4.7 Article

Risk-based management of occupational safety and health in the construction industry - Part 2: Quantitative model

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 184-194

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.003

关键词

Occupational safety and health; Quantitative risk assessment; Construction industry; Monte Carlo Simulation

资金

  1. ICIST-IST Research Institute
  2. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
  3. Fulbright Commission
  4. Portuguese National Science Foundation [SFRH/BD/35925/2007, SFRH/BD/39923/2007]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/35925/2007, SFRH/BD/39923/2007] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the last decades, there has been a growing awareness about occupational safety and health risks by the various interested parties in the construction industry. However, despite the substantial improvements achieved, the rate of accidents is still significantly higher than in most of the other industries. Two major reasons have been used to explain this high rate of accidents in the construction industry: (i) the intrinsic riskiness due to the nature of the activities and the particular characteristics of constructions projects and organizations; and (ii) the financial and economic issues regarding the implementation of additional safety measures in a growing competitive market. This companion paper is presented in two parts. The present document refers to Part 2 and makes use of the background knowledge and existing initiatives reviewed in Part 1 to propose and detail the Occupational Safety and Health Potential Risk Model (OSH-PRM). The proposed model was conceived to assist in conducting cost-benefit analysis for occupational safety and health risk management. The OSH-PRM enables an enhanced management of the resources available to improve safety and health conditions in the various activities and for different groups of workers involved in the execution stage of a construction project. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据