A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Of Vulnerability Of Construction Project To Fall Accident

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Of Vulnerability Of Construction Project To Fall Accident

Rosmariani Arifuddin1, Akhmad Suraji2, Yusuf Latief3 & Yulianto S., Nugroho4

1Doctoral Program Student Civil Department Faculty of Engineering University of Indonesia

2Lecture, Civil Department Faculty of Engineering University of Andalas 3Professor, Civil Departement Faculty of Engineering University of Indonesia 4Professor, Mechanical Departement Faculty of Engineering University of Indonesia

Abstract

Fall accidents are a primary cause of construction injuries. Therefore, strategy to prevent fall accidents must be a priority to many parties. A comprehensive understanding on factors, which cause a construction project to be vulnerable to fall accidents and the causality relation of the factors, is required in determining an effective strategy to prevent fall accident. The objective of the paper is to test the conceptual model of the factors that cause vulnerability leading to fall accidents in construction project against empirical models. The model describes the structure of the causal relationship of factors that cause vulnerability leading to fall accidents in high- rise building construction project. The conceptual model was developed based on review of the relevant theory and research literature to support the model. The empirical model is conducted by analyzing of data from 100 respondent perception that a safety officer in construction projects. The paper utilizes the Confirmatory Factor Analysis/ CFA to analyze the a hypothetical model, that describes relationship 5 causes of vulnerability to fall accident include human factors, equipment factors, organizational factors, management factors and environmental factors.

Supported by empirical evidence, the study established that firstly, there are human factors, equipment factors, organization factors, management factors, and environment factors proven to be a cause of construction project vulnerability toward fall. This is shown by empirical model test result of the factors causing vulnerability of a project toward fall, which

gained a good fit with conceptual model, with Chi Square value 2.78, P-Value = 0.83644 ( 0.05), df = 6 (positive), RMSEA value = 0.000 ( 0.08), GFI value =

0.99 ( 0.90). Environmental factor is a very significant influencing factor on vulnerability level in which the lambda () = 0.36 ( 0.30), compared to equipment factor with lambda () = 0.16, organization factors lambda () = 0.03, human and management factors with lambda () = 0 10.

Keywords: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Vulnerability, Fall accident, and Construction project.

1. Introduction

   Statistic analysis in several countries concludes that risk of occupational accident in construction industry is significantly higher if compared to the average of all sectors (Kamardeen, 2009). In developing countries, the number of accidents in construction industry is much worse (Koehn, 1995). The construction industry is always risky because of outdoor operation, working at height, unskilled labor, and often working in dynamic and challenging, and complex environment (Hu 2009; Ismail, 2008).

   Falls are a significant public health risk and a leading cause of non-fatal and fatal injuries among construction workers worldwide (Hu et al, 2011). In the construction project, falls are the major sources of accidents resulting in fatalities (Joylene, 2009). Fall accident is the major sources of accidents resulting in fatalities (Huang et al., 2003). According to NBS (2000-2008)

   fall accident cases in China are still the highest type of accidents compared to other types of accidents (Zou, 2009). In Hongkong, 47% of fatal accidents happened due to fall accidents (Chan, 2008). In America (1996 2006), fall accidents in building projects reached 32% of accidents that commonly ended with death (Dong et al., 2009). According to Ardan (2005), fall accident from the high-rise building projects is the highest accidents happened in Indonesia. In Taiwan, more than 30% accidents in building projects are fall (Chi, 1997). Sixty-nine percent of fall were from buildings project happened in New Zealand (Buckley, 1996)

   Besides the impact on the quality of life, lost work time, falls is the most costly occupational hazard in many countries (Gavious et al. , 2009). Courtney (2001) concluded that annual cost caused by fall accident drop to six billion dollar in the US and total of maintenance cost from fall accidents drop to eleven billion dollar in 2004 (Meerding, 2005).

   Statistic based on the number of fall accident and the impact caused, an effort to prevent fall accident is an important priority in increasing the occupational safety level in construction industry (Chie, 2004; Bentley, 2006; Lehtola, 2008). Knowledge about factor causing fall accident and a comprehensive understanding various of circumstances is relevant to understand the factors contributing to construction fall accident and translating that understanding into recommendations for fall prevention (Martin, 2009; Hsiao and Simeonova, 2001).

   David Hume in Nugraheni (2008) concluded that causality concept of factors causing the accidents is multi factors and complex. A workplace accident can be caused by a single factor or several factors that interact and contribute (Abdelhamid and Everett, 2000). Many studies have been conducted to measure different factors contributing to the risk of falls, different information sources, different methods approaches and tools application. Hu (2011) has structured the factors contributing to fall by reviewing 563 articles about the fall in the last 10 years in some countries. Unfortunately, yet there are few studied empirically examines the interactions and causal relationship between the causes vulnerability leading to fall accidents . In order to explain accident causality, this study provides a greater understanding of the interaction between the cause vulnerability leading to fall accidents.

2. Fall Accident Causation

   An Accident can be defined as something that is unplanned, uncontrollable, and unwanted, which disrupt the formal functions of a person or persons and causes injury or near miss (Hinze, 1997) or an unplanned, uncontrollable events that can cause or generate injuries on workers, damage on equipments and other loss (Rowlinson, 2003).

   An Accident in construction project resulting in physical injuries and fatalities can be broadly categorized into the following eight basic groups (Hinze, 2005; Haslam et al 2005 in Imriyas (2009): (i) falling from height, (ii) Struct by falling object/ moving vehicles, (iii) excavation-related accidents, (iv) operations of machinery/ tools related accidents, (v) electrocutions, (vi) fire/ explosion, (vii) failure of temporary structure, and (viii) others.

   An accident fall is defined as an event in which a person coming to rest unintentionally on the ground or other lower level, not by the result of a major intrinsic event such as (stroke) or overwhelming hazard (Tinetti, 1988 in Joylene, 2009)

   Fall accident consists of 2 types, which are (i) falling from height, for example: fall from groundwork, fall from ladder, slipped from ladder. (ii) fall from elevation, for example, falling by slipping, tripped, or fall to the ground or floor/lower level (Joylene, 2009). Hinze (2002) the kinds of fall accident on building is categorized by its type, that is: i) fall from elevation, ii) fall from platform, iii) fall from ladder, iv) fall from piled matter, fall from stairs, v) fall into openings, vi) fall from roof, vii) fll to lower level. According to a record by PT. Jamsostek (2007-2010), fall accidents on building projects in Indonesia are (i) fall from scaffolding, (ii) fall from ladder, and (iii) fall from structure. The type of work that dominates the cause of a worker to get an accident is scaffolding installation work and finishing work (Latief, 2011). Knowledge regarding extrinsic and intrinsic factors toward fall accident highly contributes to occupational safety planning for the workers. (Gauchard, G., 2001). Bentle (2009) concludes the factors causing occupational work was influenced by extrinsic factors or latent factors, which consist of design factors, organization factors, and environmental factors. Moreover, the Bentles model was used by Ware (2009), which using research in Nasa Construction Industry, which concluded that the factors causing fall accident are multifactor and extremely complex. Significant factors that cause the risk to fall are Task Related Factor, Human/Personal Factor, Environment Factors and organizational factors.

   Personal factor or human factor is more dominant in causing fall accidents if compared to non-personal factor including equipment factor, organization factor, and management factor (Latief, 2011). Arifuddin (2012) conclude the vulnerability of construction in process leading to fall is caused by five factors including human factors, equipment factors, organization factors, management factors and environment factors.

   1. Human factor are aspects that can be observed through some of the conditions from human behaviors that can trigger the vulnerability causes of fall accidents such as lack of awareness of the use of PPE and methods (Hu, 2011; Joylene 2009; Tam, 2004; Suraji, 2001), poor safety conscientiousness of workers (Tam, 2004, Toole, 2002) , low education level of workers (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam, 2004), lack the experience of workers (Hu, 2011; Joylene 2009; Aksorn and Hadikusumo, 2007), Excessive overtime work for labor (Higa and Kim, 2013; David 1983 ) and lack of health and physical characteristics of workers (Hu, 2011)

   2. Equipment factor includes a vulnerable condition such as lack of safety equipment specifications (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam, 2004; Toole, 2002; Suraji, 2001;), lack of inspection and maintenance on equipment (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam 2004) and no permit operation of the equipment (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam 2004).

   3. Organization factors are factors that describe the conditions that led to a vulnerability to the accident falls such as lack of organizational commitment (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam, 2004) and lack of strict regulatory penalties and no/low reward (Aksorn and Hadikusumo, 2007).

   4. Management factors are factors that describe the conditions that led to a vulnerability to the accident falls such as low/no safety program and standard (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam, 2004), Low/no safety training and education (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Toole, 2002; Tam, 2004), lack of strict operational procedures and planning (Suraji, 2001; Tam; 2004; Toole, 2002), poor standards of safety contracts (Zou and Zhang, 2009), less / no supervision and monitoring safety (Zou and Zhang, 2009), less / no budget safety (Atkinson, 1998) and less / no safety communication (Tam, 2004).

   5. Environment factor are factors that describe the conditions that led to a vulnerability to the accident falls such as poor working surfaces and

   platforms (Hu, 2011; Joylene 2009; Tideikssar, R., 1996), lack of lighting systems (Joylene 2009; Zou and Zhang, 2009; Atkinson, 1998;); and severe weather (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Atkinson, 1998).

3. Vulnerability of Construction Project

   The Building project is one of the construction project in the construction process is a complex process and requires coordination from various types of skill and technology; a difficult situation, a complex activity, and most of its activities are carried out in altitude. Therefore, this will lead to the vulnerability of building construction toward accidents (Asiyanto, 2005). Work- related falls from heights remain a significant problem for workers in industry. An occupational accident event is always preceded by preceding events that urge the event to happen, that causes a system to be vulnerable toward occupational work. The term vulnerability is used to explain the system characteristic where vulnerability shows how far the project vulnerable toward bad influence from a change (Fidan, 2008; Brooks, 2003). Project vulnerability already exists before risk event, but vulnerability will not be significant until the risk event happens (Zhang, 2007). According to Ezell (2007) in Fidan (2008), the understanding of risk and the understanding of vulnerability are often confusing and they are often considered as the same thing. According Fidan (2007), vulnerability is very much depended on the endurance that shows the ability to receive or reject expected change. Meanwhile, the risk is impact/loss emerged and this risk is depended on the three elements, they are danger, vulnerability, and exposure (Chrichton, 1999). According to Agarwal and Blockey (2007), risk is the result of combination of danger and vulnerability.

   Reducing vulnerability is one important method in managing risk, but reducing risk impact is not related with reducing systems vulnerability. Risk response strategy that developed through an approach based on risk will be enough to cover the cost of extreme event, although the success of this application is not depended on vulnerability reduction (Agarwal and Blockery, 2007).

   Turner (2003) in Fidan (2008) has described the relation between the root of the problem, vulnerability, danger and disaster in a construction project. Presure-And- Release/ PAR Model describes that, a disaster happens due to the appearance of danger. This danger is heavily triggered by vulnerability condition, which appear due to the existence of root of the problem that later will

   evoke pressure and cause unsafe conditions. In addition, if the vulnerability condition is combined with danger, then a disaster will happen and cause risk/loss (Turner et al, 2003).

4. A Confirmatory Factors Analysis (CFA)

After Confirmatory Factors Analysis (CFA) is one kind of Factors Analysis Method (FAM).

According to Joreskog and Sorborn (1993), CFA analysis is used to test uni-dimensional, validity, and reliability of construct measurement model that cannot be directly measured.

The purpose of CFA analysis is to confirm or to test a model namely the measurement model, where the measurement comes from a theory. CFA analysis study is focusing in two matters; they are (Hair, 2006):

1. Measuring accuracy and consistency of indicators that are conceptualized as uni-dimensional;

2. Determining indicators that are dominantly shape the studied construct.

Several testing index to identify the proposed model

against a baseline model. The recommended value to be accepted is 0.9. If a value is closer to 1, it indicates that the value is a very good fit.

1. CFI (Comparative Fit Index) is known as Bentler Comparative Index. CFI is an incremental agreement index that also compares the tested model with null model. This index is considerably good in measuring the agreement of a model because it is not affected by the size of the sample

2. RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation). RMSEA is a measuring index, which is not affected by the size of the sample, therefore it is common to use this index to measure fit model in a large number of samples. RMSEA indicates goodness of fit, which is expected if the model is estimated within a population. RMSEA value 0.08 is the index of which it can be accepted as the model.

Therefore, based on the above discussion, the criteria can be summarized as follows:

Table 1. Indeks Goodness of Fit

Good of Fit Index Cut off Value

have met the criteria requiremets of a good

measurement model of structural equation, like: (Hair et al; 1998):

1. Degree of Freedom (df) must be positive

2. 2 (Chi-Square) and probability are a fundamental testing tools to measure overall fit, that is likelihood ratio of Chi Square statistic. If a model is considered good, then it must have Chi Square = 0, which means no difference. The recommended significant level of receiving is if p 0.05.

3. CMIN/DF (Normed Chi Square) or CMIN/DF is a measurement obtained from Chi Square divided by Degree of Freedom. The recommended value to achieve agreement of a model is CMIN/DF value 2.0 or 3.0.

4. Goodness of fit Index (GFI) is used to reflect the level of overall model agreement that calculated from model of quadratic residue predicted by comparing it with the actual data. Goodness of Fit Index value is normally range from 0 to 1. The larger the number of researchs sample, the larger the value of GFI. When a better score is closer to 1, it indicates that the tested model has better agreement. A good GFI value is 0.90.

5. Adjusted GFI (AGFI) stated that GFI is an analog of R2 (R square) in multiple regression. The recommended acceptance level is when the value 0.9.

6. Tuker-Lewis Index (TLI) is an alternative of

Incremental Fit Index that compares a tested model

Chi Square Expected to be small

Significance Probability 0.05

RMSEA 0.08

GFI 0.90

AGFI 0.90

CMIN/DF 0.90

TLI 0.90

CFI 0.95

1. The Conceptual Model

   The conceptual framework of this study was to test the conceptual model with the model empirical. Conceptual model was developed based on a literature review of theories and models of accident causation. The model describes the structure of the causal relationship of factors that cause vulnerability leading to fall accidents in high-rise building construction project. Concerning with vulnerability of construction project to fall accident, it is assumed that such fall accidents occur triggered by conditions of vulnerability in which the conditions of this vulnerability can be viewed from five aspects include human factors, equipment factors, organizational factors ad management factors. An

   illustration of the main factors of vulnerability leading to fall accidents can be seen in Fig. 1.

   Figure 1. Conceptual Model

   In this research, systems vulnerability is an endogenous variable while the other five variables are exogenous variable. The hypothetical model proposed based on literature review and deductive analysis of the factors that are commonly causing occupational accident, which is explained on the figure.

   Model tested using data and information obtained in the form of perception that is constructed from respondents knowledge and experience. Data collection instrument is questionnaire survey that involved 100 respondents as the information sources. The respondents are the parties (stakeholders) who are directly involved in construction project with > 5 years work experience in building construction project; they consists of safety officers, supervisors, and the labor who are randomly appointed and distributed in 30 building construction projects in Jakarta and its surrounding area.

   The respondents were asked to choose answers, which already prepared in the questionnaire, according to their own perception. The perception is built from the knowledge and the experience of the respondents regarding contribution level of each factor toward the vulnerability of construction project toward fall accidents. The answers were given in graded choice (Likert scale 1-5), starting from not at all, not enough, enough, more than enough, very much. Score 1 means no contribution, while score 5 means giving a lot of contribution toward vulnerability of building construction project toward fall accident.

   Data processing is using Confirmatory Factors Analysis (CFA) method. CFA Analysis is used to test hypothesis structure that has been conceptualized. The data adequacy as a learning process has also been fulfilled; with the total of (N) data is as much as 100 and the

   processed data 100 data. Data processing is carried

   out using Lisrel 8.54 software (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2003).

2. Finding and Discussion

   From the results of data processing, as shown in Table 2, a validity test at a significance

   level is obtained on all factors. except the The result of the reliability test obtained by Cronbachs Alpha is 0.713 and it is greater than the Alpha table which is

   0.279. Thus it can be said that the research data is valid and reliable enough to be used for further processing stages.

   Table 2. Data Testing Result

   Parameter Value Criteria

   Chi square	2.78	Good Fit
   DF	6	Good Fit
   P-Value	0.83644	Good Fit
   RMSEA	0.000	Good Fit
   GFI	0.99	Good Fit
   AGFI	0.97	Good Fit
   CMIN/DF	0.463	Marginal Fit
   TLI	1.50	Good Fit
   CFI	1	Good Fit

   The complete result of empiric model of the vulnerability factors measurement model against fall (FVi) can be seen on Figure 2.

   FVI

   FVI

   Figure 2. Measurement Model of Factors of Construction Project Vulnerability

   Based on the above analysis result, we can discuss the following Chi Square value as much as 2.78 with P- Value = 0.83644 ( 0.05), df = 6 (positive), RMSEA value = 0.000 ( 0.08). The GFI value = 0.99 ( 0.90) and according to Wijayanto (2008), when GFI value approaching 1, Results have shown that the conceptual model is good fit good with empirical models derived from data processing. It indicates that factors causing

   vulnerability leading to fall consists of human factors (Higa and Kim, 2013; Hu, 2011; Zou and Zhang, 2009; Joylene 2009; Aksorn and Hadikusumo, 2007; Tam, 2004; Toole, 2002; Suraji, 2001; David 1983), equipment factors (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Joylene 2009; Tam, 2004; Toole, 2002; Suraji, 2001),

   organization factors (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Joylene 2009; Aksorn and Hadikusumo, 2007; Tam, 2004), management factors (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam, 2004; Toole, 2002; Suraji, 2001; Atkinson, 1998) and environment factors (Hu, 2011; Zou and Zhang, 2009; Joylene 2009; Tam, 2004; Toole, 2002; Tideikssar, R.,

   1996)

   Based on loading factor () each five factors were analyzed with CFA has shown results that loading factor of environment factors (Xl) = 0.36; equipment factors (Xp) = 0,16; organization factors (Xo) = 0,03; management factors ((Xj) = 0,01 and human factors ((Xm) = 0,01.

   According to these result, environment factors was the most significant factors in measuring vulnerability level toward fall was environment factor ( = 0,36> 0,30 (Wijayanto, 2008). Environment factors are aspects that can be observed through some of the conditions from human behaviors that can trigger the vulnerability causes of fall accidents such as poor working surfaces and platforms (Hu, 2011; Joylene 2009; Tideikssar, R., 1996), lack of lighting systems (Joylene 2009; Zou and Zhang, 2009; Atkinson, 1998;); and severe weather (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Atkinson, 1998).

   The equipment factors was marginal significant factors () = 0,16 as a vulnerability causes lead to accidental falls. Equipment factor includes lack of safety equipment specifications (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam, 2004; Toole, 2002; Suraji, 2001;), lack of inspection and maintenance on equipment (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam 2004) and no permit operation of the equipment (Zou and Zhang, 2009; Tam2004).

3. Conclusion Remark

Based on the analysis and discussion, it can be concluded as follows:

1. From the final modeling results, it is vulnerability of construction in process leading to fall is caused by five factors including human factors,

   equipment factors, organization factors, management factors and environment.

2. Vurnerability of construction project in process leading to fall Environment factor is the most significant factor to the measurement of vulnerability leading to fall

3. CFA analysis result showed that Empirical Model of the factors causing the project vulnerability toward fall is considered a good fit with the conceptual model developed in the beginning.

REFERENCES

1. Abdulhamed, T. S. and John G. Everett (2000), Identifying Root Cause of Construction Accident, Journal of Construction Eng. And Management, ASCE, Jan-Feb 2000.

2. Agarwal J. and Blockley D.I. (2007), Structural integrity: hazard, vulnerability and risk, International Journal of Materials and Structural Integrity, vol. 1, no. 1-3, pp. 117127.

3. Arifuddin, R., Suraji, A.R Latief, Y., Nugroho, Y.S., Berawi, M. A., (2011), Strukturisasi Faktor dan Variabel Penyebab Kecelakaan Kerja Jatuh pada Proyek Konstruksi , Prosiding Seminar Nasional Konteks 5,

   Oktober 2011

4. Asiyanto, Manajemen Produksi untuk Jasa Konstruksi, Pradnya Paramita, 2005, Jakarta

5. Bentley, T. (2009). The role of latent and active failures in workplace slips, trips, and falls: An information processing approach, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 40, pgs.175-180.

6. Brooks, N. (2003), Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working Paper 38.

7. Chan, A.P.C., Wong, F.K.W., Chan, D.W.M., Yam, M.C.H., Kwok, A.W.K., Lam, E.W.M.& Cheung, E. (2008). Work at height fatalities in the repair, maintanance, alteration and addition works, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-ASCE, 134, 527-535.

8. Chi, C. F., & Wu, M.L. (1997). Fatal occuptional injuries in Taiwan-Relationship between fatality rate and age, Safety Sience, 27, 1-17.

9. Chua, D.K.H dan Y M Goh (2004) Incident Causation Model for Improving Feedback of Safety Knowledge. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, July/Aug 2004.

10. Courtney, T.K., Sorock, G.S., Manning, D.P., Collins,

    J.W. and Holbein-Jenny, M.A. (2001) Occupational slip, trip, and fall-related injuriescan the contribution of slipperiness be isolated? Ergonomics, 111837.

11. Crichton, D. 1999, The risk triangle, in Ingleton, J.

    (ed.), Natural Disaster Management, Tudor Rose.

12. Davies, C., V.J. FICE (1990). Construction Safety Handbook, London, Thomas Telford.

13. Dong, X.S., Fujimoto, A., Ringen, K. & Men, Y. (2009). Fatal fall among Hispanic construction workers. Accid Anal Prev, 41, 1047-52.

14. Fidan, G., (2008). A risk and vulnerability ontology for construction project, in Civil Engineering Department,

    Middle East Technical University East, Thesis

15. Gauchard, G., Chau, N., Mur, J.M. & Perrin, P. (2001). Falls and working individual : role of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Ergonomics, 44, 1330-1339

16. Gavious, A., Mizrahi, S., Shani, Y. & Minchuk, Y. (2009). The costs of industrial accidents for the organization : Developing methods and tools for evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of investment in safety. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 434-438.

17. Hinze, J., Huang, X. & McGlothlin, J. (2002). Review of fall accidents in construction. 10 th International symposium on construction. Florida: CRC press.

18. Hsiao, H. and Simeonov, P. (2001) Preventing falls from roofs: a critical review. Ergonomics, 44, 53761.

19. Hu, K., et. al., (2009) Factors Influencing Risk of Falls : A Review of Evidence in Construction, Proceeding of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference

20. Hu, K., et. al. (2011). Factors influencing the risk of falls in the construction, Construction Management and Economics, April 2011 p. 29 , 397416

21. Huang, X. et al, (2003). Analysis of construction worker fall accidents, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-ASCE, Vol. 129, pgs. 262-271.

22. Imriyas, K., Pheng, L.S. & Teo, E. A.-L. (2007). A fuzzy knowledge-based system for premium rating of workerscompensation insurance for building project. Construction Management and Economics, 25 1175- 1193

23. Ismail, A., A. M. Abd and Z. Chik (2008). Assessing and Managing Risk Environment for Construction Projects, International Conference on Construction Building Technology, 165-172

24. J.E. Martín et. al. (2009). A Bayesian network analysis of workplace accidents caused by falls from a height.

    Safety Science 47, 206-214

25. Joreskog KG and Sorbom D. (2003) LISREL 8: User's reference guide (Scientific Software International,Chicago, IL).

26. Joseph F. Hair, William C. B., Barry J.B., dan Rolph E.A., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis (Seventh Edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

27. Joylene, W., (2009). A Systematic analysis to identify, mitigate, quantify, and measure risk factors contributing to falls in Nasa Ground Support Operations, Disertation, Chemical Engineering, Florida State

    University

28. Koehn, Enno et. al. (1995) Safety in Developing Countries: Professional and Bureaucratic Problems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

    September 1995 p. 261 265

29. Latief, Y., Nugroho, Y.S., Suraji, A., Arifuddin, R. (2011), The Nature of Fall Accident in Construction Projects : A Case of Indonesia , International Journal of Civil Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol : 11 No: 05, October 2011

30. Lipscomb, H.J., Glazner, J.E., Bondy, J., Guarini, K. & Lezotte, D. (2006). Injuries from slips and trips in construction. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 267-274.

31. M., Ardan, (2005). Identifikasi dan Analisis Kecelakaan Kerja Fatal Proyek Konstruksi Gedung di Indonesia, Thesis, ITB.

32. Meerding, W.J., Mulder, S. and van Beeck, E.F. (2006) Incidence and costs of injuries in The Netherlands. European Journal of Public Health, 16(3), 2717.

33. Patrick X. W. Zou and Guomin., Z (2009). Comparative Study on the Perception of Construction Safety Risks in China and Australia. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, July 2009, 621, 620-627

34. Rowlinson, S., (2003). Hong Kong Construction : Safety Management and Law, second ed. Sweet and Maxwell Asia, Hong Kong

35. Sean M. Buckley, S, M., Chalmers, D. J. and Langley J, D., (1996). Falls from buildings and other fixed structures New Zealand. Safety Science, 21, 247-254

36. Suraji, A., (2001). Development of Causal Model of Construction Accident Causation, Journal of Construction Eng. and Management, ASCE, July- August.

37. Suraji, Akhmad dan A. Roy Duff (2000). Constraint- Response Theory of Construction Accident Causation. The International Conference on Designing for Safety,

    ECI/CIB/HSE, London

38. S. H. Wijanto (2008), Structural Equation Modeling Dengan Lisrel 8.8, Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu

39. Turner II B.L., Matson P., McCarthy J.J., Corell R.W., Christensen L., Eckley N., Hovelsrud-Broda G., Kasperson J.X., Kasperson R.E., Luers A., Martello S., Mathiesen M.L., Naylor R., Polsky C., Pulsipher A. and Schiller A. 2003, A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 80748079.

40. Zhang, H. 2007, A redefinition of the project risk process: using vulnerability to open up the event- consequence link, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 25, 694701.