the level of detail necessary to provide systemic explanations of the causes and remedial actions required for scaffolding accidents on construction sites. This research has emerged to commence a detailed investigation on scaffolding accidents on construction sites in Malaysia. This research examined the causes of scaffolding accidents and possible remedies to reduce scaffolding accidents to achieve this aim.

2. Background and literature review

The costs of accidents on construction projects are enormous and comprise both latent and explicit costs. The explicit costs of accidents on construction sites are medical bills, compensation, claims and fines. The latent costs include losses of productivity, costs of retraining new staff, delays in project completion and loss of morals, social discrimination and grief of the families of the victims. Despite various measures taken to improve construction site safety records, existing research revealed that accidents and injuries continued to plague the industry (Zhou et al., 2015; Pieko et al., 2018; Dogan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Rubio-Romero et al., 2019; Czarnocka et al., 2020).The census data from the USA showed that a total of 774 workers died from injuries suffered on construction sites in 2010 (BLS, 2012). Similarly, 38 deaths and 64,000 injuries were recorded in the UK construction sector in 2017 (Lucas, 2018). According to Sawacha et al. (1999), for every pound paid by insurance companies, the contractor paid between £5 and £50. Anecdotal data show that total losses due to construction activities-related accidents were 10% of the total turnover. Analysing the latest data on work-related ill-health in the UK, Lucas (2018) found a loss of 1.9 million working days within the construction sector, equating to around 8,000 construction workers being absent from work for an entire year. In Malaysia, the accident rates in the construction sector are the second largest, representing 23.70% of the total accidents in all the major economic industries and number one in terms of the cause of fatalities (Social Security Organization Annual Report, 2018). Every year, at least 95 deaths are documented on construction sites.

While the rate of accidents on construction sites is large and increasing unabated, the primary cause of accidents is related to the operations of scaffolding (Olanrewaju et al., 2021; Hola et al., 2018; Rubio-Romero et al., 2019; Czarnocka et al., 2020; Dogan et al., 2021). Scaffoldings are provided where work cannot be safely done from the ground or a part of a building or other permanent structures (ILO, 1992). It is estimated that 65% of construction workers use scaffolding on construction sites (OSHA, 2019). Occupational safety and health administration’s (OSHA) data found that 13.03% of the 1,215 falls in the USA were due to scaffolding (OSHA, 2019). Falling from scaffolding, ladders and fixed platforms are the most hazardous scaffolding in Greece (Aneziris et al., 2012) scaffolding. Falls from scaffoldings are the major types of falls and causes of death in the Turkish construction sector (Gürcanli and Müngen, 2013). Recent research shows that the number of accidents involving scaffolding contractors has increased from 89 in 2017 to 113 in 2018 in the UK (Construction Manager, 2019). This represents 27%. Based on an analysis of 1,630,452 construction accidents in Spain, López et al. (2008) found that accidents due to scaffoldings and ladders topped the list in terms of fatalities and severity. Similarly, scaffolding accidents have led to many fatalities and injuries in Belgium (Global Construction Review, 2021). Consistent with findings in most economies, scaffolding-related accidents, injuries and fatalities are the dominant causes of injuries and deaths on Malaysian construction sites (Olanrewaju et al., 2021). Scaffolding accidents have increased by about 800% over five years (Social Security Organization Annual Report, 2018). Furthermore, while scaffolding accidents only accounted for 2.68% of the total causes in 2012, they increased to 23.35% in 2016. Therefore, protecting workers from scaffolding-related accidents may prevent the loss of many lives, claims, disputes, project delays and cost overruns. In Malaysia, it will avoid over 5,000 injuries and over 100 deaths every year. It will also reduce claims, litigation, productivity loss and loss of profit margin. These gaps justify the need for appropriate research.

Therefore, there is a systemic need to answer the question of “What are the causes of scaffolding accidents on Malaysian construction sites?” and find remedies to prevent or eliminate scaffolding accidents on sites. To provide answers to these questions, a cross-sectional survey questionnaire was conducted. Extant academic literature suggests these can be achieved by examining the causes and measures to reduce accidents on construction sites (Olanrewaju et al., 2021). There have been numerous research accidents on construction sites worldwide (Hamdan and Awang, 2015; Szóstak et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2015; Awwad et al., 2016; López et al., 2008). However, empirical studies on scaffolding accidents on sites, especially in Malaysia, are scanty despite the continuous increase and impact of scaffolding accidents. The previous studies were primarily concerned with the ranking of the causes. Research on remedies from the perspective of the site operative is nascent.

However, because the causes interact, it is essential to examine the relationship among the causes of the accidents and between the remedies. To close this knowledge gap, there is a systemic need to answer the questions of “What are the causes of scaffolding accidents on Malaysian construction sites” and what? And what are the remedies to prevent or eliminate scaffolding accidents on sites? This research identified, prioritized and categorized the causes and remedies. Categorizing the causes and remedies will help streamline and enhance decision-making on the performance of construction operations (Olanrewaju and Idrus, 2020). Analyses of interactions between causes and remedies pose a clustering problem due to the lack of labelling in the data. A clustering problem is a situation where the machine is trained on unlabelled data without prior guidance. Some algorithms for uncategorized learning include K-mean, C-mean and factor analysis. Factor analysis is used here because it is consistent with the aim of this research. Whilst there is no definitive list of causes and remedies to scaffolding accidents, Tables 1 and 2 contain a list of causes and potential measures to reduce the accidents. The lists are not prescriptive and comprehensive but indicative of the nature of the causes and remedies. The causes and remedies are not specific to scaffolding per se.

3. Research methodology

The primary data were based on convenience sampling. The method is appropriate where sufficient information on population size and sample frame is not available. While the findings may not be generalizable, the conclusion can be representative of the population with many respondents. This is consistent with the central limit theorem (CLT). Based on the CLT principle, the distribution of sample means approximates a normal distribution as the sample size increases (Olanrewaju and Idrus, 2020). For the CLT principle to be valid, a sample size of 30 or more is statistically required. The questionnaires were administered to the respondents between 6/08/2018 and 19/08/2018. The surveys were administered to site operatives (site operative denotes all those that work on construction) through online and face-to-face methods. Respondents were asked based on evidence to tick the degree to which they disagreed or agreed that each of the causal factors/remedies would lead to or reduce scaffolding accidents. The degrees of disagreement or agreement were measured on a four-continuum scale, where 4 denoted “strongly agree” and 1 denoted “strongly disagree”. 2 and 3 were located in between. The causes and remedies were developed from an extensive literature review (Tables 1 and 2) and a discussion with those involved in the use/manufacture/supply of scaffoldings. It should be noted that the causes and remedies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are not the same as the causes and remedies submitted to the respondents for evaluations. This is related to ontological as well as epistemological considerations. During the pilot survey, it became clear that some of the causes and remedies included on the survey form were either irrelevant to the local environment or would require different interpretations. As a result, while some of the causes and remedies were eliminated, others were adjusted. In some cases, new ones were included in response to the respondents' suggestions during the pilot survey. Altogether, 24 causal factors and 21 remedies were included in the survey form after two pilot surveys. The questionnaire went through three pilot surveys comprising construction operatives on three different sites visited separately within a week. The extent of the cause or remedy is determined by an Average Relative Index (ARI) (Eqn 1).

(1)ARI=i=04aixi4i=04xi×100

The constant ai was the index of a group, which expressed the weight given to the group; xi was the frequency of response; i = 1, 2, 3 and 4 and described as below: x1,x2,x3,x4 where the frequencies of the responses corresponding to a1=1,a2=2,a3=3,a4=4. For interpretation purposes, an ARI score of 1.00–25.00 denotes not common at all; 26.00–50.00 denotes not common and 51.00–75 and 76.00–100.00 denote very common. There is a pooled difference of 1.0% between each of the scales. The causal factor with the highest ARI score was considered to be the major cause of scaffolding accidents. The prioritization of the remedies followed similar methods of analysis. Other computed statistical tests are the one-way t-test, Cronbach alpha's reliability tests, convergent validity tests, factor analysis, mode test and standard deviation. The t-test was conducted to test the hypothesis of whether each of the causes could lead to scaffolding accidents or if each remedy would aid the reduction of scaffolding accidents or not. A factor analysis was conducted to identify the association among causes and remedies of scaffolding accidents to facilitate systemic decision-making rather than analytical decision-making on ranking/prioritization. Analytical decision-making is fragmented and biased in a multi-criteria decision-making situation where conflicting criteria require holistic evaluation. Structuring complex criteria explicitly lead to more informed and better decisions. Factor analysis is an unsupervised machine learning algorithm used in grouping constructs that are not obvious or labelled before the computations. Some classifications were previously conducted (Chi and Wu,1997; Chi et al., 2005; Hinze et al., 1998). However, the classifications were not based on surveys; instead, they were based on epidemiological studies. The SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 was used to analyse the data.

4. Analysing the results of the survey

The face-to-face survey pooled 100 forms, but only 37 completed responses were received during the survey period. The online survey forms were administered to more than 2000 respondents, including architects, engineers, construction managers and others that work on construction sites. However, by the cutoff date, 92 online responses were received after several reminders.

4.1 Analysing the respondents' profiles

The results show that more than 70% of the respondents worked on construction sites. The 30% may be accounted for by those that received the survey forms from their friends/colleagues. More than 76% of the respondents worked with contracting companies, and 20% worked with housing developers (Figure 1). The results showed that more than 90% of the respondents had a minimum of a bachelor's degree, and more than 70% had more than three years of working experience. It is not surprising that most of the respondents held bachelor's degrees, and a total of 40% of the survey respondents have been injured on construction sites (Table 3), and around 95% of respondents' work was related to using scaffolding. In the USA, 65% of construction workers' work involves scaffolding (Collins et al., 2014). Furthermore, the results show that one-fourth of the respondents have been injured while working with scaffolding on sites. This result is supported by the government report that shows that scaffolding contributed 23.35% of the site accidents (Social Security Organization Annual Report, 2018).

4.2 Analysing the hierarchy of the causal factors

The combined average Cronbach coefficient alpha for the 24 causes of scaffolding accidents was 0.760. The combined validity results for the scaffolding accidents were 0.669. The Kaiser's measure of sampling adequacy was significant χ2 (276) = 644.898, p < 0.001), N = 0.668). A one-way t-test was conducted to examine the measurements of the sample concerning the population. The null hypothesis was that each of the causes would not lead to scaffolding accidents (H0: U = U0), and the research hypothesis was that each of the causes would lead to scaffolding accidents (Hr: U ≥ U0). U0 was the population mean. The t-test results show that all the causes (Hr: U ≥ U0) were significant. The standard errors are approximated to zero. A small standard error is an indication that a sample mean is a more accurate replication of an actual population mean. However, for design flaws (0.46), lack of experience (0.379), poor management of work at heights (0.911) and not following CIDB (Construction Sector Development Board Malaysia) standards (0.141), the H0 were accepted. This happens because there are some disagreements among the respondents on the impact of these causes on scaffolding accidents. In general, the interpretations of these statistics are that the causes of accidents and their measurements were appropriate to achieve the designed objective. In total, 20% of the respondents disagreed that the causal factors could lead to scaffolding accidents, but the remaining 80% measured that the causes would lead to accidents. The cumulative average ARI for all the causes was 77.74, and the combined standard deviation was 18.43. Measured on a scale of 1–4 and considering the profiles of the respondents and the number of cases, these statistics are significant. Considering the relationship between mean and standard deviation, the results imply that 70% of the respondents estimated that the causes would lead to accidents. In particular, applying the distributive scale under the research methodology section, none of the causal factors fell under 50 ARI (Table 4). Specifically, 15 causal factors cluster under “strongly agree” and 9 under “agree”.

4.3 Results of the factor analysis on the causes of scaffolding accidents

The overall root mean square off-diagonal residuals of 0.0584 indicates a lack of multicollinearity. The commonalities except for shortages of material (0.402) were all above 0.5. The data were subjected to a principal component analysis. The Kaiser's MSA (a measure of sampling adequacy) was approximately 0.833, which was very high. The results found that the 24 causal factors for scaffolding accidents may be structured or organized into six meaningful components for effective decisions. The six factors explained 62% of the total variance (Table 5), and this was also evident in Figure 2, as the function appeared to level off with the 6th factor.

4.3.1 Analysing the hierarchy of remedial measures

The combined average Cronbach coefficient alpha results for the 21 remedies of scaffolding accidents were 0.760. The combined validity results for all the scaffolding remedies were 0.669. The Kaiser's measure of sampling adequacy was significant χ2 (276) = 644.898, p < 0.001), N = 0.668). The remedies (Hr: U ≥ U0) were generally statistically significant. However, the H0 was accepted for holding weekly toolbox meetings (0.144), maintaining the required distance between scaffolding and power (0.812), promoting open communication (0.566), introducing a licencing system for scaffolding work similar to that used by the government for asbestos work (0.482) and imposing sanctions on companies that violate safety regulations (0.415). The results revealed that 13% of the respondents disagreed that the remedies could reduce accidents. A total of 87% of the respondents measured that the remedies could help to reduce accidents. The cumulative average ARI for all the remedies was 81.98, and the standard deviation was 16.83. A total of 70% agreed or strongly agreed (i.e. ARI = 65.14–98.81) that the remedies would reduce scaffolding accidents. None of the remedies fell under 50 ARI (Table 6). More than 86% of remedies cluster under the “strongly agreed” category and the remaining 14% cluster under the “agreed” category.

4.4 Results of the factor analysis on the remedies to scaffolding accidents

The overall root mean square off-diagonal residuals was 0.0637, and the root mean square off-diagonal partials: Overall was 0.1801. This indicates a lack of multicollinearity. The Kaiser's MSA for the remedies was approximately 0.80. This result implies that the respondents were drawn from similar backgrounds and that the remedies suit their designed objective. The results found that the remedies may be structured or organized into six meaningful factors (Table 7 and Figure 3).

5. Discussion of findings

In the following sections, the findings are discussed. Due to space constraints, only the first five causes and remedies will be discussed. Similarly, only the summary of the factor analysis results will be provided.

5.1 Discussion of the hierarchy of causes of scaffolding accidents

Lack/inadequate guardrails were found to be the major cause of scaffolding accidents. A total of 59% of the respondents concurred that the lack of guardrails was a major factor in the scaffolding accidents. This finding is interesting because guardrails can prevent and protect scaffolding users from falls and slips (ILO, 1992). Major causes of slips and falls include wet floors, debris on floors, irregular surfaces and poor personal protective equipment (PPE) (like clothing, helmets, goggles or other garments or equipment designed to protect construction workers from injury or infection). Research in the UK revealed that the main causes of accidents and injuries are due to slips and falls (Construction Manager, 2019). A lack of “edge protection” is a major cause of scaffolding accidents on many Norwegian construction sites. Many of the workers “forgot” that there was no edge protection on the scaffolding (Winge and Albrechtsen, 2018). The research also found that improper assembling of scaffolding is a major cause of accidents. Not only should the scaffolding components be fastened together, but they should also be adequately assembled to avoid collapsing if loads are placed on them. This is because if scaffoldings are poorly assembled, the scaffolding may not be stable. Haslam et al. (2005) found that several construction injuries in the UK were due to the operatives striking their body parts against protrusions, mainly caused by the poor assembly of scaffoldings. Hence, scaffolding should not be assembled without the presence and supervision of a competent person (ILO, 1992). Many scaffolding accidents occur due to poor assembly or lack of supervision during its erection. It is found that poor safety cultures of construction are responsible for many falls, which lead to fatal accidents (Hamdan and Awang, 2015). Therefore, it was anticipated to find that many scaffolding accidents were due to poor safety cultures. A total of 53% of the respondents measured that poor safety culture was a major reason for scaffolding accidents. Related to the lack of safety culture as a good reason for scaffolding accidents was scaffolding users' attitude. The survey revealed that poor attitudes toward scaffolding safety were the fifth causal factor of scaffolding accidents, and 51% believed it was the main cause. This finding is similar to a conclusion reached on Norwegian construction sites (Winge and Albrechtsen, 2018).

5.2 Discussion of the factor analysis on the causes of scaffolding accidents

Second-order factor analysis for each component revealed that the causes were related to their respective component. Behaviours (1) of the workers constituted the major factor leading to scaffolding accidents. In other words, attitudinal behaviour-related elements rather than structural or technical elements were the major causes of scaffolding accidents. Apart from operatives' behaviours, the experience of the operatives (2) was also critical. Imperatively, it is one argument to have correct attitudes, but without experience, accident-free notions may not be possible. This is logical, as experiences and attitudes are interwoven. However, experiences and behaviours are related to the quality and completeness of the scaffolding itself. Therefore, it is not surprising that structure is the 3rd component. Missing parts or incorrect assembly of the scaffolding would lead to accidents (Gürcanli and Müngen, 2013) regardless of the experience and behaviours of the site operatives. This will especially be the case if the capacity (4) of the scaffolding is not determined and excessive loads are placed on the scaffolding. General is the fifth component. The second-order factor analysis reclassified the six causes into two sub-components; the first sub-component comprised no guardrails installed on scaffolding, unsecured planking and no life on lifeline scaffolding; the second sub-component involved improper leaning against scaffolding, bad weather and misjudgements of hazardous conditions. The investigation of the sub-factors showed that they were highly related at the sub-component level. To illustrate, operatives that underestimated the extent of risks on scaffolding tended to lean on scaffolding, and it is not safe to work on scaffolding when the weather is bad. Furthermore, research has shown that most scaffolding accidents occur during the rainy season or at night or in the latter part of the evening. “PPE” is the sixth major component in the variance. While PPE is meant to protect operatives, if the PPE is not available or not used properly, it will lead to accidents. While the designer teams can collectively reduce scaffolding accidents, a significant amount of responsibility lies with the contractor organizations. To summarize, most of the causes of accidents stem from the culture of those working on sites and the construction organizations' health and safety practices.

5.3 Discussion of the hierarchy of remedies for scaffolding accidents

The results revealed that the ARI classified the remedies into two classes. The first remedy to prevent scaffolding accidents was installing safety nets, and the second remedy was installing guardrails. The results were anticipated as both were protective measures and, in fact, complementary to each other. Aneziris et al. (2012) suggested using the net as one of the main measures to protect workers from falling objects. Guardrails should be provided as far as practicable on all scaffolding. However, where guardrails and toe-boards cannot be provided, adequate safety nets or safety sheets should be provided. While guardrails are an active method to prevent workers from falling, a safety net is a passive method because it is meant to reduce injuries after falls. This finding is interesting because guardrails are usually provided on scaffolding more than 4 m above the ground level in Malaysia. The government-sponsored committee recommends that guardrails be provided on the scaffolding at 2 metres and above (CIDB, 2018).

It is not surprising that “assemble scaffolding properly” was rated 3rd because it was rated as a significant cause of scaffolding accidents. Therefore, this finding confirms the importance of assembling scaffolding to reduce accidents and claims and increase productivity. Poor or defective materials/components should not be used to construct scaffolding parts and accessories. Because scaffolding needs to perform its designed functions, high-quality components and accessories should be used on scaffolding. Again, PPE is regarded as a major remedy for reducing scaffolding accidents. This is consistent with Keng and Abdul Razak's (2014) and Ulang et al.'s (2014) findings. These studies show that using PPE will reduce accidents on sites. However, PPEs must be correctly used (Aneziris et al., 2012). Unsuitable PPE will lead to accidents and injuries. Scaffolding should be assembled and certified by a competent person (i.e. qualified safety officers/supervisors (Keng and Abdul Razak, 2014). Access should not be given if scaffolding is not well assembled. Multiple agencies may require certifications for a big project, like the firefighting department, work departments and manufacturers. It serves to underscore the importance of a competent person in the erection and use of the scaffolding. For instance, in Malaysia, the MS 1462 standard stipulated that scaffolding should not be used until certified by a Chief Inspector.

5.4 Discussion of the results of the factor analysis of the remedies

Factor analysis grouped the remedies into six components. Poor assembly (1) of scaffolding components denominated the remedial measure “scaffolding”. A lack of guardrails, lifelines, PPEs and the poor assembly of guardrails will lead to accidents or will complicate accidents when they occur. For instance, many scaffolding collapses on construction sites due to the poor assembly of guardrails, lifelines and lack of PPE will increase fatalities. However, even if scaffolding is adequately assembled, accidents can occur due to other reasons. For instance, the workers may be vulnerable without adequate guardrails, lifelines or PPEs. Therefore, proper testing (2) is required to avoid breakdowns and accidents. Inspection of scaffolding and other tools for safety will reduce accidents on construction sites. The “behavioural” component (3) has diverse yet related remedies. Sites with proper supervision with competent staff that have knowledge of scaffolding would be able to determine the safe loading of the scaffolding. They will also likely use preventive measures like safety nets and ensure that scaffoldings adhere to all regulations and standards. A regulation [framework] is the fourth component. There are many regulations and standard operating procedures to reduce scaffolding accidents (CIDB, 2018). However, implementations are always difficult. To deduce this difficulty, contractors could develop in-house regulations to ensure open communication among site operatives to ensure that those that violate the guideline on the erection and operation of the scaffolding are penalized. Scaffoldings, like other equipment or tools on-site, have definite lifespans. Scaffolding components wear and tear at different rates and times. Therefore, a proactive maintenance strategy (5th component) must be developed for routine and corrective repairs. Decisions have to be made if maintenance is to be outsourced or performed by the in-house organization. However, a well-developed in-house maintenance policy will be more rewarding, especially for the big contractors. Furthermore, contractor organizations need to provide training (6th component) to operatives on preventing scaffolding accidents and accident reporting procedures. This may be in the form of a simple flow chart that indicates how to make a specific report and who to report an accident to. A complex reporting system can create more problems as operatives may not want to conduct reports. Thus, some may not make reports if the accidents are not fatal. Technology can also be used to monitor the performance and safety of scaffolding.

6. Research implications and causation framework

The results generated from this research provide some implications. Below are the main implications:

  1. Scaffolding users, supervisors and construction managers do not perform scaffolding inspections, repairs and maintenance proactively but rather reactively.

  2. Implicit in the findings of this research were that scaffolding accidents were due to behavioural issues of the site workers and contractor organizations.

  3. There is a lack of enforcement and low fines imposed on errant violators by the government. Contractors, governments, policies, consultants and clients only take scaffolding seriously when deaths or fatal accidents occur. This only lasts for a short term, after which activities return to business as usual.

  4. Many of the construction companies do not have safety policies, and government regulations are not well formulated and enforced, especially on sites. However, the current measures to address health and safety on Malaysian construction sites are very prescriptive because they depend on regulations.

  5. Safety and health measures should be a precondition to site construction management and should be included in the method statement.

  6. Deductively, Figure 4 displays a causation framework of the impacts of unhealthy and safe practices. As the figure demonstrates, addressing the human factors would help reduce scaffolding accidents because errors, faults, oversights, negligence and mistakes are the main contributing factors for scaffolding related to construction sites. Unsafe human behaviour at construction sites is the main cause of the health and safety problems on the construction sites. Hence, influencing the behaviours of site operatives concerning health and safety represents the most systemic approach to reducing accidents and fatalities at construction sites. Regulations, policies, complicated techniques and systems can only play complementary roles, not the main roles.

7. Conclusion and recommendations for site operatives

The findings of this study have several conclusions and recommendations. The key findings and recommendations are listed below.

  1. Scaffolding accidents are rampant on sites, and many have been injured while using scaffolding. All the 24 causes would lead to accidents on the sites. The primary causes are lack of guardrails on scaffoldings, poor inspections of scaffolding, improper assembly of scaffolding, poor safety culture and ignorance of the safety procedures by operatives. The primary causes are related to the safety culture of the construction organizations. There is a need to change the sector's attitudes to health and safety management.

  2. The effective remedies to reduce or avoid scaffolding accidents include installing a safety net, installing proper guardrails, correctly assembling scaffoldings, quality components and providing proper PPE to site operatives. Inductively, addressing the sites' attitudes and behaviours would help minimize scaffolding-related accidents on sites. Reactive measures are dominant among construction organizations.

  3. Government agencies should conduct unscheduled inspections to ensure that construction companies adhere to regulations and policies. This will complement the safety culture of the site operatives and the construction organizations.

  4. The limitation of this study due to the small sample size may necessitate future research to increase the sample size. In addition, more causes and remedies may be included.

  5. The causation framework requires verification and validation to measure its suitability for reducing scaffolding accidents on construction sites.

  6. Future research should differentiate between the causes of accidents and remedies for new construction and maintenance/refurbishment projects.

Figures

Respondent's profile

Figure 1

Respondent's profile

Scree plot and variance explained of the causes

Figure 2

Scree plot and variance explained of the causes

Scree plot and variance explained of the remedies

Figure 3

Scree plot and variance explained of the remedies

Olan's accident causation framework for health and safety practices

Figure 4

Olan's accident causation framework for health and safety practices

Summary of factors causing scaffolding accidents on construction sites

FactorsAuthor
Structural failure of scaffoldsHeckmann (1995), Hamdan and Awang (2015)
Improper assemble of scaffoldsHeckmann (1995), Abu Bakar et al. (2008)
No lifeline on the lifeline-required scaffoldsHeckmann (1995), Hamdan and Awang (2015)
No guardrails installed on scaffoldsHeckmann (1995), Hamdan and Awang (2015), Abu Bakar et al. (2008)
Poor footing of scaffoldsHeckmann (1995), Hamdan and Awang (2015)
Bad weatherHamdan and Awang (2015), Nadhim et al. (2016)
Misjudgement of a hazardous conditionHeckmann (1995)
Weight of equipment in useAbu Bakar et al. (2008)
Excess load on scaffoldHamdan and Awang (2015), Heckmann (1995)
Weight of materials in useAbu Bakar et al. (2008)
Weight of scaffolding componentsAbu Bakar et al. (2008)
Lack of personal protective equipmentHamdan and Awang (2015), Nadhim et al. (2016), Bennett et al. (2018)
Scaffolding design flawsHalperin and McCann (2004)
Distractions of operatorsHamdan and Awang (2015)
Improper leaning against on scaffoldHamdan and Awang (2015), Ismail and Ghani (2012)
Lack of understanding about hazardsBennett et al. (2018)
Lack of proper training towards operatorsHamdan and Awang (2015), Nadhim et al. (2016)
Operators lack of experienceBennett et al. (2018)
Poor management of work at heightBennett et al. (2018)
Poor inspection of scaffoldsAli et al. (2010), Olanrewaju et al. (2021)
Poor safety cultureOlanrewaju et al. (2021)
Poor attitude towards safetyOlanrewaju et al. (2021)
Poor communicationHamdan and Awang (2015)

Summary of remedies to reduce scaffolding accidents in the construction sites

RemediesAuthor
Use a lifeline on a lifeline-required scaffoldHeckmann (1995)
Install proper guardrailsHeckmann (1995)
Prevent access to incomplete or defective scaffoldsCIDB (2009)
Ensure there is at least a competentHalperin and McCann (2004)
Eliminate low quality scaffoldBennett et al. (2018)
Provide proper personal protective equipmentNadhim (2016)
Provide education and training to operatorsNadhim (2016), Oladiran et al. (2008), Bennett (2018)
Improve site supervisionHowarth and Watson (2009), Bennett et al. (2018)
Know the maximum load that the scaffolds can safely supportGoetsch (2013), CIDB (2009), Oladiran et al. (2008)
Apply job safety analysisHowarth and Watson (2009)
Keep the required distance betweenGoetsch (2013)
Scaffolds and power linesCIDB (2009), Oladiran et al. (2008)
Conduct regular inspectionGoetsch (2013), Oladiran et al. (2008)
Ensure proper housekeepingGoetsch (2013), CIDB (2009)
Promote open communicationBennett et al. (2018)
Follow the government standardsAbu Bakar et al. (2008), Goetsch (2013)
Install safety netGoetsch (2013), Oladiran et al. (2008)
Enhance the accident reporting regimeBennett et al. (2018)
Using digital technology such as drones to reduce the needs of using scaffoldsBennett et al. (2018)
Sanction company that violates safety regulationOlanrewaju et al. (2021)

Incidence of accidents and injury on site

Question FrequencyPercentage
Have you experienced injury on this site?Yes5139.5
No7860.5
Does your works on this site involve using scaffoldings?Yes, to a large extent9976.7
Yes, to a small extent2418.6
No64.7
Have you experienced injury on this site while using scaffolding on before?Yes3224.8
No9775.2

Descriptive statistics of the causes of scaffolding accidents

CauseStrongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agreeARISD
No guardrails installed on scaffolds112407687.0217.43
Poor inspection of scaffolds111437486.8217.14
Improper assemble of scaffolds06596486.2414.64
Poor safety culture210496885.4717.59
Operators ignore safety procedures210526584.8817.52
Poor attitude towards safety211506684.8817.79
Poor footing of scaffolds112536384.5017.17
Planking unsecure014585783.3316.63
Lack of personal protective equipment015585682.9516.58
Poor maintenance of scaffolds213585682.5617.84
Improper leaning against on scaffold220476081.9819.51
Improper climbing on scaffold516555380.2320.17
Structural failure of scaffolds415634779.6518.95
Lack of proper training towards operators315664579.6518.16
No lifeline on the lifeline-required scaffolds023614579.2617.71
Improper use of personal protective equipment630583573.6414.94
Misjudgement of a hazardous condition325772473.6417.20
Scaffolding design flaws630583573.6420.80
Operators lack of experience530623273.4519.95
Insufficient capacities of scaffolds527692873.2619.06
Lack of understanding about hazards634593071.9020.49
Distractions of operators841473370.3522.27
Poor communication248532669.9619.36
Bad weather1250481964.3421.37

Distribution of rotated factor pattern

Rotated factor patternComponent
BehavioursExperienceStructureCapacityGeneralPPE
Poor attitude towards safety0.730
Poor safety culture0.725
Poor inspection of scaffolds0.704
Lack of proper training towards operators0.631
Operators ignore safety procedures0.630
Improper climbing on scaffold0.606
Poor maintenance of scaffolds0.519
Operators lack of experience 0.775
Poor communication 0.673
Lack of understanding about hazards 0.599
Improper assemble of scaffolds 0.762
Structural failure of scaffolds 0.662
Poor footing of scaffolds 0.650
Insufficient capacities of scaffolds 0.765
Scaffolding design flaws 0.678
Distractions of operators 0.533
Bad weather 0.589
Improper leaning against on scaffold 0.573
Planking unsecure 0.559
No guardrails installed on scaffolds 0.509
No lifeline on the lifeline-required scaffolds 0.485
Misjudgements of a hazardous condition 0.469
Improper use of personal protective equipment 0.829
Lack of personal protective equipment 0.758
Eigenvalue7.062.131.931.361.261.06
Variance explained (%)29.438.898.055.675.254.42
Internal consistency0.6490.6820.6910.6590.5310.794
MSA for second-order factor analysis0.844, χ2 (21) = 320.5110.666, χ2 (3) = 66.6060.654, χ2 (3) = 57.1110.669, χ2 (3) = 70.150.722, χ2 (150) = 126.3570.500, χ2 (1) = 48.44
p for second-order factor analysis<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Variance explained for second-order factor analysis (%)52.6362.4060.2963.1658.5278.20
Cronbach's alpha for second-order factor analysis0.8480.6980.6660.7060.6850.721
Validity for second-order factor analysis0.5260.6240.6030.6320.5850.782

Descriptive statistics of the remedies of scaffold accidents

RemedyStrongly disagreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly agreeARISd
Install safety net15358890.7015.01
Install proper guardrails03468089.9213.45
Assemble scaffolds properly00537689.7312.35
Eliminate low quality scaffold18427888.1816.26
Provide proper personal protective equipment010457487.4015.97
Ensure there is at least a competent person in the operation of scaffold16546886.6315.64
Conduct regular inspection16566686.2415.61
Provide education and training to operators26556685.8516.49
Improve site supervision111605783.5316.68
Know the maximum load that the scaffolds can safely support111655282.5616.42
Enhance the accident reporting regime11555 82.3617.51
Use a lifeline on a lifeline-required scaffold015704480.6216.01
Apply job safety analysis (JSA)317644579.2618.52
Adopt HIRARC (Hazard identification, risk assessment, risk control)218674278.8817.80
Ensure proper housekeeping220644378.6818.25
Conduct toolbox meeting weekly227564477.5219.48
Sanction company that violates safety regulation324653776.3618.83
Introduce a licensing system of scaffolding works similar to that used for asbestos work by government324663676.1618.71
Keep the required distance between scaffolds and power lines325683375.3918.48
Promote open communication525693074.0319.11
Using digital technology, such as drones, to reduce the needs of using scaffolds1146482466.4721.99

Distribution of Rotated Factor Pattern of the remedies

RemedyComponent
ElementTestingBehaviourRegulationMaintenanceTraining
Install proper guardrails0.7353
Assemble scaffolds properly0.7324
Use a lifeline on a lifeline-required scaffold0.6979
Provide proper personal protective equipment0.6593
Adopt HIRARC (Hazard identification, risk assessment, risk control) 0.7564
Conduct toolbox meeting weekly 0.7552
Apply job safety analysis (JSA) 0.6892
Keep the required distance between scaffolds and power lines 0.4965
Improve site supervision 0.7131
Introduce a licensing system of scaffolding works similar to that used for asbestos work by government 0.5672
Know the maximum load that the scaffolds can safely support 0.5487
Install safety net 0.5466
Eliminate low quality scaffold 0.5175
Ensure there is at least a competent person in the operation of scaffold 0.4958
Use digital technology such as drones to reduce the needs of using scaffolds 0.7176
Sanction company that violates safety regulation 0.7058
Promote open communication 0.5568
Ensure proper housekeeping 0.7678
Conduct regular inspection 0.6076
Enhance the accident reporting regime 0.77138
Provide education and training to operators 0.6045
Eigenvalue5.702.511.641.411.260.95
Variance explained (%)27.1111.977.786.716.024.53
Internal consistency0.7060.6740.6780.6600.6880.688
MSA for second-order factor analysis0.749, χ2 (6) = 119.0270.749, χ2 (6) = 141.7170.723, χ2 (15) = 131.2980.669, χ2 (3) = 62.20.500, χ2 (1) = 11.8620.500, χ2 (1) = 30.83
p for second-order factor analysis<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Variance explained for second-order factor analysis (%)57.8060.1358.3761.6864.9673.25
Cronbach's alpha for second-order factor analysis0.7460.7750.7080.6860.4560.634
Validity for second-order factor analysis0.5780.6010.7000.6170.6500.733

References

Abas, N.H., Noridan, M.R., Rahmat, M.H., Abas, N.A. and Ibrahim, N.Q. (2020), “Causes of accidents involving scaffolding at construction sites”, Journal of Technology Management and Business, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 75-86.

Abu Bakar, N.A., Ismail, M.R. and Lin, T.G. (2008), “Scaffolding safety assessment in construction sites in Penang”, 2nd International Conference on Built Environment In Developing Countries (ICBEDC 2008), pp. 1311-1328.

Ali, A., Kamaruzzaman, S. and Sing, G. (2010), “A study on causes of accident and prevention in Malaysian construction industry”, Journal Design + Built, Vol. 3, pp. 95-104.

Aneziris, O.N., Topali, E. and Papazoglou, I.A. (2012), “Occupational risk of building construction”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 105, pp. 36-46.

Awwad, R., El Souki, O. and Jabbour, M. (2016), “Construction safety practices and challenges in a Middle Eastern developing country”, Safety Science, Vol. 83, pp. 1-11.

Ayob, A., Shaari, A.A., Zaki, M.F.M. and Munaaim, M.A.C. (2018), “Fatal occupational injuries in the Malaysian construction sector–causes and accidental agents”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing, Vol. 140 No. 1, p. 012095.

Bakar, H. (2018), Occupational and Commuting Accidents in Malaysia: Protection and Prevention, NCOSH Seminar2018, Sherwood Gateway Hotel, Bangi, available at: http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/competent-person-form/occupational-health/dosh-event/3100-1-statistik-kemalangan-penyakit-pekerjaan-perkeso-di-sektor-pks-dan-impak-kepada-negara/file (accesesd November 2015).

Bennett, P., Rooney, A., Walpole, G. and Whiting, R. (2018), Work at Height: 4 Experts on How to Reduce Accidents, Retrieved from CIOB available at: http://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/opinion/work-height-4-experts-how-reduce-accidents/.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2012), Fatal Occupational Injuries and Workers' Memorial Day. BLS 2010 Survey of Occupational Injuries, Illness and Fatalities, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC, available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif/ (accesesd 25 April 12).

Chi, C.F., Chang, T.C. and Ting, H.I. (2005), “Accident patterns and prevention measures for fatal occupational falls in the construction industry”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 391-400.

Chong, H.Y. and Low, T.S. (2014), “Accidents in Malaysian construction sector: statistical data and court cases”, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 503-513.

CIDB (Construction Sector Development Board Malaysia (2018), Securing Improvement in the Health and Safety Performance of Malaysia's Construction Sector CIDB Technical Publication, CIDB Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Vol. 183, 978-967-0997-31-5.

CIDB Malaysia (2009), Construction Industry Standard: Guidelines on Prevention of Fall at Construction Site, CIDB Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Collins, R., Zhang, S., Kim, K. and Teizer, J. (2014), “Integration of safety risk factors in BIM for scaffolding construction”, Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014), pp. 307-314.

Construction Managers (2019), Scaffolding Contractors Report Spike in Accidents, available at: www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/news/scaffolding-contractors-report-spike-accidents/ (accessed 26 April 2019).

Czarnocka, E., Bojar, H., Szaniawska, K. and Czarnocki, K.J. (2020), “Worker visual concentration as risk factor of work on scaffolding”, Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health II, Vol. 277, p. 93.

Dogan, E., Yurdusev, M.A., Yildizel, S.A. and Calis, G. (2021), “Investigation of scaffolding accident in a construction site: a case study analysis”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 120, p. 105108.

Eurostat (Statistics Explained (2019), Accidents at Work - Statistics on Causes and Circumstances, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Accidents_at_work_-_statistics_on_causes_and_circumstances#Cause_of_accident (accessed 26 November 2019).

Global Construction Review (2021), Under-construction School Collapse Kills Five Workers in Antwerp, available at: https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/under-construction-school-collapse-kills-five-work/ (accessed 21 June 2021).

Goetsch, D. (2013), Construction Safety and Health, 2nd ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NJ.

Gürcanli, G.E. and Müngen, U. (2013), “Analysis of construction accidents in Turkey and responsible parties”, Industrial Health, Vol. 53, pp. 2012-0139.

Halperin, K. and McCann, M. (2004), “An evaluation of scaffold safety at construction sites”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 35, pp. 141-150.

Hamdan, N. and Awang, H. (2015), “Safety scaffolding in the construction site”, Jurnal Teknologi, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 26-31.

Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. and Duff, A.R. (2005), “Contributing factors in construction accidents”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 401-415.

Heckmann, J.V. (1995), Analysis of Accidents Related to Scaffolding and Floor/Wall Openings, University of Washington, Washington.

Howarth, T. and Watson, P. (2009), Construction Safety Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Hoła, A., Sawicki, M. and Szóstak, M. (2018), “Methodology of classifying the causes of occupational accidents involving construction scaffolding using Pareto-Lorenz analysis”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 48.

HSE (Health and Safety Executive (2019b), Costs to Britain of Workplace Fatalities and Self Reported Injuries and Ill Health, available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/cost.htm (accessed 27 November 2019).

ILO (International Labour Office (1992), Safety and Health in Construction: an ILO Code of Practice, International Labour Office, International Labour Organization, Geneva, 92-2-107104-9, 1992/Code of practice/,/Occupational safety/,/Occupational health/,/Construction sector/. 08.10.1.

Ismail, H.B. and Ab Ghani, K.D. (2012), “Potential hazards at the construction workplace due to temporary structures”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 49, pp. 168-174.

Keng and Abdul Razak (2014), “Case studies on the safety management at construction site”, Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 90-108.

Lee, B.H.C., Chen, J.C. and Fo, K.W. (2018), “Accidents in construction sites: a study on the causes and preventive approaches to mitigate accident rate”, INTI Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3.

López, M.A.C., Ritzel, D.O., Fontaneda, I. and Alcantara, O.J.G. (2008), “Construction sector accidents in Spain”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 497-507.

Lucas, G. (2018), “Why the HSE is tackling construction workers' lung health”, Construction Manager, available at: http://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/news/why-hse-tackling-construction-workers-lung-health/ (accessed 17 October 2018).

Nadhim, E., Hon, C., Xia, B., Stewart, I. and Fang, D. (2016), “Falls from height in the construction industry: a critical review of the scientific literature”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 13 No. 7, p. 638, doi: 10.3390/ijerph13070638.

Oladiran, O.J., Ogunsanmi, O.E. and Soyingbe, A.A. (2008), “Control measures of accident: Nigerian building projects' case”, Proceedings of CIB-2008-Transformation through Construction, pp. 15-17.

Olanrewaju, A.L. and Abdul-Aziz, A.R. (2015), Building Maintenance Processes and Practices: the Case of a Fast-Developing Country, Springer.

Olanrewaju, A.L. and Idrus, A. (2020), “What is determining affordable housing shortages in the Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia?”, Property Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-81, doi: 10.1108/PM-05-2019-0025.

Olanrewaju, A., Law, X.X. and Preece, N.C. (2021), in El Baradei, S., Abodonya, A., Singh, A. and Yazdani, S. (Eds), “Evaluation of scaffold accidents during building maintenance works”, Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 2021, Interdisciplinary Civil and Construction Engineering Projects, available at: www.doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.2021.812644-108X.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2019), Scaffolding: Construction, available at: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/scaffolding/construction.html (accessed 28 November 2019).

OSHD (The Occupational Safety and Health Division (2017), Annual Report 2017 Safe and Healthy Workplaces: Global Vision for Prevention, available at: https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safety-and-health (accessed 26 November 2019).

Pieńko, M., Robak, A., Błazik-Borowa, E. and Szer, J. (2018), “Safety conditions analysis of scaffolding on construction sites”, International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 93-98.

Research and Markets (2020), World Construction Sector Size and Forecast to 2023 - Continuous Major Economic Growth in Various Developed and Emerging Markets Drives the Sector, available at: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/.

Rubio-Romero, J.C., Suárez-Cebador, M., Pardo-Ferreira, M.D.C., la Varga-Salto, D., María, J. and Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A. (2019), “Does Europe need an EU Product safety directive for access scaffolding?”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 103.

Sawacha, E., Naoum, S. and Fong, D. (1999), “Factors affecting safety performance on construction sites”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 309-315.

Schilling, R.D. (2013), Global Construction Expected to Increase by $4.8 Trillion by 2020, available at: https://www.sectortap.com/global-construction-expected-to-increase-by-4-8-trillion-by-2020/1483.

Social Security Organization Annual Report (2012–2016), Kuala Lumpur: PERKESO, available at: https://www.perkeso.gov.my/index.php/en/laporan/number-of-accidents.

Social Security Organization Annual Report (2018), Kuala Lumpur: PERKESO, available at: www.perkeso.gov.my.

Szóstak, M., Hoła, B. and Bogusławski, P. (2021), “Identification of accident scenarios involving scaffolding”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 126, 103690.

The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (2015), Revised Position Statement, Jan 2015 Prevention of Collapse of Part A: Scaffolding and Part B: Falsework.

Ulang, N.M., Salim, N.S., Baharum, F. and Salim, N.A. (2014), “Construction site workers' awareness on using safety equipment: case study”, MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 15, p. 01023, EDP Sciences.

Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, X., Chen, X. and Zhou, T. (2020), “Developing optimal scaffolding erection through the integration of lean and work posture analysis”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 2109-2133, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2019-0193.

Williams, O.S., Hamid, R.A. and Misnan, M.S. (2017), “Analysis of fatal building construction accidents: cases and causes”, Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST), Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. 8030-8040.

Winge, S. and Albrechtsen, E. (2018), “Accident types and barrier failures in the construction sector”, Safety Science, Vol. 105, pp. 158-166.

Zhou, Z., Goh, Y.M. and Li, Q. (2015), “Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the construction sector”, Safety Science, Vol. 72, pp. 337-350.

Further reading

CIBD Construction Sector Development Board Malaysia (2017), “Safe use of scaffolding in construction”, CIS, Vol. 22, p. 2017 1st ed., available at: http://www.cidb.gov.my/index.php/en/construction-info/standards (accessed 21 November 2019).

CIOB Chartered Institute of Building (2006), Occupational Stress in the Construction Sector Survey 2006, The Chartered Institute of Building, Berkshire.

Corresponding author

AbdulLateef Olanrewaju can be contacted at: olanrewaju20002000@gmail.com