Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Brief-Essay-On-Socio-Cultural-Factors 👈

1. ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE
BUILT TO THRIVE: CREATING BUILDINGS AND CITIES
THAT SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING AND
RACV NOOSA RESORT, NOOSA QLD, AUSTRALIA

2. © Copyright lies with the Authors, 2019.
All Rights Reserved.
No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without written permission from the individual authors.
Papers submitted to this conference have been peer reviewed before final acceptance to the
conference. This process entailed detailed reading of the abstracts and papers, reporting of
comments to authors, modification of papers by authors whose papers were not rejected by the
reviewers, and re-evaluation of revised papers to ensure quality of content.
Conference Proceedings
Published by: Central Queensland University
Bruce Highway, North Rockhampton, Qld 4702, Australia
ISBN: 978-1-921047-51-0

3. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 43RD
AUSTRALASIAN
UNIVERSITIES BUILDING EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION (AUBEA) CONFERENCE
6 – 8 November 2019, Noosa QLD, Australia
Editors
Xianbo Zhao, Pushpitha Kalutara, Ronald Webber
Central Queensland University, Australia

4. 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 5
Sponsors 6
Conference committee 7
Development of a domestic market for construction and demolition waste in Australia 8
Salman Shooshtarian, Tayyab Maqsood, Malik Khalfan, Peter Wong and Rebecca Yang
Green construction and construction and demolition waste management in Australia 18
Salman Shooshtarian, Tayyab Maqsood, Peter Wong, Malik Khalfan and Rebecca Yang
Public-Private Partnership for affordable housing delivery in Ghana: Experience of the Ghana 26
national housing project and policy implications
Robert Osei-Kyei, Albert P.C. Chan, De-Graft Owusu-Manu, Michael Adabre Atafo and Ernest
Effah Ameyaw
A viewpoint on socio-cultural factors and building safety in the construction sector 40
Festival Godwin Boateng
A conceptual inquiry into building collapse in cities in developing countries 48
Festival Godwin Boateng and Renee Wright
Small-sized contractor’s capacity and competitiveness: Indonesia case for road rehabilitation 62
projects
Muhamad Abduh, Adhi Prabowo and Fauziah Maisarah
Influencing factors in extension of time claims 70
Nahiyan Al-Azad, Wallace Imoudu Enegbuma, Jibril Adewale Bamgbade and Chukwuka
Christian Ohueri
Rework root causes classification throughout a project life cycle from design to construction 86
based in New Zealand
Ramin Asadi, Suzanne Wilkinson and James Rotimi
An investigation into higher suicide rate in Australian construction industry- critical review 99
study
Michael Bowles, Pushpitha Kalutara, Darryl O'Brien, Peter Lawrence and Phillip Harrison
The development of a process map for supply chain relationships in the prefabrication 112
subsector of construction
Ehsan Bakhtiarizadeh, Wajiha Shahzad and James Rotimi
Position of women in Australian construction industry 124
Beatrix King, Pushpitha Kalutara, Darryl O'Brien, Ronald Webber, Stephen Poulter and
Hayden Cassar.

5. 5
Analysing the relationship between construction employees’ mindset behaviour and project 133
performance
De-Graft Owusu-Manu, Prosper Babon-Ayeng, Frank Ato Ghansah, Caleb Debrah, Frank
Boateng and David John Edwards
Case studies of contrasting traditional and innovative building approaches for aged care 144
facilities
Rami Mezher and Mary Hardie
Assessment of defects and disputes in residential buildings 160
Vidal Paton-Cole
VfM assessment of transport PPPs: implications for future improvement 170
Jianfeng Zhao, Henry Liu, Michael Sing, Xiaohua Jin and Richard Humphrey.
Student perceptions of project management postgraduate education in an Australian university 181
Shirley Boon and Samer Skaik
Measuring the effectiveness of project scheduling training provided to managers of road 194
infrastructure projects in Queensland
Christopher Burgess and Samer Skaik
A systematic approach to group-based assessment in project management education: 207
CQUniversity case study
Samer Skaik and Roksana Tumpa
Critical success factors of public private partnerships (PPPs) in New Zealand 223
Nasir Rasheed, Cresencio Tejano, Wajiha Shahzad and James Rotimi
Perspective: Sustainable solution to the consequence of mining industry. Recycling mining 233
waste materials to lightweight green building materials
Boon Ng, Ee Ling Yong, Farzaneh Tahmoorian, Hana Speering and Ronald Webber
A review of leadership styles and innovation and their impact on productivity 246
Hossein Sadeghzadeh Fasaghandis and Suzanne Wilkinson
Are construction managers practising a profession, occupation or trade? 255
Ronald Webber and Gesa Ruge
How knowledge from innovation competitions can advance sustainable innovation targets in 269
architectural design competitions
Christopher Jensen
Modular construction in Adelaide's residential construction sector. What factors influence its 278
use?
Edward Smart, Jacob Grieger, Dang To, Aviraj Baryah, Robert Freda and Ki Kim

6. 6
Enhancing transnational knowledge transfer: the context of cross-border and local firms in 286
private real estate collaborations in Sub-Saharan Africa
Ndlovu Pride and David Root
Collaboration in the New Zealand commercial construction sector – a case study of a medium 299
sized company
Maria Zaiat, Neil Laing and Linda Kestle
Causes of variations and their impacts upon construction projects in China 311
Tony Ma and An Shu
Review of the effects of condensation in low-rise residential buildings 321
Tom Bulic, Vidal Paton-Cole and Bircan Erbas
The role of Industry 4.0 in construction health and safety (h&s) 331
James Beale and John Smallwood
Critical risk factors in pricing of construction resources of SME construction firms in Ghana 341
Ernest Kissi, Peter Amoah, Divine Kwaku Ahadzie and Caleb Debrah
Partnership pedagogy pathways for the fire protection industry into mainstream post-graduate 351
programs.
Grahame Douglas and Swapan Saha
Teaching building measurement principles to suit the transforming construction industry 361
Sepani Senaratne and M.N.N. Rodrigo
Investigating the root-cause of legal disputes over defective construction 370
Zhaorong Wu, Payam Zekavat, Sungkon Moon, Liyaning Tang and Sherif Mostafa
BIM applications to leveraging lean principles in modern construction 376
Sandi Gozali, Payam Zekavat, Sungkon Moon, Liyaning Tang and Sherif Mostafa
Work readiness of project management graduates working in construction: a study of employer 384
perspectives
Jessica Borg and Christina Scott-Young
A review of construction waste data and reporting systems used in Australia 396
Shiyamini Ratnasabapathy, Srinath Perera and Ali Alashwal
A cost benefit analysis of retrofitting public policies on Atlanta residential housing 406
Arezoo Shirazi, Ali Bozorgi and Baabak Ashuri
A literature review of waste prediction models in construction projects 414
Ali Alashwal
Supply chain of prefabricated housing construction: a case study of New Zealand 426
Nishadi Sooriyamudalige, Niluka Domingo, Paul Childerhouse and Wajiha Shahzad

7. 7
‘BLT’ is not a sandwich: learning & teaching emerging building procurement methods; 434
Australian, Asian and European perspectives
Guillermo Aranda-Mena and Paulo Vaz-Serra
Exploring the levels of compliance to universal access parameters at South African higher 444
educational institutions: Experiences at Doornfontein Campus of the University of
Johannesburg
Nischolan Pillay and Trynos Gumbo
Conceptual framework to address the employer-caused delay factors: a case study 455
Mohammad Barqawi, Heap-Yih Chong and Emil Jonescu
Towards achieving sustainable housing in Nigeria: the option of prefabrication 467
Igbayemi Daniel Akeremale, Patrick Tang and Willy Sher
Understanding the emotional intelligence of project managers working within the Australian 475
mining industry
Mark Brennan, Samer Skaik and Ziyad Abunada
A performance-based building code on statutory maintenance; exploring the policy for 489
consumer safety in Australia
Stephen Scimonello, Anona Armstrong and Himanshu Shee
Sustainable procurement of construction professionals and project outcome drivers 504
Terence Lam
Design thinking for the built environment: a case study of a first-year undergraduate unit 514
Sara Omrani, Holly Russell, Robin Drogemuller and Vaughan Coffey
An investigation into the terms of inclusion for surrounding neighbours of residential gated 525
communities – a case of Palm Lakes Estate, Tinley Manor, Kwa-Zulu Natal.
Letsoko Vuyiswa and Pillay Nischolan
Industry 4.0 and its impact on skills development on built environment professionals. 538
Letsoko Vuyiswa and Pillay Nischolan
Coworking: the new design of workplaces 547
Dulani Halvitigala, Hera Antoniades and Chris Eves
The potential of using BIM to improve the safety of temporary structures on construction sites 556
Jacob Terris and Madhav Nepal
Rule-based automated design check for modular building 563
Yanhui Sun, Jeremy Wu, Jingyuan Fan, Jun Wang and Xiangyu Wang
Investigating the influence factors of carbon emissions of the U.S. road transport sector: a 571
research agenda

8. 8
Peng Wu and Josua Pienaar
Conceptual model on estimating embodied carbon in construction supply chains using value 578
chain and blockchain
M.N.N. Rodrigo, Srinath Perera, Sepani Senaratne and Xiaohua Jin
Urban transformation trajectories of New Zealand’s earliest cities undergoing decline: 591
identifying links to the newly enforced Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment
Act 2016
Itohan Esther Aigwi, Robyn Phipps, Jason Ingham and Olga Filippova
Key solutions for construction and demolition (C&D) waste management in NSW, Australia 612
Peter Davis, Laura Simon, Willy Sher, Patrick Tang and Mohammad Tanvi Newaz
Factors limiting performance of the construction industry: a New Zealand perspective 629
James Rotimi, Israr Wahid and Wajiha Shahzad
Is a death the key for policy change in NSW construction? 638
John Smolders and Will Sher
The current state of productivity in the NZ construction industry 648
Stephan van de Linde and Linda Kestle
Blockchain technology and its potential for the construction industry 622
Samudaya Nanayakkara, Srinath Perera, H.M.N. Dilum Bandara, G. Thilini Weerasuriya and
Jason Ayoub
Architectural design for town planners – lessons learnt at the University of Johannesburg 673
Trynos Gumbo and Nischolan Pillay
Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of BIM adoption in the Australian AEC industry 684
Shadi Batarseh, Imriyas Kamardeen and Mohammad Mojtahedi
Evaluation of green building research in 2015-2019 694
Xianbo Zhao and Josua Pienaar
Public-private partnership in the context of smart cities: review of contemporary literature 704
Tuan Son Nguyen, Tingting Liu, Sherif Mohamed and Sherif Mostafa
An overview challenges of BIM and lean construction implementation in New Zealand 714
construction industry
Ayuba Jerry Likita and Mostafa Babaeian Jelodar
Achieving integrated sustainability through work stress reduction with biophilic office design 724
Abdul-Manan Sadick and Imriyas Kamardeen
The housing affordability problem among young households in Johannesburg, South Africa 733
Kolawole Ijasan, Kudzai Mawoyo and Ese Ijasan

9. 9
PREFACE
The Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA), a membership-
based non-profit organisation, was established in 1975 to promote and improve teaching
and research in building through communication and collaboration. It comprises of
academics representing all universities throughout Australasia which provide education in
building-related fields in Australasia and beyond. AUBEA maintains a strong connection
to industry and professional associations, and since its inception has organised annual
conferences. The annual conference brings together building and construction researchers,
educators, students, and industry from Australasia and other regions, and provides them
with a strong platform for knowledge sharing, collaboration, disciplinary reflections,
institutional exchange, and collective growth.
The 43rd
Australasian University Building Educators Association Conference (AUBEA
2019) is held in Noosa, Australia from 6 to 8 November 2019, under the auspices of Central
Queensland University. The conference theme is ‘Built to Thrive: creating buildings and
cities that support individual well-being and community prosperity’. The theme explores
various facets of creating built environment enhancing community satisfaction and social
innovation. Various facets are captured through five sub-themes: ‘People and Skills’,
‘Theories and Principles’, ‘Learning and Teaching’, ‘Processes and Economics’ and
‘Regulations and
Policies’.
To maintain and assure the quality of the conference proceedings, each abstract received
was reviewed. The authors received anonymous reviewers’ comments on their abstracts
and were invited to submit their initial full papers. All the full papers have been peer
reviewed with anonymous reviewers’ comments before final acceptance to the conference.
The accepted papers are included in the conference presentation programme and the
proceedings.
SPONSORS
The AUBEA 2019 Conference would like to thank each of these organisations for their
generous contribution:

10. 10
Lunch Sponsors
Exhibition Sponsors
AUBEA Member University Sponsors
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
AUBEA Chair
Josua Pienaar, Central Queensland University
Conference Chair
Ronald Webber, Central Queensland University
Organising Committee
Ronald Webber, Central Queensland University

11. 11
Xianbo Zhao, Central Queensland University
Pushpitha Kalutara, Central Queensland University
Peter Lawrence, Central Queensland University
Stephanie Keedy, Central Queensland University
Kevin Stone, Central Queensland University
Neda Abbasi, Central Queensland University
Gina Jing, Central Queensland University
Stephanie Gatt, Central Queensland University
Nicole Puglisi, Central Queensland University
Gillian Hehir, Central Queensland University
Scientific Committee
Xianbo Zhao (Chair), Central Queensland University
Bo Xia, Queensland University of Technology
Craig Langston, Bond University
Jian Zuo, The University of Adelaide
Kerry London, Western Sydney University
Linda Kestle, Unitec Institute of Technology
Monty Sutrisna, Massey University
Ming Shan, Central South University
Peng Wu, Curtin University
Peter Smith, University of Technology Sydney
Pushpitha Kalutara, Central Queensland University
Rameez Rameezdeen, University of South Australia
Robin Drogemuller, Queensland University of Technology
Ron Wakefield, RMIT University
Ronald Webber, Central Queensland University
Sui Pheng Low, National University of Singapore
Suzanne Wilkinson, Massey University
Valerie Francis, The University of Melbourne
Willy Sher, The University of Newcastle
Wilson W.S. Lu, The University of Hong Kong
Xiaopeng Deng, Southeast University
Yingbin Feng, Western Sydney University
Yongjian Ke, University of Technology Sydney

12. 12
A BRIEF ESSAY ON SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS AND BUILDING
SAFETY IN THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR
Festival Godwin Boateng1
1
School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Current level of knowledge on the impact of socio-cultural factors on building collapses in the
construction sector is limited. Such phenomena are studied mainly as ‘engineering’ problems.
Encouragingly, today, there is a growing momentum towards a socio-cultural approach to safety in the
sector. The approach, however, focuses only on health and safety management concerns in the context
of physical construction. Little or no attention is given to accidents caused by built structures. This
essay argues that the principles of health and safety in the construction sector apply to not only those
who are engaged in work; they also apply to those who are placed at risk by work activities, including
members of the public. Therefore, limiting the impact of socio-cultural factors on safety in the sector
to only worker safety obscures the impact of the factors on another vantage area of safety in the sector:
the dangers posed by completed structures such as buildings to public health. The essay argues that a
sociocultural grounding for building safety/accidents in the construction sector is warranted. A socio-
cultural approach to building collapse could be worthwhile, in complementing the engineering focal
approach, for identifying pathways to avoidance.
Keywords
building accidents/collapse; construction safety; forensic structural engineering; social
context; wider societal/socio-cultural factors
Introduction
Current level of knowledge on the impact of socio-cultural factors on building collapse is limited.
Two main reasons account for the dearth of socio-cultural grounding for building collapse. The first
reason pertains to the study of such phenomena in the domain of forensic structural engineering.
Forensic structural engineering approaches failures as consequences of flaw(s) in the system of
professional practice (Subbarao, 2016; Heywood, 2010). Emphasis is, therefore, placed on
technical/physical causes (Kwasniewski, 2010; Fu, 2009; 2010). The de-emphasis of socio-cultural
factors is, therefore, not an oversight, but a reflection of central assumptions.
The second reason relates to the way the influence of socio-cultural factors on safety is framed in the
construction sector: The scholarly discourses on societal or socio-cultural factors in the construction
sector focus only on their impact on worker safety – i.e. health and safety management concerns during
construction or at construction sites (Peckitt et al., 2004; Rowlinson 2004; He et al., 2016; Tutt et al,
2013; Jia et al., 2016; 2017). Their impact on accidents caused built structures or the products of the
construction industry is barely engaged.
This essay makes the following observations regarding the dearth of socio-cultural grounding for
building collapse: First, while important, it is not only, often not at all, engineering considerations that
influence construction decisions, practices and processes. Rather, socioeconomic, culture and other
factors tend to play impactful roles (Hewitt, 1997; Tam et al., 2000). Indeed, it is long established in
the social production of built forms literature that buildings and for that matter, built structures in
general, are essentially socio-cultural products or artefacts (Habraken, 1988; Lawrence & Low, 1990;

13. 13
Low, 1996; Rapoport, 1969; 1973; 1980; 1982; Moffat & Kohler, 2008; King, 1980; Smiley & Dainty,
2014).
This implies that whatever is the challenge to structural integrity or safety, the wider societal influences
of poor construction practices and processes are what may cumulate to undermine it. Consequently,
approaching building collapses without recourse to the wider societal or socio-cultural influences of
suboptimal construction processes and building use practices (i.e. the engineering focal approach) risks
context minimization error–the tendency to ignore the impact of such factors on phenomena. This
limits the potential of arriving at theoretically comprehensive understanding of the complex
circumstances that collectively lead to such incidents and any systematic search for the technical as
well as the social lessons needed to avoid repetition.
The second observation the essay would make is that the principles of health and safety in the
construction sector apply to not only those who are engaged in work; they also apply to those who are
placed at risk by work activities, including members of the public. Therefore, limiting the analysis of
the impact of socio-cultural factors on safety in the construction sector to only worker safety, as being
pursued currently (Peckitt et al., 2004; He et al., 2016), obscures the impact of the factors on another
vantage area of safety in the sector: the dangers posed by completed structures such as buildings to
public health.
The essay would suggest that a deeper focus on the impact of socio-cultural factors on building collapse
has the potential for enhancing our understanding of how such factors operate, shape and dictate the
demand and supply, design, construction, utilization and adaptation of buildings as well as the
regulation and management of the underlying processes and culminate into the technical/engineering
problems that, albeit rather belatedly, become the subject of forensic examination when disasters occur.
Thus, a socio-cultural grounding for building safety in the construction sector could be worthwhile for
identifying and addressing most of the problems that culminate into the technical/engineering
deficiencies that, albeit rather belatedly, become the subject of forensic examination when collapse
incidents occur. The rest of the essay is directed to ground the message.
Background
In his perceptive book: Managing the risks of organizational accidents, James Reason argued that the
relative importance of the impact of the different levels of analysis of safety culture is crucial in
understanding, predicting and controlling industrial risks (Reason, 1997). Reason identified four levels
of factors: individual, workplace, organizational and societal factors in the causation of major accidents
and speculated that of these different causal factors, organizational culture, processes and the
workplace are the critical indicators of explanatory, predictive, and remedial value. He ranked
individual factors second to organizational factors, followed closely by regulation and society, to which
he imputed little remedial value.
However, in the construction sector, S.J. Peckitt, A.I. Glendon and R.T. Booth showed that the
influence of wider societal factors on safety is far more critical than Reason envisaged. In Societal
influences on safety culture in the construction industry, the trio analyzed several models of accident
etiology in the construction sector to demonstrate that root causes of such accidents are embedded
within the construction process and the societies within which the construction activity takes place.
Drawing on the situations of the UK and the Caribbean, Peckitt et al (2004) highlighted the role of
societal culture in influencing the health and safety culture of the construction industry.
Their analysis brought to the fore prominently the impactful implications of wider socio-cultural
factors on safety in the construction sector. Peckitt et al (2004) originally applied the approach to
worker safety, subsequent applications have, therefore, been limited to that line of inquiry (See, for
instance, He et al., 2016; Tutt et al, 2013; Jia et al., 2016; 2017; Rowlinson & Jia, 2015; Rowlinson, et
al., 2014; Pink et al., 2010).
However, to build on the theoretical and analytical contributions the socio-cultural approach brings to
safety research in the construction sector, it is important for safety researchers in the sector to find

14. 14
ways to draw on the strength of the approach to give voice to aspects of safety in the sector about which
it has had little or nothing to say – the message this correspondence seeks to convey. To situate the
message within the broader theoretical discourses on safety in the construction sector, it is worth
reviewing the dimensions of safety in the sector.
Dimensions of safety in the construction sector
Two important but distinct foci for safety are decipherable in the construction sector: (a) safety in the
context of the construction process and (b) safety regarding the dangers that completed structures pose
to the public. The former dimension of safety relates to health and safety management concerns in the
course of construction or at construction sites, while the latter pertains to the health and safety concerns
of completed structures. As noted earlier, the ongoing scholarly conversations on the impact of wider
societal factors on safety in the sector address only the former dimension of safety (He et al., 2016;
Tutt et al, 2013; Jia et al., 2016; 2017; Rowlinson & Jia, 2015). The latter has largely been ignored or
overlooked.
This is striking not least because building (and for that matter structural) collapses are a marked feature
of the construction sector. The centrality of such risks to safety concerns in the construction sector
could be traced as far back to 2200 B.C., when the King of Hammurabi of Babylon passed a law
stipulating penalty for houses collapsing and killing their inhabitants (Zhou et al, 2015). The broader
point here is that the principles of health and safety in the construction sector apply to not only those
who are engaged in work (Rowlinson, 2004; McDermott et al., 2018); they also apply to those who are
placed at risk by work activities, including members of the public (Hayes, 2017; Hackitt, 2018;
Boateng, 2019).
Hayes (2017) conveys this point better: Everyone agrees that safety is paramount and, therefore,
significant effort must go into systems of work that are designed to ensure that construction workers
go home safely at the end of every shift. This is obviously important. However, limiting safety
considerations to the construction process obscures another vantage area of safety: the dangers posed
by completed structures such as buildings to those who occupy it or public health in general.
Currently, there is little by way of systematized studies in the construction sector that take a wider
societal approach to the analysis of building accidents. Such phenomena have long been engaged in
the domain of forensic structural engineering. However, as explained below, the engineering focal
approach to the study of building collapses is not only reactionary, but it is also inadequate for
identifying pathways to avoidance as it offers limited insights into the social context or the wider
influences in society that generate vulnerability for such risks.
The engineering focal approach to building collapse/safety
The collective knowledge and wisdom of humans can increase by the discovery of new facts and the
proper dissemination of the findings already known. In their endeavour to modify, control the
environment and develop complex systems, humans generally prefer to take a cautious approach as
any mistakes or misunderstandings of the physical world often lead to disastrous consequences. Such
incidents constitute ‘lessons’ learnt which are passed on to avoid repetition in the future (Dechy et al,
2012; Dien, 2012). Therefore, it is important to evolve scientific methods for investigating the causes
of disasters and disseminate the information effectively to the concerned fraternity. The branch of
engineering that does this is forensic engineering (Subbarao, 2016; Noon, 2001; Carper, 2001).
The foremost precept of forensic engineering is that failures are consequences of flaw(s) in the system
of professional practice rather than isolated incidents that could have been easily avoided (Subbarao,
2016; Heywood, 2010). Therefore, the discourses on structural failures, accidents or incidents are often
framed around technical causes. Forensic structural engineers rely mostly on the actual physical
evidence found at the scene, verifiable facts related to the failure, and apply well-proven scientific
principles and methods to interpret them to arrive at the relevant conclusions or the technical/physical
causes of the accident (Heywood, 2010; Ratay; 2010; Delatte, 2009; Carper, 2001; Noon, 2001).

15. 15
Failure investigation is, thus, approached from the perspective of physical causation and the given
object as designed and constructed in the light of technical knowledge and professional procedures
(Carper, 2001; Noon, 2001). The scientific principles assist forensic engineers to logically explain and
identify the technical cause/s of structural failures through careful collection of verifiable physical
evidence, the application of fundamental engineering principles, and the development and testing of
hypotheses in a manner that avoids preconceived notions or bias (Heywood, 2010; Brady, 2012). The
analysis or investigation of building collapse follows this engineering focal approach (Kwasniewski,
2010; Fu, 2009; 2010).
In the unfortunate event of a building collapse, horrified by the incidental destructions, attention tends
towards the immediate factors: the engineering or technical causes disclosed by the incident. Such
matters tend to be considered primary and paradigmatic (Blockley, 1980; Boateng, 2016; 2018). The
key strength of the approach is that it provides robust analytical methods and precise calculation tools
for arriving at the actual (technical) causes of collapse incidents. Institutionally, some of the technical
lessons learned from major building failures or collapses have been incorporated as codes and
standards over the years (Parfitt, 2012; Subbarao, 2016; EN 1991-1-7, 2006; US-DoD, 2002; General
Services Administration, 2000 in Kwasniewski, 2010).
The problem with the engineering focal approach to building collapse
The engineering focal approach is not adequately suited for reliable building safety improvement for
the following reasons. First, forensic structural engineering is by design retrospective or ex post facto
in focus, which means that the causes of failures could only be known after the fact or after the harm
has already been caused, and, hence, from a prevention point of view, unreliable and inadequate for
safety improvement.
It may be argued that a systematic compilation of lessons from previous failures may over time or
eventually provide a compendium of knowledge for preventing future events. Indeed, as noted earlier,
institutionally, some of the technical lessons from major building failures have been incorporated as
codes and standards over the years (Parfitt, 2012; EN 1991-1-7, 2006; US-DoD, 2002; General
Services Administration, 2000 in Kwasniewski, 2010). While plausible, this argument does not
attenuate the moral and ethical concerns inherent in building on safety innovations upon the
foundations of hardships and adversities.
Second, undoubtedly, at the end of the day, every collapse incident inevitably will eventually be
marked by a technical or engineering defect. But while important, it is not only, often not at all,
engineering considerations that influence construction decisions, practices and processes. Rather,
socioeconomic, culture and other factors tend to play impactful roles (Hewitt, 1997; Tam et al., 2000),
and, therefore, influence not just the engineering components, but also the eventual structure that may
emerge. Buildings are not just collections or assemblages of physical materials based on only
architectural and/or engineering considerations, processes and specifications. Rather, they emerge
from a much more complex interactive processes and level of actions between people and their
environment (Boateng, 2018b; Lawrence & Low, 1990; Low, 1996; Rapoport, 1969; 1973).
King (1980) captures this point even better: Buildings, he noted, result from social needs and
accommodate a variety of functions –economic, social, political, religious and cultural. Their size,
appearance, location and form are governed not simply by physical factors (climate, materials or
topography) but by a society's ideas, its forms of economic and social organization, its distribution of
resources, its activities, beliefs and values. The built structure, as an object of study, then becomes a
point of spatial articulation for the intersection of multiple forces: e.g. forces of economy; forces of
society, and forces of culture.
Indeed, it is long established in the social production of built forms literature that buildings, and for
that matter built structures in general, are essentially socio-cultural products or artefacts (Habraken,
1988; Lawrence & Low, 1990; Low, 1996; Rapoport, 1969; 1973; 1980; 1982; Moffat & Kohler, 2008;
King,

16. 16
1980; Smiley & Dainty, 2014). As Smiley and Dainty put it: “The built environment, and the methods
used to create it, reflect and embody the history, norms, values, social relations and level of
development of the society in which they exist” (Smiley & Dainty, 2014: 808). For instance, a bad
brick, lintel or joist is made, it is purchased subject or not to architects and planning requirements
and/or procedures.
The choice of materials may reflect personal economy; it may also reflect image and a person’s sense
of pride. The constructed structure, in this sense, is conceived not only as a product of structural
integrity but also, of socio-cultural means (Blockley, 1980; Boateng, 2016; 2018).
This implies that whatever is the challenge to structural integrity or safety, the wider societal influences
of poor construction practices and processes are what may cumulate to undermine it. Consequently,
approaching building accidents without recourse to the wider societal or socio-cultural influences of
suboptimal construction processes and building use practices (i.e. the engineering focal approach) risks
context minimization error–the tendency to ignore the impact of socio-cultural factors on phenomena
(Boateng, 2017; 2018). This limits the potential of arriving at theoretically comprehensive
understanding of the complex circumstances that collectively lead to such accidents and any systematic
search for the technical as well as the social lessons needed to avoid repetition.
What this means overall is that it is difficult to think adequately about building safety or accidents in
isolation from the wider socio-cultural or societal influences of the demand and supply, design,
construction, utilization and adaptation of buildings and the regulation of such processes and practices.
Nonetheless, currently, there is little by way of systematized studies in the construction sector that take
a socio-cultural approach to the analysis of building accidents. The discourses on the impact of such
factors on safety in the sector, as noted earlier, tend to focus only on accidents that occur at construction
sites – i.e. construction or worker safety (Peckitt, et al., 2004; He et al., 2016; Tutt et al, 2013; Jia et
al., 2016; 2017; Rowlinson & Jia, 2015; Rowlinson, et al., 2014; Pink et al., 2010). Little or no attention
is given to accidents caused by built structures.
Conclusion
Scholars operating in the construction sector regularly develop and explore new theories and
perspectives to assist and guide practitioners in the management of safety in the sector. One of such
theoretical enterprises is the growing momentum towards wider societal or socio-cultural approach to
the analysis of safety pioneered in the work of Peckitt et al (2004). While gaining traction in safety
research in the sector, the approach is currently applied to only safety considerations or concerns during
physical construction (Jia et al., 2016; 2017; Rowlinson & Jia, 2015; Rowlinson, et al., 2014; Pink et
al., 2010). It is rarely applied to the study of buildings accidents – a marked feature of the construction
sector.
The review has argued that the omission is substantial for the following reasons. First, the health and
safety principles in the construction sector apply to not only those who are engaged in work; they also
apply to those who are placed at risk by work activities, including members of the public. Therefore,
limiting the analysis of the impact of socio-cultural factors on safety in the sector to only health
concerns at construction sites discounts the impact of the factors on another area of safety: the dangers
posed by completed structures such as buildings to those who occupy it or public health in general.
Second, not only is forensic structural engineering – the extant approach to the analysis of building
accidents/safety – reactionary, but it is also, from a prevention point of view, inadequate for reliable
building safety improvement as it offers limited insights into the social context or the wider influences
in society that generate vulnerability for such risks. Thus, the extant engineering focal approach limits
the potential of arriving at theoretically comprehensive understanding of the complex circumstances
that collectively lead to building disasters/accidents and any systematic search for the technical as well
as the social lessons needed to avoid repetition.

17. 17
A deeper focus on socio-cultural factors has the potential for deepening our understanding of how such
factors operate, shape and dictate the demand and supply, design, construction, utilization and
adaptation of buildings as well as the regulation and management of the underlying processes and
culminate into the technical/engineering problems that, albeit rather belatedly, become the subject of
forensic examination when disasters occur. Thus, a socio-cultural grounding for building safety could
be worthwhile for identifying pathways to avoid, if not all, most of the catastrophic building collapses
that tend to undermine public health.
Declaration
The work did not receive any funding and the author has no conflict of interest to declare.
References
Boateng, F. G. 2016. 'The Collapse of Buildings in Cities in Ghana: Reasoning Beyond ‘Scientism’'.
In Refereed Proceedings of TASA 2016 Conference. Chou, M. (2016) (ed). Melbourne,
Australia pp. 7-12.
Boateng, G. 2017. 'Implications of Building Accidents in Urban Settings for Building Safety Studies'.
In 41st Australasian Universities Building Education Association Conference 2017 (pp.
427438).
Boateng, F. G. 2018. 'Why the de-emphasis of wider societal factors in construction failures analysis
is fatal'. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Forensic Engineering, 1-6.
Boateng, F.G. 2018. 'Exploring the collapse of buildings in urban settings'. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers–Municipal Engineer. doi:10.1680/jmuen.17.00033
Boateng, F. G. 2019. 'A brief case for an organizational grounding for structural safety in the
construction sector'. Construction Management and Economics, 37(8), 472-473.
doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1591629
Brady, S. P. 2012. 'Role of the forensic process in investigating structural failure'. Journal of
performance of constructed facilities, 26(1), pp. 2-6.
Carper, K. L. (2nd
Ed.). 2001. 'Forensic Engineering'. New York: CRC Press
Dechy, N., Dien, Y., Funnemark, E., Roed-Larsen, S., Stoop, J., Valvisto, T., & Arellano, A. L. V.
2012.
'Results and lessons learned from the ESReDA’s accident investigation working group:
Introducing article to “safety science” special issue on “Industrial events investigation”'. Safety
Science, 50(6), 1380-1391.
Delatte, N. J. 2009. 'Beyond Failure – Forensic Case Studies for Civil Engineers'. Virginia: American
Society of Civil Engineers Press.
Dien, Y., Dechy, N., & Guillaume, E. 2012. 'Accident investigation: From searching direct causes to
finding indepth causes–Problem of analysis or/and of analyst?' Safety science, 50(6), 1398-
1407.
Fu, F. 2009. 'Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling
method'. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65, 1269-1278.
Fu, F. 2010. '3-D nonlinear dynamic progressive collapse analysis of multi-storey steel composite
frame buildings — Parametric study'. Engineering Structures, 32, 3974-3980.
Habraken, N. J. 1988. 'Type as a Social Agreement'. In refereed proceedings of the Asian Congress
of Architects. Seoul, South Korea. Pp. 1 – 18
Hackitt, J. 2018. 'Building a Safer Future'. Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire
Safety: Interim Report.
Han, Y., Feng, Z., Zhang, J., Jin, R., & Aboagye-Nimo, E. 2018. 'Employees’ Safety Perceptions of
Site Hazard and Accident Scenes'. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
145(1). Doi:10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001590
Hayes, J. 2017. 'Disaster incubation: Grenfell Tower’s unnecessary lessons'. Construction Research
and
Innovation, 8(3), 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/20450249.2017.1367559

18. 18
He, Q., Dong, S., Rose, T., Li, H., Yin, Q., & Cao, D. 2016. 'Systematic impact of institutional
pressures on safety climate in the construction industry'. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 93,
230-239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.11.034
Hewitt, K. 1997. 'Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters'. Edinburgh Gate,
Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited
Heywood, R. J. 2010. 'Responding to failure: An introduction to forensic structural engineering'.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 11(1), 1-9.
Jia, A. Y., Rowlinson, S., Loosmore, M., Xu, M., Li, B. and Gibb, A. 2017. 'Institutions and
institutional logics in construction safety management: the case of climatic heat stress'.
Construction Management and Economics, 35(6), 338-367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1296171
Jia, Y. A., Rowlinson, S., & Ciccarelli, M. 2016. 'Climatic and psychosocial risks of heat illness
incidents on construction site'. Applied ergonomics, 53, 25-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.08.008
King, A. [ed] 1980. 'Buildings and Society: Essays on the Social Development of the Built
Environment'. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kwasniewski, L. 2010. 'Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a multistory
building'. Engineering Structures, 32(5), 1223-1235.
Lawrence, L. D. and Low, S. M. 1990. 'The Built Environment and Spatial Form', Annual Review of
Anthropology, Vol. 19, pp. 453-505.
Low, S. M. 1996. 'The Anthropology of Cities: Imagining and Theorizing the City', Annual Review of
Anthropology, Vol. 25, pp. 383-409.
McDermott, V., Zhang, R. P., Hopkins, A., & Hayes, J. 2018. 'Constructing safety: investigating senior
executive long-term incentive plans and safety objectives in the construction sector'.
Construction Management and Economics, 36(5), 276-290.
Moffat, S., and Kohler, N. 2008. ‘Conceptualizing the built environment as a social-ecological system’,
Building Research & Information, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 248 –268.
Noon, R. K. (2001). 'Forensic Engineering Investigation'. New York: CRC Press
Parfitt, M. K. 2012. 'Why Buildings Fail: Are We Learning From Our Mistakes?' Buildings, 2(3),
326331.
Peckitt, S. J., Glendon, A. I., & Booth, R. T. 2004. 'Societal influences on safety culture in the
construction industry'. Construction Safety Management Systems pp.14 – 46
Pink, S., Tutt, D., Dainty, A. and Gibb, A. 2010. 'Ethnographic methodologies for construction
research:
knowing, practice and interventions'. Building Research and Information, 38(6), 647-659.
doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2010.512193
Rapoport, A. 1969. 'House form and culture'. London: Prentice-Hall International Press.
Rapoport, A. 1973. 'An Approach to the Construction of Man-Environment Theory’ The
Environmental Design Research Association EDRA 4: Fourth International EDRA
Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 124 – 135
Rapoport, A. 1980. ‘Vernacular architecture and the cultural determinants of form’, pp. 283 - 305 in
King, A. [ed] (1980) Buildings and Society: Essays on the Social Development of the Built
Environment, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment, London: SAGE Publications
Ratay, R. T. (2nd
Ed.) 2010. Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Rowlinson, S. (Ed.). 2004. Construction safety management systems. London: Spon Press.
Rowlinson, S., & Jia, Y. A. 2015. 'Construction accident causality: An institutional analysis of heat
illness incidents on site'. Safety science, 78, 179-189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.04.021
Rowlinson, S., YunyanJia, A., Li, B., & ChuanjingJu, C. 2014. 'Management of climatic heat stress
risk in construction: a review of practices, methodologies, and future research'. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 66, 187-198. doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.08.011

19. 19
Smiley, J-P., Fernie, S. and Dainty, A.R.J., 2014 ‘Understanding construction reform discourses’,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 32, No. 7-8, pp. 804 – 815
Subbarao, H. 2016. 'Editorial'. Forensic Engineering. Vol. 169 (4), 121 – 122
Tam, C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng, S. X., & Ho, C. S. 2000. 'Quest for continuous quality improvement
for public housing construction in Hong Kong'. Construction Management & Economics, 18(4), 437-
446. Tutt, D., Pink, S., Dainty, A. R. J. and Gibb, A. 2013. '‘In the air’ and below the horizon: migrant
workers in UK construction and the practice-based nature of learning and communicating OHS'.
Construction
Management and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.756145
Zhou, Z., Goh, Y. M., & Li, Q. 2015. 'Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the
construction industry'. Safety science, 72, 337-350. doi.10.1016/j.ssci.2014.10.006
View publication stats
View publication stats