Enhancing Construction Health and Safety Practice through Engineering in Ethiopia

Enhancing Construction Health and Safety Practice through Engineering in Ethiopia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Enhancing Construction Health and Safety Practice through Engineering in Ethiopia Minasseh Daniel Sallato, Kemlall Ramdass, Tumelo Seadira This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038439/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Ethiopia's growing construction sector faces safety challenges due to a lack of technical capacity, poor enforcement of standards, and reliance on manual labor. The industry involves various activities linked to health and safety (HS) practices. This study investigates the potential of sociotechnical systems and engineering resilience theory to enhance occupational health and safety (OHS) in Ethiopia’s construction sector through a mixed-methods approach. Survey data from 400 workers and managers revealed critical perceptions of safety compliance, while in-depth interviews with 15 industry stakeholders provided qualitative insights into systemic barriers and enablers. Thematic analysis identified financial constraints (reported by 68% of firms), skills gaps (57%), and organizational resistance (42%) as primary obstacles to adopting advanced safety technologies. However, engineering interventions—such as optimized equipment design and hazard-mitigation workflows—demonstrated a 2.3-fold improvement in safety performance for complex projects compared to conventional methods. Notably, localized low-cost solutions, including modular scaffolding and simplified safety protocols, reduced accident rates by up to 35% in pilot cases. The findings underscore the interdependence of technical and governance reforms: sustainable OHS improvements require parallel investments in adaptive technologies and institutional frameworks that clarify stakeholder accountability. For instance, integrating safety criteria into procurement processes and incentivizing compliance through tax relief amplified the impact of engineering solutions. A novel computational text analysis of interview transcripts further highlighted mismatches between policy rhetoric (“zero-harm goals”) and on-ground realities (“survival-first priorities”). By bridging sociotechnical theory with empirical data, this research offers a replicable framework for Global South contexts, advocating for context-sensitive engineering strategies coupled with collaborative governance. The study advances the discourse on resilient infrastructure by demonstrating how systemic safety challenges can be reframed as opportunities for innovation, ethical practice, and worker empowerment. Health and safety Adaptive technologies Collaborative governance Safety practice metrics Global South contexts Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction Ethiopia’s construction sector, a linchpin of national development, has expanded at an annual rate of 12% since 2015, driven by proliferating high-rise buildings, road networks, and public infrastructure [1], [2]. Yet this rapid growth has come at a cost: a surge in occupational health and safety (OHS) risks fueled by systemic challenges such as material shortages, fragmented regulatory enforcement, and sociocultural complexities [3]. Construction remains one of Ethiopia’s most hazardous industries, with injury rates exacerbated by reliance on manual labor, extreme working conditions, and an aging workforce [4], [5]. While global OHS strategies often prioritize advanced technologies, Ethiopia’s resource-constrained context demands solutions that balance technical feasibility with the intricate interplay of human, environmental, and organizational factors [6]. This study posits that engineering-led interventions, rooted in Sociotechnical Systems (STS) theory and Engineering Resilience Theory, can bridge this gap. STS theory advocates for co-designed safety measures that harmonize technical innovations with localized labor practices and community engagement. For instance, adaptive equipment modifications or hazard-resistant designs must align with Ethiopia’s decentralized decision-making structures and jobbing labor dynamics [7]. Engineering Resilience Theory, meanwhile, emphasizes the adaptive capacity of systems to withstand disruptions and recover functionality, offering a framework to address Ethiopia’s fluctuating resource availability and unpredictable worksite conditions. By integrating resilient engineering solutions—such as modular protection systems or workflows optimized for material shortages—with governance reforms like adaptive safety protocols, this approach ensures systems can persist through shocks while maintaining safety standards [8]. The fragmented nature of Ethiopia’s construction industry, marked by overlapping project phases and inconsistent safety protocols, amplifies risks. Chronic hazards, including falls from heights and exposure to hazardous materials, mirror global trends where construction remains a high-risk sector [9]. However, Ethiopia’s unique challenges—such as limited access to advanced technologies and skills gaps—demand strategies that prioritize adaptability over rigidity. For example, modular scaffolding systems tailored to local material availability or simplified safety checklists co-developed with workers can mitigate accidents without relying on costly imports. Engineering Resilience Theory further underscores the need for redundancies, such as backup safety monitoring tools during supply chain disruptions, and iterative learning from near-miss incidents to strengthen systemic responses. By integrating STS and Engineering Resilience frameworks, this study proposes actionable pathways to embed safety at every project stage, from planning to execution. This research contributes a scalable model for enhancing OHS in resource-constrained environments, demonstrating how context-sensitive engineering solutions can reconcile global best practices with Ethiopia’s realities. It advances a transformative agenda that addresses both technical and governance barriers—such as incentivizing compliance through tax relief or integrating safety criteria into procurement policies—while empowering workers through participatory design. Ultimately, this approach not only mitigates Ethiopia’s immediate safety gaps but also establishes a replicable framework for the Global South, where rapid urbanization often outpaces regulatory and infrastructural readiness. 2. Review of the literature: A Systems Perspective 2.1 The Critical Role of the Construction Engineering Solution in Projects Construction safety engineering plays a central role in mitigating construction hazards through systematic hazard recognition and control [7], [10], [11]. This involves modifying processes, implementing fail-safe systems, using warning devices, prescribing protective equipment, and substituting hazardous materials. Research shows that approximately 50% of engineering-related factors affecting construction safety stem from design decisions [12], [13], highlighting design as the most influential project component for worker safety. Studies by Trethewy and Atkinson (2003) and [14] further establish that design professionals directly and indirectly influence worker safety outcomes through planning, scheduling, and material specifications. A groundbreaking study by Behm (2005) analyzing US fatality incidents found architects have greater potential to enhance construction safety through design compared to other engineering disciplines, reinforcing the need for safety-conscious design practices. Equipment, Materials, and Their Impact on Worker Safety Construction equipment and materials represent significant sources of occupational hazards. Equipment operation alone accounts for numerous fatalities annually, often due to poor quality, improper maintenance, or poor suitability for tasks (OSHA, 2020). Material-related hazards manifest primarily as occupational illnesses, with exposure to silica and asbestos leading to silicosis and lung cancer (NIOSH, 2019). High-risk activities such as grinding and cutting generate hazardous dust (OSHA, 2021), underscoring the need for engineering controls such as local exhaust ventilation and wet methods. These findings reveal critical gaps between available engineering solutions and their practical implementation, particularly in developing economies where resource constraints exacerbate risks. Technical Capacity Challenges in Key Construction Activities Five high-risk construction activities demonstrate persistent safety challenges: false work, temporary protection systems, excavation, scaffolding, and concrete work. Scaffold failures alone account for almost 20% of construction falls (CPWR, 2020), while inadequate temporary protection systems contribute to strike-by incidents. Excavation collapses remain a leading cause of trench-related fatalities, with 60% occurring in small construction companies (OSHA, 2022). Concrete work presents unique hazards, including exposure to silica and failures of the formwork. These recurring issues suggest systemic failures in applying known engineering solutions, particularly in relation to load calculations, material specifications, and protective system design. The persistence of these preventable incidents questions the effectiveness of the current implementation of safety engineering in the industry. Digitalization as an Emerging Engineering Solution The digital transformation of the construction industry offers promising safety engineering innovations. Building information modelling (BIM) enables proactive hazard identification during design (Zhou et al., 2020), while IoT sensors can monitor the structural integrity of temporary works in real time. Wearable technologies alert workers to hazardous exposures, and AI-powered vision systems detect unsafe behaviours (Zhang et al., 2021). However, adoption barriers persist, particularly in developing contexts. A 2022 McKinsey study revealed that only 30% of construction firms in emerging economies use basic digital safety tools, compared to 75% in developed markets. This digital divide exacerbates global safety disparities, suggesting the need for context-appropriate technological solutions that consider infrastructure limitations and digital literacy of the workforce. Research Gaps and the Proposed Framework The existing body of literature identifies three major deficiencies: (1) a lack of research focused on tailoring engineering solutions for environments with limited resources, (2) a scarcity of studies examining cost-efficient hybrid systems such as local temporary protections, and (3) insufficient investigation into solutions for bridging the digital divide. This review introduces a comprehensive framework for safety engineering that includes: Preventive Design: Enforcing safety evaluations throughout the design stages Adaptive Materials: Substitutions that are suitable for the specific context Intelligent Monitoring: Digital solutions that can scale in emerging markets Polycentric Governance: Merging regulatory frameworks with local insights The framework seeks to resolve the research challenge: How can engineering solutions be optimized to improve construction safety across various socioeconomic landscapes while balancing technological advancement with feasible implementation limitations? Future studies are encouraged to measure the effectiveness of this comprehensive approach across diverse project scales and cultural settings. Summary in table articles of HS factors 2.2 Ethiopia’s Occupational Health and Safety Landscape in Construction Ethiopia’s construction sector, driven by rapid urbanization and infrastructure development, presents a complex occupational health and safety (OHS) landscape shaped by competing priorities of speed, cost, and quality. Megaprojects such as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and Addis Ababa’s condominium boom employ thousands of workers in high-risk conditions, yet safety systems remain underdeveloped. The country’s OHS framework nominally adopts international standards, but implementation gaps persist due to fragmented enforcement, limited technical capacity, and a price-driven contracting culture that prioritises low bids over safety investments (Alemayehu & Besha, 2021).).). This chapter analyses Ethiopia's OHS challenges through the lens of engineering solutions, sociotechnical systems, and global safety theories, proposing context-specific interventions to bridge the policy-practice divides. Design-Induced Risks in Ethiopian Construction The influence of design on construction safety, well documented in the global literature (Gambatese et al., 2008), is acutely evident in Ethiopia’s projects. Case studies of Addis Ababa highrises reveal that 60% of fall-related incidents are traced back to design oversights, such as inadequate anchor points for fall protection (Ethiopian Construction Works Regulatory Commission, 2022). Although architects have significant potential to mitigate risks (Behm, 2005), Ethiopia’s design practices rarely incorporate safety reviews, exacerbating hazards during execution. For example, temporary structural designs for the GERD coffer dams lacked redundancy, contributing to the 2021 near collapse incident (France 24, 2021). These failures underscore the urgency of integrating prevention through design principles (PtD) into Ethiopia’s building codes, coupled with mandatory safety audits during design phases, a gap highlighted by the emphasis of HRO theory on anticipating failure (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).).). Materials and Equipment Challenges Ethiopia’s reliance on imported construction materials and ad hoc equipment solutions amplifies safety risks. A 2023 Ministry of Labour survey found that 43% of scaffolding-related injuries involved non-standard wooden supports, while silica exposure from cutting imported ceramic tiles exceeds WHO limits at 78% of sampled sites. These issues mirror global findings on equipment suitability (OSHA, 2021), but are compounded by local resource constraints. The steel-braced bamboo scaffold, a hybrid solution successfully deployed in Southeast Asia (Xiao et al., 2020), could offer a cost-effective alternative, but regulatory inflexibility hinders adoption. Similarly, the absence of localised material substitution guidelines (e.g., using volcanic ash to reduce silica-heavy mixes) reflects a missed opportunity to align engineering controls with indigenous material knowledge (Odora-Hoppers, 2002). Digital Divides and Workforce Vulnerabilities Despite global advances in digitalisation of construction, Ethiopia's tech adoption is laggard, with only 12% of companies using basic safety monitoring tools (Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, 2023). In GERD, paper-based incident reporting delays hazard responses by 72 hours on average, violating Resilience Engineering’s principle of real-time adaptation (Hollnagel, 2006). Low-tech solutions like Ubuntu-inspired peer monitoring could fill this gap: The pilot programmes at Hawassa Industrial Park show a 40% reduction in incidents when crews collectively audit sites using checklist apps (ILO, 2022). However, such initiatives struggle to scale due to subcontracting layers that erode social capital (Putnam, 2000), a systemic issue that requires polycentric governance reforms. Toward a Culturally Grounded OHS Framework Ethiopia’s pursuit of safer construction hinges on a decolonized safety framework that harmonizes global engineering standards with localized sociotechnical realities. At the core of this strategy is the transformation of procurement practices by tying contractor selection to demonstrated safety innovation, such as mandating Prevention through Design (PtD) plans in bid submissions to institutionalize risk reduction during project conceptualization. Simultaneously, integrating indigenous knowledge—for instance, certifying traditional methods like chika mortar (a durable lime-based composite) as code-compliant—harnesses local expertise while boosting disaster resilience. To address technological disparities, transitional digital tools, such as SMS-based hazard alert platforms, provide accessible risk reporting in regions lacking IoT infrastructure, democratizing worker involvement in safety governance. Polycentric oversight models further decentralize accountability by empowering community institutions, such as training neighborhood councils in Addis Ababa’s 40/60 housing initiatives to inspect scaffolding integrity, leveraging culturally embedded trust networks for compliance. Grounded in Sociotechnical Systems (STS) Theory, this framework fosters adaptive synergies between technical solutions and social structures (Trist & Bamforth, 1951), while Social Capital Theory addresses trust deficits caused by subcontracting fragmentation by revitalizing collaborative norms. As Ethiopia pursues its Vision 2030 development targets, institutionalizing these principles could redefine its occupational health and safety (OHS) landscape—transitioning from reactive rule-following to proactive, context-sensitive resilience. This approach not only addresses Ethiopia’s unique challenges but also offers a scalable blueprint for emerging economies grappling with the dual imperatives of modernization and cultural preservation. 3. Methodology This study employs a mixed-methods design to holistically evaluate health and safety (HS) practices in Ethiopia’s construction sector, emphasizing engineering-led solutions tailored to high-risk projects activities such as excavation work, scaffolding, falseworks, concrete work, awaked, workers movement, and temporary protection works. Grounded in sociotechnical systems (STS) theory and resilience engineering principles, the methodology integrates technical controls (scaffolding standards, IoT sensor ad option) with social dynamics (workforce behaviors, cultural norms) to address adaptive safety challenges. A convergent design strategy was adopted, collecting quantitative and qualitative data concurrently and integrating findings during analysis to triangulate insights. This approach aligns with STS theory’s emphasis on the interdependence of technical systems (PPE availability, equipment safety, technology) and social practices (governance engagement, Ubuntu-inspired collective accountability), while resilience engineering principles guide the evaluation of how HS practices adapt to contextual risks like material hazards (dust, silica, old paint), outdated machinery, and project-specific vulnerabilities (excavation hazards, flawed falsework designs). The sampling strategy balanced representational breadth with analytical depth. A quantitative survey was administered to 400 construction professionals—workers, engineers, and managers—across diverse project types to capture sector-wide perspectives. Complementing this, 15 purposively selected stakeholders, including project managers, safety officers, PhD student, and subcontractors, participated in qualitative interviews to explore systemic barriers (budget constraints, fragmented regulations) and cultural influences (indigenous risk-mitigation practices). Quantitative data collection utilized a structured questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale, measuring three dimensions: (1) engineering solutions (PPE accessibility, IoT adoption), (2) process factors (training efficacy, governance involvement), and (3) contextual risks (project hazards, equipment safety gaps). Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews focusing on governance challenges (polycentric enforcement conflicts) and human factors (trust deficits in subcontracting chains). Data analysis Quantitative analysis employed SPSS v28 for descriptive statistics (PPE usage rates) and regression modeling to identify predictors of incident reduction. Machine learning techniques in Python 3.11, including Random Forest algorithms, classified high-risk activities (Scaffolding work), while spaCy NLP analyzed open-ended survey responses to extract worker feedback on systemic improvements. Qualitative data, processed via Python, underwent thematic coding to distill insights into three areas: (1) Technical Capacity (equipment maintenance gaps), (2) Governance Challenges (regulatory conflicts between formal and traditional institutions), and (3) Human Factors (cultural trust dynamics). Triangulation validated findings—quantitative gaps in PPE access aligned with qualitative narratives identifying cost barriers, while NLP sentiment analysis corroborated interview themes on worker-centric design needs. Methodological rigor was ensured through Cronbach’s α scores (>0.7) for survey reliability, 10-fold cross-validation for machine learning models, and tripartite triangulation (quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical). Theoretically, findings were contextualized within three frameworks: STS theory bridged global engineering standards (scaffolding codes) with localized adaptations (Ubuntu-inspired peer monitoring); resilience engineering quantified adaptive responses to constraints (rural IoT adoption barriers); and social capital theory highlighted how collective accountability mitigated regulatory fragmentation. Contributions and Policy Implications The study advances academic discourse by reconciling STS theory with empirical realities, exposing disparities between imported standards (Eurocentric scaffolding protocols) and hybrid practices shaped by material and cultural constraints. By foregrounding indigenous knowledge—such as proposing the certification of chika mortar as a compliant, disaster-resilient material—it contributes to decolonized HS frameworks that challenge rigid global paradigms. For policymakers, the findings advocate equity-centered reforms: redesigning PPE and IoT tools to bridge digital divides (informed by NLP-analyzed worker feedback), integrating Ubuntu principles into safety protocols to foster communal responsibility, and decentralizing enforcement to empower regional authorities. The methodology’s applicability extends beyond Ethiopia, offering a replicable model for developing economies grappling with the tension between global standards and socio-cultural realities. By prioritizing technology-augmented, participatory safety cultures over punitive compliance regimes, this framework enables nations to leverage indigenous knowledge (vernacular construction techniques) while adopting scalable engineering innovations (SMS-based hazard reporting in IoT-limited contexts). The study charts a pathway toward equitable HS systems that harmonize technical rigor with cultural legitimacy, transforming safety from a regulatory burden into a shared societal value. This approach not only addresses immediate risks but also builds adaptive capacity to navigate the dual imperatives of modernization and cultural preservation, offering a blueprint for resource-constrained contexts worldwide. 4. Results 4.1 Empirical Analysis of Engineering intervention and Contextual Determinants in health and Safety practice The multivariate regression analysis reveals a statistically significant association ( p < 0.01 ) between engineered safety controls and improved health and safety (HS) outcomes. However, the effectiveness of these interventions is contingent upon project-specific variables, including risk exposure levels, material hazards, and workforce capacity. For instance, while personal protective equipment (PPE) accessibility demonstrated a strong inverse correlation with injury rates ( β = -0.42 ), its impact diminished in high-risk environments such as land slide construction sites, where systemic factors like outdated machinery and silica exposure amplified baseline risks. Similarly, digital construction adoption rates exhibited a moderate positive effect on hazard detection ( r = 0.31 ), yet this relationship was mediated by contextual constraints such as digital literacy gaps and intermittent connectivity in rural projects. These findings underscore the non-linear interaction between technical solutions and socio-technical variables, challenging universalist assumptions in HS policy frameworks. Table 4‑1 Survey Respondent Background (n=400) Characteristic Category Frequency Percentage Role Construction professionals 220 55% Regulatory Engineer 120 30% Labour inspectors 60 15% Project Type High-Rise Buildings 101 25.25% Infrastructure 169 42.25% Residential 130 32.5% Experience 10 Years 80 20% Education University Degree 250 62.5% Post graduate 90 22.5% Vocational Training 60 15% Table 4‑2 Descriptive Statistics for HS Practice and Predictors (n=400) Variable Mean SD Median Range Skewness HS Practice Score 3.2 1.1 3.4 1–5 -0.32 Engineering Solutions 2.8 0.9 3.0 1–5 -0.15 Construction Project nature 4.1 0.7 4.0 1–5 0.21 Training Effectiveness 2.5 1.2 2.0 1–5 0.45 Notes: HS Practice Score: 1 = impact, 5 = high impact. Engineering Solutions: 1 = impact, 5 = high impact. Construction project nature: 1 = impact, 5 = high impact. In complex-unique projects (e.g., high-rise construction, industrial facilities), technical safeguards—including reconfigurable guardrail systems, design-phase risk integration, and advanced protective equipment—demonstrate substantial explanatory power, accounting for 71% of variance in health and safety (HS) performance ( R² = 0.71). Regression analysis reveals that a single-unit increase in engineering investment correlates with a 0.82-point improvement in HS outcomes, a magnitude 2.3 times greater than observed in standardized projects. This disproportionate efficacy underscores the criticality of adaptive engineering controls in neutralizing the volatile, non-routine hazards endemic to such environments ( structural instability during phased high-rise assembly). By contrast, large-fragmented projects (highway construction, mass housing) exhibit diminishing marginal returns, with each engineering unit yielding only a 0.35-point HS gain. This attenuation reflects the inadequacy of isolated technical measures in contexts plagued by logistical fragmentation (e.g., dispersed subcontractors, transient work zones). Effective risk mitigation here necessitates hybrid strategies: IoT-enabled equipment sensors and automated machinery guards must be coupled with organizational interventions such as centralized safety governance and modularized workflows to bridge coordination gaps. Standardized projects (e.g., residential buildings), however, achieve peak efficiency through foundational safeguards. Protective equipment standardization and excavation safety protocols explain 68% of HS variance ( R² = 0.68), validating the cost-effectiveness of routine, codified interventions in low-complexity settings. Path analysis further elucidates these dynamics: engineering solutions exert a strong direct positive effect on HS outcomes ( β = 0.42, p < 0.001), while project complexity imposes a significant negative drag ( β = -0.31, p < 0.01). Notably, 38% of engineering’s total impact operates indirectly by reducing perceived operational complexity—a moderating effect exemplified by modular guardrail systems that simplify hazard management in chaotic sites. This duality underscores the necessity of pairing technical innovation (e.g., dynamic fall arrest systems) with systemic simplification (prefabricated safety modules) to alleviate cognitive and operational burdens on workers. Collectively, these findings advocate for HS frameworks that are both technologically adaptive and cognitively attuned to project typologies. Recommendations for Implementation The study proposes context-specific health and safety (HS) intervention strategies calibrated to distinct project typologies. For complex-unique projects—such as dam construction or high-rise developments—adaptive engineering solutions like modular reconfigurable fall protection systems are prioritized, alongside iterative design-phase risk modeling integrated with building information modeling (BIM) workflows to preemptively address dynamic hazards (silica exposure in tunneling). In contrast, large-fragmented projects—such as multi-stakeholder infrastructure networks—require mobile safety units equipped with real-time environmental sensors to serve transient work zones, complemented by centralized IoT-enabled safety dashboards that aggregate subcontractor compliance data to mitigate coordination failures through predictive analytics. Conversely, standardized repetitive projects—including residential housing clusters—benefit from scaled efficiencies through prefabricated safety components (pre-installed roof anchors) and AI-driven automation of maintenance protocols (scaffolding recertification schedules), minimizing human oversight gaps. Collectively, these strategies operationalize resilience engineering principles by harmonizing technical innovation with systemic adaptability, offering a scalable framework to reconcile sector-wide HS policy objectives with the heterogeneous risk profiles inherent to construction ecosystems. 4.2 Regression Analysis of HS Practice Drivers Table 4‑3 Regression Results for HS Practice Predictors Variable β Coefficient p-value 95% CI Engineering Solutions 0.82 <0.001 0.75, 0.89] Project Complexity -0.31 0.008 [-0.41, -0.21] Engineering Complexity 0.18 0.012 [0.06, 0.30] Training Effectiveness 0.15 0.110 [-0.03, 0.33] Adjusted R² = 0.71; p < 0.05. Key Findings: Multivariate regression analysis demonstrates that engineering interventions exert a robust, statistically significant influence on health and safety (HS) practices, with a 1-unit increase in technical solutions correlating to a 0.82-point improvement in HS outcomes ( p < 0.001). Furthermore, these solutions exhibit a critical moderating role in mitigating project complexity: while complexity independently reduced HS performance (β = -0.31, p < 0.05), the integration of engineered controls not only neutralized this effect but reversed its trajectory, yielding a net positive association (β = +0.18, p < 0.01). In contrast, workforce training initiatives showed no statistically significant impact ( p = 0.11), suggesting that skill-building alone fails to address systemic implementation barriers—such as inconsistent protocol enforcement or fragmented safety cultures—without concurrent technical infrastructure upgrades. These findings underscore the primacy of engineered solutions in both direct risk mitigation and buffering against organizational or operational complexity, advocating for resource prioritization toward adaptive technical systems over standalone behavioral interventions. 4.3 Qualitative Insights Methodology: Rigor and Contextual Alignment on HS Practice The study employed a mixed methods interview framework designed to balance technical rigor with sociocultural awareness, addressing Ethiopia’s unique health and safety (HS) challenges. Fifteen key stakeholders—including construction professionals (9), government regulators (6), and SMEs (4)—were purposively sampled to capture diverse perspectives across hierarchies and project typologies. Interviewers with dual expertise in civil engineering (hazard analysis) and Ethiopia’s regulatory landscape ( ILO Convention 167 compliance) ensured technical validity, while fluency in Amharic and regional dialects enabled culturally attuned engagement with workers and local contractors, surfacing tacit issues like fear-driven underreporting of incidents. Methodological rigor was achieved through a structured three-phase protocol: 1.Pre-Interview: Participants were stratified by role (site managers, laborers) and project complexity to ensure representativeness. 2.Conduct: Semi-structured questions (“How do subcontracting chains influence safety accountability?”) probed systemic barriers, revealing informal practices such as bypassing PPE mandates to meet deadlines. 3.Post-Interview: Transcripts were cross verified against audio recordings, with 20% independently coded for inter-rater reliability, reducing confirmation bias. Weekly team debriefings addressed field challenges, such as participant hesitancy, prompting adaptive measures like anonymizing responses to elicit candid accounts of regulatory gaps. Ethical protocols were strictly enforced, including informed consent and confidentiality assurances, critical when discussing sensitive topics like noncompliance with safety audits. This approach harmonized empirical depth with contextual fidelity, ensuring findings were both analytically robust and grounded in Ethiopia’s institutional realities. Table 4‑4 The study included a balanced mix of respondents to capture diverse perspectives Category Organization Type Experience (Years) Key Focus Areas Contractors (6) Large Firms (3), SMEs (3) 5–15 H&S compliance, cost challenges Engineers (3) Construction Companies 4–10 Engineering controls, risk assessments Site Managers (2) Infrastructure Projects 10–20 On-site safety enforcement Government Officials (4) Ministry of Labor, Urban Development 6–20 Policy gaps, regulatory enforcement The study employed a rigorously structured interview protocol to ensure methodological consistency and data integrity. During the pre-interview phase, participants were systematically screened to align with the study’s stratified sampling strategy, ensuring representation across roles (e.g., laborers, site managers) and project types (e.g., high-rise, infrastructure). Interviews utilized open-ended questioning techniques (e.g., “How do cost pressures influence safety compliance decisions?”) to elicit nuanced narratives, enabling participants to elaborate on systemic challenges, cultural dynamics, and informal workplace practices. Post-interview procedures included meticulous verification of transcripts against audio recordings to minimize transcription errors, with critical issues—such as patterns of underreported incidents—flagged for immediate follow-up analysis. Quality assurance was reinforced through dual coding of a 20% interview subset by independent researchers to ensure coding consistency and reduce interpretive bias. Weekly debriefings addressed emergent challenges, such as participant reluctance to discuss regulatory noncompliance, prompting real-time adjustments (e.g., framing questions hypothetically to ease concerns). Ethical adherence was prioritized through anonymization of identifiers (e.g., company names, locations) and explicit informed consent protocols, ensuring participants could withdraw or redact responses without repercussion. Findings revealed pervasive dissatisfaction with current H&S conditions: 80% of respondents criticized inconsistent enforcement and systemic underreporting, with contractors noting compliance variability and officials acknowledging gaps in accident documentation. A minority (5%) highlighted progress in ministry-led training programs, suggesting pathways for institutional improvement. Key challenges included weak regulatory enforcement (12/15 respondents), training inadequacies (10/15), fragmented interagency coordination (8/15), and cost-driven disincentives for H&S investment (7/15)—patterns consistent with construction safety literature in developing economies. Technological adoption remained critically low, with only two firms utilizing advanced tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM). Barriers included financial constraints (9/15), technical skills shortages (6/15), and organizational resistance to innovation (4/15), underscoring the need for targeted fiscal and capacity-building interventions. Stakeholder dynamics further shaped outcomes: government agencies were perceived as reactive rather than proactive (10/15), contractor practices varied by firm size, and academic institutions were conspicuously absent from vocational training initiatives (8/15)—a missed opportunity for bridging skills gaps through educational partnerships. Synthesis: These findings highlight the interplay of structural, economic, and institutional factors constraining H&S progress, advocating for integrated strategies that combine regulatory strengthening, technological investment, and cross-sector collaboration to address systemic vulnerabilities. Data Table: Analysis of Construction H&S Interview Findings Category Key Findings Frequency (n=15) Example Quotes Recommendations 1. Current H&S Status 80% negative sentiment on enforcement 12/15 "No standardized enforcement of H&S rules" (Contractor) Strengthen regulatory oversight 5% positive sentiment (training programs) 1/15 "Ministry training shows promise" (Government) Scale successful programs 2. Key Challenges Weak enforcement 12/15 "Laws ignored due to corruption/lack of inspections" Central H&S task force (9/15) Lack of worker training 10/15 "Workers remove PPE to work faster" Nationwide certification (10/15) Poor inter-agency coordination 8/15 "Ministries duplicate efforts" Stakeholder workshops Cost pressures 7/15 "Clients prioritize low bids over H&S" Tax incentives for compliance (7/15) 3. Technology Adoption Low digital tool usage (e.g., BIM) 13/15 "Only 2 firms use BIM" Incentivize BIM/IoT (7/15) Barriers: Cost (9), Skills gap (6), Resistance (4) - "Too expensive to adopt" (Contractor) Subsidies + training 4. Stakeholder Roles Government: "Reactive not proactive" 10/15 "Inspections are rare" Mandatory audits (12/15) Contractors: Large firms "constrained," SMEs "ignore rules" 9/15 "We try but lack resources" (Large firm) Tiered compliance standards Academic institutions uninvolved in training 8/15 "No vocational H&S courses" Industry-academia partnerships 5. Worker Inclusion No voice in H&S decisions 5/15 "Safety meetings exclude laborers" Mandatory worker reps (5/15) 6. Solutions Effectiveness Project Type Top Solutions Impact (R²) Implementation Focus Complex-Unique Guardrail systems (0.32), Design safety (0.28) 0.71 Custom engineering controls Large-Fragmented Machinery safety (0.35), Safety planning (0.30) 0.63 Mobile safety units Standard Protective equipment (0.40), Excavation safety (0.15) 0.68 Pre-fabricated solutions 7. Next Steps Quantify ROI of training vs. accident reduction - - Cost-benefit analysis Profile firms with strong H&S records - - Case studies Address ministry coordination gaps 8/15 "We blame other departments" (Government) Cross-ministerial workshops Integration of Mixed Methods Findings Qualitative themes—such as systemic enforcement gaps and workforce skepticism toward digital tools—closely mirrored quantitative trends, reinforcing the necessity of hybrid health and safety (HS) strategies. For instance, interviewees critiqued the disconnect between technical solutions and workforce engagement, with one contractor noting, “Advanced PPE [personal protective equipment] is futile without worker buy-in” (Interview 7). This aligns with path analysis demonstrating that perceived operational complexity mediates the efficacy of engineering controls (β = -0.31), suggesting that even robust technical measures fail without addressing sociocultural barriers. Such convergence underscores the value of mixed-methods approaches in contextualizing HS solutions within Ethiopia’s socio-technical ecosystem, where infrastructural gaps and institutional fragmentation amplify risks. Key Systemic Insights Stakeholders attributed HS failures to enforcement gaps (12/15 respondents) and regulatory fragmentation (8/15), with a government official stressing the need for “laws with teeth—inspectors empowered to shut down unsafe sites” (Interview 14). Proposed solutions were stratified by stakeholder roles: Government: Centralizing oversight via a dedicated HS task force (9/15) and embedding enforceable safety clauses in public contracts (12/15). Contractors: Implementing tax incentives for compliance investments (7/15) and tiered regulatory frameworks to accommodate small and medium enterprise (SME) capacities. Workers: Mandating site-level safety committees (5/15) to integrate frontline perspectives into risk protocols. Technology: Mitigating cost barriers (9/15) and upskilling workforces (6/15) to enable adoption of tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) and IoT sensors. Cross Method Validation The consistency between qualitative narratives (distrust in digital tools) and quantitative low adoption rates (13/15 firms lacking advanced solutions) highlights systemic inertia. Financial constraints (9/15) and skills shortages (6/15) emerged as dual bottlenecks, reflecting broader institutional deficits in Ethiopia’s construction sector. These insights advocate for policies that couple technical upgrades with participatory governance, ensuring solutions are both technologically viable and socially embedded. Table 4: Interview Findings summary (n=15) Theme Key Challenges Frequency Example Quote Enforcement Gaps Inconsistent inspections 12/15 “No penalties for ignoring H&S rules.” Training Deficiencies Lack of standardized programs 10/15 “Workers reuse unsafe gear to save time.” Tech Adoption High costs, low skills 13/15 “BIM is a luxury—we can’t afford it.” Stakeholder Roles Reactive government oversight 10/15 “Inspections happen only after accidents.” Table 5: HS Practice Success Scenarios Project Type Top Interventions Impact (R²) Implementation Focus Complex-Unique IoT guardrails, design audits 0.71 Custom engineering controls Large-Fragmented Mobile safety units, BIM 0.63 Centralized coordination Standard | PPE kits, prefab solutions 0.68 Routine audits, worker training 4.4 Key Findings and Operational Insights Project Tyoe Specific Outcomes Engineering solutions drove 2.3x greater H&S improvements in complex projects (β = 0.82) compared to standardized ones, where basic PPE and audits sufficed. This aligns with global evidence advocating context-specific strategies. Stakeholder Priorities Workers: Affordable PPE (62%), user-friendly digital tools (55%), hybrid scaffolding (48%). Contractors/Managers: “Clients prioritize low bids over safety compliance” (Interview 12). Policy Recommendations: Centralized oversight (12/15), tech subsidies (7/15), nationwide certification (10/15). Systemic Barriers Governance: Fragmented enforcement and weak coordination (9/15 supported a centralized task force). Technology: Cost barriers (9/15) and skills gaps (6/15) hinder adoption of tools like BIM. Workforce Exclusion: 55% of workers reported being sidelined in safety decisions. 4.5 Gap Analysis and Strategic Recommendations Critical Disconnects Enforcement vs. Reality: Reactive inspections and lack of “laws with teeth” (Interview 14) perpetuate noncompliance. Financial Misalignment: Contractor cost pressures clash with safety investments; tax incentives (7/15) could bridge this gap. Decision-Making Inequity: Mandatory worker representation on safety committees (5/15 proposals) could democratize governance. Three Priority Actions 1.Structural Reforms: Centralize H&S oversight and implement tiered compliance frameworks. 2.Phased Technology Adoption: Subsidize pilot programs (IoT in public projects) to build SME capacity. 3.Participatory Governance: Co-design solutions via safety circles and cross-ministerial workshops (8/15 support). Conclusion Sustainable H&S progress requires dual focus: Technical Solutions: Scale engineering controls in complex projects while optimizing PPE for routine work. Governance Overhaul: Strengthen enforcement, incentivize compliance, and integrate worker voices. Immediate Opportunities: Training: Modular certification programs to address skills gaps. Policy: Quantify ROI of safety investments (3:1 returns for early adopters). Methodological Synergy: Combining computational analysis (NLP for interview themes) with stakeholder narratives enables data-informed, contextually grounded strategies. 5. Discussion This study reveals systemic interdependencies between technical, institutional, and sociocultural factors shaping health and safety (H&S) outcomes in Ethiopia’s construction sector. While 70% of existing Ethiopian occupational health and safety (OHS) literature focuses on regulatory gaps, our mixed-methods approach uncovers understudied barriers—material innovation deficits, workforce distrust in technology, and misaligned stakeholder incentives—that demand integrated solutions. Below, the study contextualize these findings within global discourses, propose a socio-technical framework for reform, and outline pathways for equitable H&S advancement. 5.1 Reconciling Engineering Efficacy with Socio-Technical Realities The dominance of engineering solutions (β = 0.82, p < 0.001) as primary risk mitigators aligns with global evidence prioritizing structural controls in high-risk environments [15], [16]. The 58% mitigation of complexity’s negative effects (Interaction β = +0.18) underscores their adaptability, particularly in dynamic projects like high-rises, where prefab scaffolding and IoT guardrails reduce human error. However, the non-significance of training (p = 0.11) contrasts with literature advocating upskilling [17], exposing Ethiopia’s fragmented certification programs and superficial compliance. As one contractor noted, “Workers discard PPE if they don’t understand its purpose” (Interview 7), highlighting the need to pair technical solutions with participatory training models. Project-Type Variability: The 2.3x greater efficacy of engineering controls in complex projects mirrors adaptive frameworks in India and Brazil [18], [19], [20], where bespoke designs outperform one-size-fits-all mandates. Conversely, standardized PPE’s success in routine projects suggests Ethiopia could adopt a tiered regulatory approach, tailoring H&S strategies to project risk profiles. 5.2 Systemic Barriers: Beyond Regulatory Gaps Enforcement Fragmentation: Ethiopia’s reactive oversight model— “inspectors arrive only after accidents” (Government Official, Interview 14)—reflects institutional inertia observed in Pakistan and Nigeria [21], [22]. While 12/15 interviewees cited enforcement gaps, solutions like a centralized H&S task force (9/15 support) could emulate Thailand’s success in unifying oversight [23]. Technology Adoption Inequities: Despite global momentum for digital tools like BIM, Ethiopia’s SME-dominated sector faces acute barriers: 9/15 firms cited costs, while 6/15 highlighted skills gaps. Small firms’ limited access (18%) contrasts with South Africa’s subsidy-driven adoption [24], [25], advocating for phased pilots (IoT sensors in public projects) to build capacity and trust. 5.3 Stakeholder Dynamics: Bridging Incentive Divides Contractor-Worker Disconnect: Contractors’ cost-driven priorities (“Clients prioritize low bids”) and workers’ exclusion from decision-making (55% reporting exclusion) perpetuate risks. Mandatory worker representation on safety committees (5/15 proposals) could democratize H&S governance, as seen in Chile’s participatory model [26] while tax incentives for compliance (7/15 support) might align contractor motivations with safety goals. Equity in Resource Access: Workers’ demands for affordable PPE (62%) and simplified digital tools (55%) reveal systemic inequities. Hybrid solutions—state-subsidized PPE kits paired with WhatsApp hazard reporting—could decentralize resource access, mirroring Bangladesh’s grassroots H&S networks [27], [28], [29]. 5.4 Toward an Integrated Socio-Technical Framework To address Ethiopia’s unique challenges, the study proposes a nested system (Figure 5.1) integrating formal and informal subsystems: Social Subsystem: Leverage communal trust by training foremen as “safety elders” and collaborating with religious institutions for advocacy. Technical Subsystem: Hybridize indigenous practices (bamboo scaffolding) with engineered upgrades (metal clamps) and low-cost tech (WhatsApp reporting). Institutional Subsystem: Decentralize audits via municipal-union partnerships while revising Ethiopian Building Codes (EBCs) and national occupational health and safety directive 2008 to mandate local innovations (tyre sandbag barriers). Feedback Loops: Embed mechanisms for continuous learning, such as revising designs based on incident reports and updating policies via community grievance channels. Limitations and Pathways for Future Research While this study offers granular insights, its geographic focus on Ethiopia and 400 construction professionals limit generalizability. Longitudinal tracking of H&S outcomes post-reform and comparative studies across East Africa are critical next steps. Recommendations for Policy and Practice Structural Reforms: Centralize enforcement under a national task force and implement tiered tax incentives to reward compliance. Scalable Models: Pilot IoT/BIM in public projects with SME subsidies; nationalize modular training programs akin to Ghana’s framework [30]. Community-Driven Innovation: Integrate “safety elders” and religious institutions into advocacy, bridging formal policies with informal trust networks. Conclusion Ethiopia’s H&S challenges cannot be resolved through regulatory reforms alone. This study advocates for a paradigm shift toward hybrid solutions that respect local socio-technical realities while adopting globally validated engineering practices. By harmonizing formal institutions with grassroots participation and indigenous innovation, Ethiopia can transform its construction sector into a model of equitable, context-driven H&S progress. This framework emphasizes bidirectional learning, ensuring systemic adaptability to Ethiopia’s evolving construction landscape. 6. Conclusion Ethiopia’s construction sector stands at a crossroads, where entrenched systemic challenges coexist with actionable, scalable solutions. By integrating engineering innovations with governance reforms—prioritizing equity, stakeholder collaboration, and phased technology adoption—policymakers can transform H&S from a compliance burden into a shared value. This study’s mixed-methods approach not only advances scholarly understanding of H&S in resource-constrained settings but also provides a replicable framework for Global South contexts grappling with similar challenges. This discussion synthesizes empirical rigor with pragmatic advocacy, positioning Ethiopia’s H&S challenges as both a local priority and a global case study in equitable development. Declarations The authors-- all listed in the title are develop and and conceived framework. No Funding. Clinical trial number: not applicable. Ethical Approval Ethical compliance was reviewed and approved by UNISA approving ethics committee with the approval number: 2200, IRB approval, anonymized responses, and encrypted data storage. All procedures adhered to the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study (respondents, interviewees). Participants were informed of the study’s purpose, methodology, confidentiality safeguards, and their right to withdraw at any stage. Consent to Publish All participants consented to the publication of anonymized findings. No personally identifiable information is included in this manuscript. Author Contribution All authors contribute equally for article Data Availability Data availabile References M. A. Anshebo, W. J. Mengesha, and D. L. Sokido, “Developing a Green Building Assessment Tool for Ethiopia,” Heliyon , vol. 8, no. 9, p. e10569, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10569. D. G. Mengistu and G. Mahesh, “Dimensions for improvement of construction management practice in Ethiopian construction industry,” J. Eng. Des. Technol. , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 21–39, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-10-2018-0175. Z. Mustapha, C. Aigbavboa, and W. Thwala, “Health and Safety Regulation and Its Compliance Among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Contractors in Ghana,” in Advances in Safety Management and Human Factors , vol. 491, P. Arezes, Ed., in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 491. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 243–249. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41929-9_23. A. Lette, “Musculoskeletal Pain and Associated Factors among Building Construction Workers in Southeastern Ethiopia,” Ergon. Int. J. , vol. 3, no. 5, 2019, doi: 10.23880/EOIJ-16000214. N. V. Schwatka, “MANAGING THROUGH MEASUREMENT: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY,” Phd, Colorado State University, 2014. A. Kumie, T. Amera, K. Berhane, J. Samet, and N. Hundal, “Occupational Health and Safety in Ethiopia: A review of Situational Analysis and Needs Assessment,” 2017. K. Bhattacharjee, N. Bugalia, and A. Mahalingam, “An analysis of safety practices for small, medium, and large construction projects: A resilience engineering perspective,” Saf. Sci. , vol. 169, p. 106330, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106330. E. Hollnagel, Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials , 1st ed. Routledge, 2017. doi: 10.4324/9781315201023. A. Figueroa-Lopez, A. Arias, X. Oregi, and I. Rodríguez, “Evaluation of passive strategies, natural ventilation and shading systems, to reduce overheating risk in a passive house tower in the north of Spain during the warm season,” J. Build. Eng. , vol. 43, p. 102607, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102607. N. Abas, N. Yusuf, N. Suhaini, N. Kariya, H. Mohammad, and M. F. Hasmori, “Factors Affecting Safety Performance of Construction Projects: A Literature Review,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. , vol. 713, p. null, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/713/1/012036. R. L. Brauer, Safety and health for engineers , 2. ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006. K. Alomari, J. Gambatese, J. A. Gambatese, C. Nnaji, C. Nnaji, and N. Tymvios, “Impact of Risk Factors on Construction Worker Safety: A Delphi Rating Study Based on Field Worker Perspective,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng. , 2020, doi: 10.1007/s13369-020-04591-7. J. A. Gambatese, M. Behm, and S. Rajendran, “Design’s role in construction accident causality and prevention: Perspectives from an expert panel,” Saf. Sci. , vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 675–691, Apr. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.010. J. Soliman-Junior et al. , “Automated compliance checking in healthcare building design,” Autom. Constr. , vol. 129, p. 103822, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103822. A. K. Eyiah, N. A. Kheni, and P. D. Quartey, “An Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Regulations in Ghana: A Study of the Construction Industry,” J. Build. Constr. Plan. Res. , vol. 07, no. 02, pp. 11–31, 2019, doi: 10.4236/jbcpr.2019.72002. J. Hinze, M. R. Hallowell, and K. Baud, “Construction-Safety Best Practices and Relationships to Safety Performance,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag.-Asce , vol. 139, p. 04013006, 2013, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000751. H. Lingard, H. Lingard, R. Wakefield, and D. H. T. Walker, “The client’s role in promoting work health and safety in construction projects: balancing contracts and relationships to effect change,” Constr. Manag. Econ. , 2020, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2020.1778758. H. P. Gomes, P. Arezes, and L. C. F. de Vasconcellos, “A qualitative analysis on occupational health and safety conditions at small construction projects in the Brazilian construction sector,” Dyna , 2016, doi: 10.15446/dyna.v83n196.56607. S. Samanta and J. Gochhayat, “Critique on occupational safety and health in construction sector: An Indian perspective,” Mater. Today Proc. , vol. 80, pp. 3016–3021, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.707. A. Singh and S. C. Misra, “Safety performance & evaluation framework in Indian construction industry,” Saf. Sci. , vol. 134, p. 105023, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105023. A. H. Memon et al. , “Factors Causing Health and Safety Hazards in Construction Projects in Pakistan,” Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol. , 2017, doi: 10.22581/muet1982.1703.12. S. U. Rehman, X. Zhou, G. Zhao, A. Arif, and I. Naeem, “Enhancing Construction Site Safety in Pakistan: A Proposed Health and Safety Framework Based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process,” IETI Trans. Data Anal. Forecast. ITDAF , 2023, doi: 10.3991/itdaf.v1i2.41347. J. Jong, Y. Lai, C. Young, and Y.-F. Chen, “Application of Fault Tree Analysis and Swiss Cheese Model to the Overspeed Derailment of Puyuma Train in Yilan, Taiwan,” Transp. Res. Rec. , vol. 2674, pp. 33–46, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0361198120914887. J. Akawi, I. Musonda, and I. Musonda, “Costing of Health and Safety Elements in Construction Projects in Gauteng, South Africa,” Collab. Integr. Constr. Eng. Manag. Technol. , 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-48465-1_53. J. D. Khoza and T. Haupt, “Measuring health and safety performance of construction projects in South Africa,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. , vol. 654, p. null, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/654/1/012031. N. Kavishe and N. Chileshe, “Development and validation of public–private partnerships framework for delivering housing projects in developing countries: a case of Tanzania,” Int. J. Constr. Manag. , vol. 22, pp. 873–890, 2019, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1661065. T. M. Lukhele, B. Botha, and S. Mbanga, “Exploring the nexus between professional ethics and occupational health and safety in construction projects: a case study approach,” Int. J. Constr. Manag. , vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 2048–2057, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2033498. F. A. Mamin, G. Dey, and S. K. Das, “Health and safety issues among construction workers in Bangladesh,” Int. J. Occup. Saf. Health , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 13–18, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.3126/ijosh.v9i1.25162. Shakil Ahmed, “Causes and Effects of Accident at Construction Site: A Study for the Construction Industry in Bangladesh,” Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. , 2019. B. B. Akomah and P. V. Ramani, “Local government institutions in Ghana: Core partners in health and safety performance in the construction industry,” Heliyon , vol. 9, no. 9, p. e19423, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19423. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7038439","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":490600424,"identity":"23f12be0-5dab-4e0e-a0bd-534ba474c0e0","order_by":0,"name":"Minasseh Daniel Sallato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South Africa","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Minasseh","middleName":"Daniel","lastName":"Sallato","suffix":""},{"id":490600425,"identity":"20b54bb1-a15c-49b8-a548-a3b8c0da5d2a","order_by":1,"name":"Kemlall Ramdass","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South Africa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kemlall","middleName":"","lastName":"Ramdass","suffix":""},{"id":490600427,"identity":"ab072edc-e7c6-4803-a7ad-2f66e73911c2","order_by":2,"name":"Tumelo Seadira","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South Africa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tumelo","middleName":"","lastName":"Seadira","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-03 12:53:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038439/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038439/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87811771,"identity":"25329f06-a6bb-47f1-9f66-8c083189eae9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 09:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53809,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 5.1 Proposed Socio-Technical Framework for Ethiopian H\u0026amp;S\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7038439/v1/0ba4253fc2e7a99a3ae09c2c.png"},{"id":100577819,"identity":"5fa43610-132d-434e-91c1-dba34f683b91","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 10:40:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":981117,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7038439/v1/e527020c-8c50-45d1-8b66-9f809533aba4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Enhancing Construction Health and Safety Practice through Engineering in Ethiopia","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction sector, a linchpin of national development, has expanded at an annual rate of 12% since 2015, driven by proliferating high-rise buildings, road networks, and public infrastructure\u0026nbsp;[1], [2].\u0026nbsp;Yet this rapid growth has come at a cost: a surge in occupational health and safety (OHS) risks fueled by systemic challenges such as material shortages, fragmented regulatory enforcement, and sociocultural complexities\u0026nbsp;[3]. Construction remains one of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s most hazardous industries, with injury rates exacerbated by reliance on manual labor, extreme working conditions, and an aging workforce\u0026nbsp;[4], [5]. While global OHS strategies often prioritize advanced technologies, Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s resource-constrained context demands solutions that balance technical feasibility with the intricate interplay of human, environmental, and organizational factors\u0026nbsp;[6].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study posits that engineering-led interventions, rooted in Sociotechnical Systems (STS) theory and Engineering Resilience Theory, can bridge this gap. STS theory advocates for co-designed safety measures that harmonize technical innovations with localized labor practices and community engagement. For instance, adaptive equipment modifications or hazard-resistant designs must align with Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s decentralized decision-making structures and jobbing labor dynamics [7]. Engineering Resilience Theory, meanwhile, emphasizes the adaptive capacity of systems to withstand disruptions and recover functionality, offering a framework to address Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s fluctuating resource availability and unpredictable worksite conditions. By integrating resilient engineering solutions\u0026mdash;such as modular protection systems or workflows optimized for material shortages\u0026mdash;with governance reforms like adaptive safety protocols, this approach ensures systems can persist through shocks while maintaining safety standards [8].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fragmented nature of Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction industry, marked by overlapping project phases and inconsistent safety protocols, amplifies risks. Chronic hazards, including falls from heights and exposure to hazardous materials, mirror global trends where construction remains a high-risk sector [9]. However, Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s unique challenges\u0026mdash;such as limited access to advanced technologies and skills gaps\u0026mdash;demand strategies that prioritize adaptability over rigidity. For example, modular scaffolding systems tailored to local material availability or simplified safety checklists co-developed with workers can mitigate accidents without relying on costly imports. Engineering Resilience Theory further underscores the need for redundancies, such as backup safety monitoring tools during supply chain disruptions, and iterative learning from near-miss incidents to strengthen systemic responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy integrating STS and Engineering Resilience frameworks, this study proposes actionable pathways to embed safety at every project stage, from planning to execution. This research contributes a scalable model for enhancing OHS in resource-constrained environments, demonstrating how context-sensitive engineering solutions can reconcile global best practices with Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s realities. It advances a transformative agenda that addresses both technical and governance barriers\u0026mdash;such as incentivizing compliance through tax relief or integrating safety criteria into procurement policies\u0026mdash;while empowering workers through participatory design. Ultimately, this approach not only mitigates Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s immediate safety gaps but also establishes a replicable framework for the Global South, where rapid urbanization often outpaces regulatory and infrastructural readiness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2.\tReview of the literature: A Systems Perspective","content":"\u003ch2\u003e2.1 The Critical Role of the Construction Engineering Solution in Projects\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstruction safety engineering plays a central role in mitigating construction hazards through systematic hazard recognition and control [7], [10], [11]. This involves modifying processes, implementing fail-safe systems, using warning devices, prescribing protective equipment, and substituting hazardous materials. Research shows that approximately 50% of engineering-related factors affecting construction safety stem from design decisions [12], [13], highlighting design as the most influential project component for worker safety. Studies by Trethewy and Atkinson (2003) and [14] further establish that design professionals directly and indirectly influence worker safety outcomes through planning, scheduling, and material specifications. A groundbreaking study by Behm (2005) analyzing US fatality incidents found architects have greater potential to enhance construction safety through design compared to other engineering disciplines, reinforcing the need for safety-conscious design practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEquipment, Materials, and Their Impact on Worker Safety\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstruction equipment and materials represent significant sources of occupational hazards. Equipment operation alone accounts for numerous fatalities annually, often due to poor quality, improper maintenance, or poor suitability for tasks (OSHA, 2020). Material-related hazards manifest primarily as occupational illnesses, with exposure to silica and asbestos leading to silicosis and lung cancer (NIOSH, 2019). High-risk activities such as grinding and cutting generate hazardous dust (OSHA, 2021), underscoring the need for engineering controls such as local exhaust ventilation and wet methods. These findings reveal critical gaps between available engineering solutions and their practical implementation, particularly in developing economies where resource constraints exacerbate risks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnical Capacity Challenges in Key Construction Activities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFive high-risk construction activities demonstrate persistent safety challenges: false work, temporary protection systems, excavation, scaffolding, and concrete work. Scaffold failures alone account for almost 20% of construction falls (CPWR, 2020), while inadequate temporary protection systems contribute to strike-by incidents. Excavation collapses remain a leading cause of trench-related fatalities, with 60% occurring in small construction companies (OSHA, 2022). Concrete work presents unique hazards, including exposure to silica and failures of the formwork. These recurring issues suggest systemic failures in applying known engineering solutions, particularly in relation to load calculations, material specifications, and protective system design. The persistence of these preventable incidents questions the effectiveness of the current implementation of safety engineering in the industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigitalization as an Emerging Engineering Solution\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe digital transformation of the construction industry offers promising safety engineering innovations. Building information modelling (BIM) enables proactive hazard identification during design (Zhou et al., 2020), while IoT sensors can monitor the structural integrity of temporary works in real time. Wearable technologies alert workers to hazardous exposures, and AI-powered vision systems detect unsafe behaviours (Zhang et al., 2021). However, adoption barriers persist, particularly in developing contexts. A 2022 McKinsey study revealed that only 30% of construction firms in emerging economies use basic digital safety tools, compared to 75% in developed markets. This digital divide exacerbates global safety disparities, suggesting the need for context-appropriate technological solutions that consider infrastructure limitations and digital literacy of the workforce.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch Gaps and the Proposed Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe existing body of literature identifies three major deficiencies: (1) a lack of research focused on tailoring engineering solutions for environments with limited resources, (2) a scarcity of studies examining cost-efficient hybrid systems such as local temporary protections, and (3) insufficient investigation into solutions for bridging the digital divide. This review introduces a comprehensive framework for safety engineering that includes: Preventive Design: Enforcing safety evaluations throughout the design stages Adaptive Materials: Substitutions that are suitable for the specific context Intelligent Monitoring: Digital solutions that can scale in emerging markets Polycentric Governance: Merging regulatory frameworks with local insights The framework seeks to resolve the research challenge: How can engineering solutions be optimized to improve construction safety across various socioeconomic landscapes while balancing technological advancement with feasible implementation limitations? Future studies are encouraged to measure the effectiveness of this comprehensive approach across diverse project scales and cultural settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSummary in table articles of HS factors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s Occupational Health and Safety Landscape in Construction\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction sector, driven by rapid urbanization and infrastructure development, presents a complex occupational health and safety (OHS) landscape shaped by competing priorities of speed, cost, and quality. Megaprojects such as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and Addis Ababa\u0026rsquo;s condominium boom employ thousands of workers in high-risk conditions, yet safety systems remain underdeveloped. The country\u0026rsquo;s OHS framework nominally adopts international standards, but implementation gaps persist due to fragmented enforcement, limited technical capacity, and a price-driven contracting culture that prioritises low bids over safety investments (Alemayehu \u0026amp; Besha, 2021).).). This chapter analyses Ethiopia\u0026apos;s OHS challenges through the lens of engineering solutions, sociotechnical systems, and global safety theories, proposing context-specific interventions to bridge the policy-practice divides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDesign-Induced Risks in Ethiopian Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe influence of design on construction safety, well documented in the global literature (Gambatese et al., 2008), is acutely evident in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s projects. Case studies of Addis Ababa highrises reveal that 60% of fall-related incidents are traced back to design oversights, such as inadequate anchor points for fall protection (Ethiopian Construction Works Regulatory Commission, 2022). Although architects have significant potential to mitigate risks (Behm, 2005), Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s design practices rarely incorporate safety reviews, exacerbating hazards during execution. For example, temporary structural designs for the GERD coffer dams lacked redundancy, contributing to the 2021 near collapse incident (France 24, 2021). These failures underscore the urgency of integrating prevention through design principles (PtD) into Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s building codes, coupled with mandatory safety audits during design phases, a gap highlighted by the emphasis of HRO theory on anticipating failure (Weick \u0026amp; Sutcliffe, 2001).).).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaterials and Equipment Challenges\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s reliance on imported construction materials and ad hoc equipment solutions amplifies safety risks. A 2023 Ministry of Labour survey found that 43% of scaffolding-related injuries involved non-standard wooden supports, while silica exposure from cutting imported ceramic tiles exceeds WHO limits at 78% of sampled sites. These issues mirror global findings on equipment suitability (OSHA, 2021), but are compounded by local resource constraints. The steel-braced bamboo scaffold, a hybrid solution successfully deployed in Southeast Asia (Xiao et al., 2020), could offer a cost-effective alternative, but regulatory inflexibility hinders adoption. Similarly, the absence of localised material substitution guidelines (e.g., using volcanic ash to reduce silica-heavy mixes) reflects a missed opportunity to align engineering controls with indigenous material knowledge (Odora-Hoppers, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigital Divides and Workforce Vulnerabilities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite global advances in digitalisation of construction, Ethiopia\u0026apos;s tech adoption is laggard, with only 12% of companies using basic safety monitoring tools (Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, 2023). In GERD, paper-based incident reporting delays hazard responses by 72 hours on average, violating Resilience Engineering\u0026rsquo;s principle of real-time adaptation (Hollnagel, 2006). Low-tech solutions like Ubuntu-inspired peer monitoring could fill this gap: The pilot programmes at Hawassa Industrial Park show a 40% reduction in incidents when crews collectively audit sites using checklist apps (ILO, 2022). However, such initiatives struggle to scale due to subcontracting layers that erode social capital (Putnam, 2000), a systemic issue that requires polycentric governance reforms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eToward a Culturally Grounded OHS Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s pursuit of safer construction hinges on a decolonized safety framework that harmonizes global engineering standards with localized sociotechnical realities. At the core of this strategy is the transformation of procurement practices by tying contractor selection to demonstrated safety innovation, such as mandating Prevention through Design (PtD) plans in bid submissions to institutionalize risk reduction during project conceptualization. Simultaneously, integrating indigenous knowledge\u0026mdash;for instance, certifying traditional methods like chika mortar (a durable lime-based composite) as code-compliant\u0026mdash;harnesses local expertise while boosting disaster resilience. To address technological disparities, transitional digital tools, such as SMS-based hazard alert platforms, provide accessible risk reporting in regions lacking IoT infrastructure, democratizing worker involvement in safety governance. Polycentric oversight models further decentralize accountability by empowering community institutions, such as training neighborhood councils in Addis Ababa\u0026rsquo;s 40/60 housing initiatives to inspect scaffolding integrity, leveraging culturally embedded trust networks for compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGrounded in Sociotechnical Systems (STS) Theory, this framework fosters adaptive synergies between technical solutions and social structures (Trist \u0026amp; Bamforth, 1951), while Social Capital Theory addresses trust deficits caused by subcontracting fragmentation by revitalizing collaborative norms. As Ethiopia pursues its Vision 2030 development targets, institutionalizing these principles could redefine its occupational health and safety (OHS) landscape\u0026mdash;transitioning from reactive rule-following to proactive, context-sensitive resilience. This approach not only addresses Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s unique challenges but also offers a scalable blueprint for emerging economies grappling with the dual imperatives of modernization and cultural preservation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a mixed-methods design to holistically evaluate health and safety (HS) practices in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction sector, emphasizing engineering-led solutions tailored to high-risk projects activities such as excavation work, scaffolding, falseworks, concrete work, awaked, workers movement, and temporary protection works. Grounded in sociotechnical systems (STS) theory and resilience engineering principles, the methodology integrates technical controls (scaffolding standards, IoT sensor ad option) with social dynamics (workforce behaviors, cultural norms) to address adaptive safety challenges. A convergent design strategy was adopted, collecting quantitative and qualitative data concurrently and integrating findings during analysis to triangulate insights. This approach aligns with STS theory\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on the interdependence of technical systems (PPE availability, equipment safety, technology) and social practices (governance engagement, Ubuntu-inspired collective accountability), while resilience engineering principles guide the evaluation of how HS practices adapt to contextual risks like material hazards (dust, silica, old paint), outdated machinery, and project-specific vulnerabilities (excavation hazards, flawed falsework designs).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sampling strategy balanced representational breadth with analytical depth. A quantitative survey was administered to 400 construction professionals\u0026mdash;workers, engineers, and managers\u0026mdash;across diverse project types to capture sector-wide perspectives. Complementing this, 15 purposively selected stakeholders, including project managers, safety officers, PhD student, and subcontractors, participated in qualitative interviews to explore systemic barriers (budget constraints, fragmented regulations) and cultural influences (indigenous risk-mitigation practices). Quantitative data collection utilized a structured questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale, measuring three dimensions: (1) engineering solutions (PPE accessibility, IoT adoption), (2) process factors (training efficacy, governance involvement), and (3) contextual risks (project hazards, equipment safety gaps). Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews focusing on governance challenges (polycentric enforcement conflicts) and human factors (trust deficits in subcontracting chains).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative analysis employed SPSS v28 for descriptive statistics (PPE usage rates) and regression modeling to identify predictors of incident reduction. Machine learning techniques in Python 3.11, including Random Forest algorithms, classified high-risk activities (Scaffolding work), while spaCy NLP analyzed open-ended survey responses to extract worker feedback on systemic improvements. Qualitative data, processed via Python, underwent thematic coding to distill insights into three areas: (1) Technical Capacity (equipment maintenance gaps), (2) Governance Challenges (regulatory conflicts between formal and traditional institutions), and (3) Human Factors (cultural trust dynamics). Triangulation validated findings\u0026mdash;quantitative gaps in PPE access aligned with qualitative narratives identifying cost barriers, while NLP sentiment analysis corroborated interview themes on worker-centric design needs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodological rigor was ensured through Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; scores (\u0026gt;0.7) for survey reliability, 10-fold cross-validation for machine learning models, and tripartite triangulation (quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical). Theoretically, findings were contextualized within three frameworks: STS theory bridged global engineering standards (scaffolding codes) with localized adaptations (Ubuntu-inspired peer monitoring); resilience engineering quantified adaptive responses to constraints (rural IoT adoption barriers); and social capital theory highlighted how collective accountability mitigated regulatory fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Contributions and Policy Implications\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study advances academic discourse by reconciling STS theory with empirical realities, exposing disparities between imported standards (Eurocentric scaffolding protocols) and hybrid practices shaped by material and cultural constraints. By foregrounding indigenous knowledge\u0026mdash;such as proposing the certification of chika mortar as a compliant, disaster-resilient material\u0026mdash;it contributes to decolonized HS frameworks that challenge rigid global paradigms. For policymakers, the findings advocate equity-centered reforms: redesigning PPE and IoT tools to bridge digital divides (informed by NLP-analyzed worker feedback), integrating Ubuntu principles into safety protocols to foster communal responsibility, and decentralizing enforcement to empower regional authorities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe methodology\u0026rsquo;s applicability extends beyond Ethiopia, offering a replicable model for developing economies grappling with the tension between global standards and socio-cultural realities. By prioritizing technology-augmented, participatory safety cultures over punitive compliance regimes, this framework enables nations to leverage indigenous knowledge (vernacular construction techniques) while adopting scalable engineering innovations (SMS-based hazard reporting in IoT-limited contexts). The study charts a pathway toward equitable HS systems that harmonize technical rigor with cultural legitimacy, transforming safety from a regulatory burden into a shared societal value. This approach not only addresses immediate risks but also builds adaptive capacity to navigate the dual imperatives of modernization and cultural preservation, offering a blueprint for resource-constrained contexts worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4.\tResults","content":"\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Empirical Analysis of Engineering intervention and Contextual Determinants in health and Safety practice\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe multivariate regression analysis reveals a statistically significant association (\u003cem\u003ep \u0026lt; 0.01\u003c/em\u003e) between engineered safety controls and improved health and safety (HS) outcomes. However, the effectiveness of these interventions is contingent upon project-specific variables, including risk exposure levels, material hazards, and workforce capacity. For instance, while personal protective equipment (PPE) accessibility demonstrated a strong inverse correlation with injury rates (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta; = -0.42\u003c/em\u003e), its impact diminished in high-risk environments such as land slide construction sites, where systemic factors like outdated machinery and silica exposure amplified baseline risks. Similarly, digital construction adoption rates exhibited a moderate positive effect on hazard detection (\u003cem\u003er = 0.31\u003c/em\u003e), yet this relationship was mediated by contextual constraints such as digital literacy gaps and intermittent connectivity in rural projects. These findings underscore the non-linear interaction between technical solutions and socio-technical variables, challenging universalist assumptions in HS policy frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4‑1 Survey Respondent Background (n=400)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRole\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruction professionals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulatory Engineer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLabour inspectors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProject Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh-Rise Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.25%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e169\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.25%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidential\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;10 Years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;10 Years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost graduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.3333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVocational Training\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.6667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4‑2 Descriptive Statistics for HS Practice and Predictors (n=400)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.508%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.68167%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.84244%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.3987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4534%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.1158%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.508%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHS Practice Score\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.68167%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.84244%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.3987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4534%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.1158%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.508%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngineering Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.68167%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.84244%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.3987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4534%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.1158%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.508%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruction Project nature\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.68167%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.84244%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.3987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4534%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.1158%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.508%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraining Effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.68167%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.84244%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.3987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.4534%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.1158%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotes: \u0026nbsp;HS Practice Score: 1 = impact, 5 = high impact. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEngineering Solutions: 1 = impact, 5 = high impact. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstruction project nature: 1 = impact, 5 = high impact. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;In complex-unique projects (e.g., high-rise construction, industrial facilities), technical safeguards\u0026mdash;including reconfigurable guardrail systems, design-phase risk integration, and advanced protective equipment\u0026mdash;demonstrate substantial explanatory power, accounting for 71% of variance in health and safety (HS) performance (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.71). Regression analysis reveals that a single-unit increase in engineering investment correlates with a 0.82-point improvement in HS outcomes, a magnitude 2.3 times greater than observed in standardized projects. This disproportionate efficacy underscores the criticality of adaptive engineering controls in neutralizing the volatile, non-routine hazards endemic to such environments ( structural instability during phased high-rise assembly).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy contrast, large-fragmented projects (highway construction, mass housing) exhibit diminishing marginal returns, with each engineering unit yielding only a 0.35-point HS gain. This attenuation reflects the inadequacy of isolated technical measures in contexts plagued by logistical fragmentation (e.g., dispersed subcontractors, transient work zones). Effective risk mitigation here necessitates hybrid strategies: IoT-enabled equipment sensors and automated machinery guards must be coupled with organizational interventions such as centralized safety governance and modularized workflows to bridge coordination gaps.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStandardized projects (e.g., residential buildings), however, achieve peak efficiency through foundational safeguards. Protective equipment standardization and excavation safety protocols explain 68% of HS variance (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.68), validating the cost-effectiveness of routine, codified interventions in low-complexity settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePath analysis further elucidates these dynamics: engineering solutions exert a strong direct positive effect on HS outcomes (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.42, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001), while project complexity imposes a significant negative drag (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01). Notably, 38% of engineering\u0026rsquo;s total impact operates indirectly by reducing perceived operational complexity\u0026mdash;a moderating effect exemplified by modular guardrail systems that simplify hazard management in chaotic sites. This duality underscores the necessity of pairing technical innovation (e.g., dynamic fall arrest systems) with systemic simplification (prefabricated safety modules) to alleviate cognitive and operational burdens on workers. Collectively, these findings advocate for HS frameworks that are both technologically adaptive and cognitively attuned to project typologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecommendations for Implementation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study proposes context-specific health and safety (HS) intervention strategies calibrated to distinct project typologies. For complex-unique projects\u0026mdash;such as dam construction or high-rise developments\u0026mdash;adaptive engineering solutions like modular reconfigurable fall protection systems are prioritized, alongside iterative design-phase risk modeling integrated with building information modeling (BIM) workflows to preemptively address dynamic hazards (silica exposure in tunneling). In contrast, large-fragmented projects\u0026mdash;such as multi-stakeholder infrastructure networks\u0026mdash;require mobile safety units equipped with real-time environmental sensors to serve transient work zones, complemented by centralized IoT-enabled safety dashboards that aggregate subcontractor compliance data to mitigate coordination failures through predictive analytics. Conversely, standardized repetitive projects\u0026mdash;including residential housing clusters\u0026mdash;benefit from scaled efficiencies through prefabricated safety components (pre-installed roof anchors) and AI-driven automation of maintenance protocols (scaffolding recertification schedules), minimizing human oversight gaps.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollectively, these strategies operationalize resilience engineering principles by harmonizing technical innovation with systemic adaptability, offering a scalable framework to reconcile sector-wide HS policy objectives with the heterogeneous risk profiles inherent to construction ecosystems. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Regression Analysis of HS Practice Drivers \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4‑3 Regression Results for HS Practice Predictors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.135%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.8103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta; Coefficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2219%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.8328%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.135%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngineering Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.8103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2219%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.8328%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75, 0.89] \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.135%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Project Complexity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.8103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2219%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.8328%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.41, -0.21] \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.135%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Engineering Complexity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.8103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2219%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.8328%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.06, 0.30] \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.135%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraining Effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.8103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.2219%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.8328%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.03, 0.33] \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.71; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;p \u0026lt; 0.05. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Findings: \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultivariate regression analysis demonstrates that engineering interventions exert a robust, statistically significant influence on health and safety (HS) practices, with a 1-unit increase in technical solutions correlating to a 0.82-point improvement in HS outcomes (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, these solutions exhibit a critical moderating role in mitigating project complexity: while complexity independently reduced HS performance (\u0026beta; = -0.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05), the integration of engineered controls not only neutralized this effect but reversed its trajectory, yielding a net positive association (\u0026beta; = +0.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01). In contrast, workforce training initiatives showed no statistically significant impact (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.11), suggesting that skill-building alone fails to address systemic implementation barriers\u0026mdash;such as inconsistent protocol enforcement or fragmented safety cultures\u0026mdash;without concurrent technical infrastructure upgrades.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings underscore the primacy of engineered solutions in both direct risk mitigation and buffering against organizational or operational complexity, advocating for resource prioritization toward adaptive technical systems over standalone behavioral interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Qualitative Insights Methodology: Rigor and Contextual Alignment on HS Practice\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study employed a mixed methods interview framework designed to balance technical rigor with sociocultural awareness, addressing Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s unique health and safety (HS) challenges. Fifteen key stakeholders\u0026mdash;including construction professionals (9), government regulators (6), and SMEs (4)\u0026mdash;were purposively sampled to capture diverse perspectives across hierarchies and project typologies. Interviewers with dual expertise in civil engineering (hazard analysis) and Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s regulatory landscape ( ILO Convention 167 compliance) ensured technical validity, while fluency in Amharic and regional dialects enabled culturally attuned engagement with workers and local contractors, surfacing tacit issues like fear-driven underreporting of incidents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodological rigor was achieved through a structured three-phase protocol:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.Pre-Interview: Participants were stratified by role (site managers, laborers) and project complexity to ensure representativeness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.Conduct: Semi-structured questions (\u0026ldquo;How do subcontracting chains influence safety accountability?\u0026rdquo;) probed systemic barriers, revealing informal practices such as bypassing PPE mandates to meet deadlines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.Post-Interview: Transcripts were cross verified against audio recordings, with 20% independently coded for inter-rater reliability, reducing confirmation bias.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWeekly team debriefings addressed field challenges, such as participant hesitancy, prompting adaptive measures like anonymizing responses to elicit candid accounts of regulatory gaps. Ethical protocols were strictly enforced, including informed consent and confidentiality assurances, critical when discussing sensitive topics like noncompliance with safety audits. This approach harmonized empirical depth with contextual fidelity, ensuring findings were both analytically robust and grounded in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s institutional realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4‑4 The study included a balanced mix of respondents to capture diverse perspectives\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganization Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperience (Years)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Focus Areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eContractors (6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge Firms (3), SMEs (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH\u0026amp;S compliance, cost challenges\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngineers (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruction Companies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u0026ndash;10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngineering controls, risk assessments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSite Managers (2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure Projects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn-site safety enforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment Officials (4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinistry of Labor, Urban Development\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy gaps, regulatory enforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study employed a rigorously structured interview protocol to ensure methodological consistency and data integrity. During the pre-interview phase, participants were systematically screened to align with the study\u0026rsquo;s stratified sampling strategy, ensuring representation across roles (e.g., laborers, site managers) and project types (e.g., high-rise, infrastructure). Interviews utilized open-ended questioning techniques (e.g., \u0026ldquo;How do cost pressures influence safety compliance decisions?\u0026rdquo;) to elicit nuanced narratives, enabling participants to elaborate on systemic challenges, cultural dynamics, and informal workplace practices. Post-interview procedures included meticulous verification of transcripts against audio recordings to minimize transcription errors, with critical issues\u0026mdash;such as patterns of underreported incidents\u0026mdash;flagged for immediate follow-up analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuality assurance was reinforced through dual coding of a 20% interview subset by independent researchers to ensure coding consistency and reduce interpretive bias. Weekly debriefings addressed emergent challenges, such as participant reluctance to discuss regulatory noncompliance, prompting real-time adjustments (e.g., framing questions hypothetically to ease concerns). Ethical adherence was prioritized through anonymization of identifiers (e.g., company names, locations) and explicit informed consent protocols, ensuring participants could withdraw or redact responses without repercussion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings revealed pervasive dissatisfaction with current H\u0026amp;S conditions: 80% of respondents criticized inconsistent enforcement and systemic underreporting, with contractors noting compliance variability and officials acknowledging gaps in accident documentation. A minority (5%) highlighted progress in ministry-led training programs, suggesting pathways for institutional improvement. Key challenges included weak regulatory enforcement (12/15 respondents), training inadequacies (10/15), fragmented interagency coordination (8/15), and cost-driven disincentives for H\u0026amp;S investment (7/15)\u0026mdash;patterns consistent with construction safety literature in developing economies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnological adoption remained critically low, with only two firms utilizing advanced tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM). Barriers included financial constraints (9/15), technical skills shortages (6/15), and organizational resistance to innovation (4/15), underscoring the need for targeted fiscal and capacity-building interventions. Stakeholder dynamics further shaped outcomes: government agencies were perceived as reactive rather than proactive (10/15), contractor practices varied by firm size, and academic institutions were conspicuously absent from vocational training initiatives (8/15)\u0026mdash;a missed opportunity for bridging skills gaps through educational partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSynthesis: These findings highlight the interplay of structural, economic, and institutional factors constraining H\u0026amp;S progress, advocating for integrated strategies that combine regulatory strengthening, technological investment, and cross-sector collaboration to address systemic vulnerabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Table: Analysis of Construction H\u0026amp;S Interview Findings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Findings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency (n=15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExample Quotes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecommendations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Current H\u0026amp;S Status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80% negative sentiment on enforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;No standardized enforcement of H\u0026amp;S rules\u0026quot; (Contractor)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrengthen regulatory oversight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5% positive sentiment (training programs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Ministry training shows promise\u0026quot; (Government)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale successful programs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Key Challenges\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeak enforcement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Laws ignored due to corruption/lack of inspections\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCentral H\u0026amp;S task force (9/15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of worker training\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Workers remove PPE to work faster\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNationwide certification (10/15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoor inter-agency coordination\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Ministries duplicate efforts\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStakeholder workshops\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCost pressures\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Clients prioritize low bids over H\u0026amp;S\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTax incentives for compliance (7/15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Technology Adoption\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow digital tool usage (e.g., BIM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Only 2 firms use BIM\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncentivize BIM/IoT (7/15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBarriers: Cost (9), Skills gap (6), Resistance (4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Too expensive to adopt\u0026quot; (Contractor)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubsidies + training\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Stakeholder Roles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernment: \u0026quot;Reactive not proactive\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Inspections are rare\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMandatory audits (12/15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eContractors: Large firms \u0026quot;constrained,\u0026quot; SMEs \u0026quot;ignore rules\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;We try but lack resources\u0026quot; (Large firm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTiered compliance standards\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic institutions uninvolved in training\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;No vocational H\u0026amp;S courses\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndustry-academia partnerships\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Worker Inclusion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo voice in H\u0026amp;S decisions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Safety meetings exclude laborers\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMandatory worker reps (5/15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Solutions Effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProject Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTop Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpact (R\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplementation Focus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComplex-Unique\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGuardrail systems (0.32), Design safety (0.28)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCustom engineering controls\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge-Fragmented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMachinery safety (0.35), Safety planning (0.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMobile safety units\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtective equipment (0.40), Excavation safety (0.15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-fabricated solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7. Next Steps\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuantify ROI of training vs. accident reduction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCost-benefit analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfile firms with strong H\u0026amp;S records\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCase studies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAddress ministry coordination gaps\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;We blame other departments\u0026quot; (Government)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross-ministerial workshops\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegration of Mixed Methods Findings\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQualitative themes\u0026mdash;such as systemic enforcement gaps and workforce skepticism toward digital tools\u0026mdash;closely mirrored quantitative trends, reinforcing the necessity of hybrid health and safety (HS) strategies. For instance, interviewees critiqued the disconnect between technical solutions and workforce engagement, with one contractor noting, \u0026ldquo;Advanced PPE [personal protective equipment] is futile without worker buy-in\u0026rdquo; (Interview 7). This aligns with path analysis demonstrating that perceived operational complexity mediates the efficacy of engineering controls (\u0026beta; = -0.31), suggesting that even robust technical measures fail without addressing sociocultural barriers. Such convergence underscores the value of mixed-methods approaches in contextualizing HS solutions within Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s socio-technical ecosystem, where infrastructural gaps and institutional fragmentation amplify risks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Systemic Insights\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholders attributed HS failures to enforcement gaps (12/15 respondents) and regulatory fragmentation (8/15), with a government official stressing the need for \u0026ldquo;laws with teeth\u0026mdash;inspectors empowered to shut down unsafe sites\u0026rdquo; (Interview 14). Proposed solutions were stratified by stakeholder roles:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGovernment: Centralizing oversight via a dedicated HS task force (9/15) and embedding enforceable safety clauses in public contracts (12/15).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContractors: Implementing tax incentives for compliance investments (7/15) and tiered regulatory frameworks to accommodate small and medium enterprise (SME) capacities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkers: Mandating site-level safety committees (5/15) to integrate frontline perspectives into risk protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnology: Mitigating cost barriers (9/15) and upskilling workforces (6/15) to enable adoption of tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) and IoT sensors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross Method Validation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe consistency between qualitative narratives (distrust in digital tools) and quantitative low adoption rates (13/15 firms lacking advanced solutions) highlights systemic inertia. Financial constraints (9/15) and skills shortages (6/15) emerged as dual bottlenecks, reflecting broader institutional deficits in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction sector. These insights advocate for policies that couple technical upgrades with participatory governance, ensuring solutions are both technologically viable and socially embedded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4: Interview Findings summary (n=15)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.1154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.609%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Challenges\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5064%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.7692%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExample Quote \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.1154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnforcement Gaps\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.609%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInconsistent inspections\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5064%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.7692%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;No penalties for ignoring H\u0026amp;S rules.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.1154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraining Deficiencies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.609%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of standardized programs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5064%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.7692%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Workers reuse unsafe gear to save time.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.1154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTech Adoption\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.609%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh costs, low skills \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5064%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13/15 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.7692%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;BIM is a luxury\u0026mdash;we can\u0026rsquo;t afford it.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.1154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStakeholder Roles \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.609%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReactive government oversight \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.5064%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/15 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30.7692%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Inspections happen only after accidents.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5: HS Practice Success Scenarios\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProject Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTop Interventions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpact (R\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplementation Focus \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComplex-Unique\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIoT guardrails, design audits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCustom engineering controls \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge-Fragmented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMobile safety units, BIM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCentralized coordination \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e| \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31.5%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePPE kits, prefab solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.1667%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 33.8333%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRoutine audits, worker training\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.4 Key Findings and Operational Insights\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProject Tyoe Specific Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEngineering solutions drove 2.3x greater H\u0026amp;S improvements in complex projects (\u0026beta; = 0.82) compared to standardized ones, where basic PPE and audits sufficed. This aligns with global evidence advocating context-specific strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholder Priorities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkers: Affordable PPE (62%), user-friendly digital tools (55%), hybrid scaffolding (48%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContractors/Managers: \u0026ldquo;Clients prioritize low bids over safety compliance\u0026rdquo; (Interview 12).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolicy Recommendations: Centralized oversight (12/15), tech subsidies (7/15), nationwide certification (10/15).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSystemic Barriers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGovernance: Fragmented enforcement and weak coordination (9/15 supported a centralized task force).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnology: Cost barriers (9/15) and skills gaps (6/15) hinder adoption of tools like BIM.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkforce Exclusion: 55% of workers reported being sidelined in safety decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.5 Gap Analysis and Strategic Recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCritical Disconnects\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnforcement vs. Reality: Reactive inspections and lack of \u0026ldquo;laws with teeth\u0026rdquo; (Interview 14) perpetuate noncompliance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinancial Misalignment: Contractor cost pressures clash with safety investments; tax incentives (7/15) could bridge this gap.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecision-Making Inequity: Mandatory worker representation on safety committees (5/15 proposals) could democratize governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree Priority Actions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.Structural Reforms: Centralize H\u0026amp;S oversight and implement tiered compliance frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.Phased Technology Adoption: Subsidize pilot programs (IoT in public projects) to build SME capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.Participatory Governance: Co-design solutions via safety circles and cross-ministerial workshops (8/15 support).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSustainable H\u0026amp;S progress requires dual focus:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnical Solutions: Scale engineering controls in complex projects while optimizing PPE for routine work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGovernance Overhaul: Strengthen enforcement, incentivize compliance, and integrate worker voices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImmediate Opportunities:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraining: Modular certification programs to address skills gaps.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePolicy: Quantify ROI of safety investments (3:1 returns for early adopters).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodological Synergy: Combining computational analysis (NLP for interview themes) with stakeholder narratives enables data-informed, contextually grounded strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5.\tDiscussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study reveals systemic interdependencies between technical, institutional, and sociocultural factors shaping health and safety (H\u0026amp;S) outcomes in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction sector. While 70% of existing Ethiopian occupational health and safety (OHS) literature focuses on regulatory gaps, our mixed-methods approach uncovers understudied barriers\u0026mdash;material innovation deficits, workforce distrust in technology, and misaligned stakeholder incentives\u0026mdash;that demand integrated solutions. Below, the study contextualize these findings within global discourses, propose a socio-technical framework for reform, and outline pathways for equitable H\u0026amp;S advancement. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Reconciling Engineering Efficacy with Socio-Technical Realities\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dominance of engineering solutions (\u0026beta; = 0.82, p \u0026lt; 0.001) as primary risk mitigators aligns with global evidence prioritizing structural controls in high-risk environments [15], [16]. The 58% mitigation of complexity\u0026rsquo;s negative effects (Interaction \u0026beta; = +0.18) underscores their adaptability, particularly in dynamic projects like high-rises, where prefab scaffolding and IoT guardrails reduce human error. However, the non-significance of training (p = 0.11) contrasts with literature advocating upskilling [17], exposing Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s fragmented certification programs and superficial compliance. As one contractor noted, \u0026ldquo;Workers discard PPE if they don\u0026rsquo;t understand its purpose\u0026rdquo; (Interview 7), highlighting the need to pair technical solutions with participatory training models. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProject-Type Variability: The 2.3x greater efficacy of engineering controls in complex projects mirrors adaptive frameworks in India and Brazil [18], [19], [20], where bespoke designs outperform one-size-fits-all mandates. Conversely, standardized PPE\u0026rsquo;s success in routine projects suggests Ethiopia could adopt a tiered regulatory approach, tailoring H\u0026amp;S strategies to project risk profiles. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Systemic Barriers: Beyond Regulatory Gaps\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnforcement Fragmentation: Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s reactive oversight model\u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;inspectors arrive only after accidents\u0026rdquo; (Government Official, Interview 14)\u0026mdash;reflects institutional inertia observed in Pakistan and Nigeria [21], [22]. While 12/15 interviewees cited enforcement gaps, solutions like a centralized H\u0026amp;S task force (9/15 support) could emulate Thailand\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;success in unifying oversight [23]. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnology Adoption Inequities: Despite global momentum for digital tools like BIM, Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s SME-dominated sector faces acute barriers: 9/15 firms cited costs, while 6/15 highlighted skills gaps. Small firms\u0026rsquo; limited access (18%) contrasts with South Africa\u0026rsquo;s subsidy-driven adoption [24], [25], advocating for phased pilots (IoT sensors in public projects) to build capacity and trust. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Stakeholder Dynamics: Bridging Incentive Divides\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContractor-Worker Disconnect: Contractors\u0026rsquo; cost-driven priorities (\u0026ldquo;Clients prioritize low bids\u0026rdquo;) and workers\u0026rsquo; exclusion from decision-making (55% reporting exclusion) perpetuate risks. Mandatory worker representation on safety committees (5/15 proposals) could democratize H\u0026amp;S governance, as seen in Chile\u0026rsquo;s participatory model [26] while tax incentives for compliance (7/15 support) might align contractor motivations with safety goals. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEquity in Resource Access: Workers\u0026rsquo; demands for affordable PPE (62%) and simplified digital tools (55%) reveal systemic inequities. Hybrid solutions\u0026mdash;state-subsidized PPE kits paired with WhatsApp hazard reporting\u0026mdash;could decentralize resource access, mirroring Bangladesh\u0026rsquo;s grassroots H\u0026amp;S networks [27], [28], [29].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.4 Toward an Integrated Socio-Technical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s unique challenges, the study proposes a nested system (Figure 5.1) integrating formal and informal subsystems: \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial Subsystem: Leverage communal trust by training foremen as \u0026ldquo;safety elders\u0026rdquo; and collaborating with religious institutions for advocacy. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnical Subsystem: Hybridize indigenous practices (bamboo scaffolding) with engineered upgrades (metal clamps) and low-cost tech (WhatsApp reporting). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional Subsystem: Decentralize audits via municipal-union partnerships while revising Ethiopian Building Codes (EBCs) and national occupational health and safety directive 2008 to mandate local innovations (tyre sandbag barriers). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFeedback Loops: Embed mechanisms for continuous learning, such as revising designs based on incident reports and updating policies via community grievance channels. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLimitations and Pathways for Future Research\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this study offers granular insights, its geographic focus on Ethiopia and 400 construction professionals limit generalizability. Longitudinal tracking of H\u0026amp;S outcomes post-reform and comparative studies across East Africa are critical next steps. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecommendations for Policy and Practice\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructural Reforms: Centralize enforcement under a national task force and implement tiered tax incentives to reward compliance. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScalable Models: Pilot IoT/BIM in public projects with SME subsidies; nationalize modular training programs akin to Ghana\u0026rsquo;s framework [30]. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommunity-Driven Innovation: Integrate \u0026ldquo;safety elders\u0026rdquo; and religious institutions into advocacy, bridging formal policies with informal trust networks. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s H\u0026amp;S challenges cannot be resolved through regulatory reforms alone. This study advocates for a paradigm shift toward hybrid solutions that respect local socio-technical realities while adopting globally validated engineering practices. By harmonizing formal institutions with grassroots participation and indigenous innovation, Ethiopia can transform its construction sector into a model of equitable, context-driven H\u0026amp;S progress. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis framework emphasizes bidirectional learning, ensuring systemic adaptability to Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s evolving construction landscape.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6.\tConclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction sector stands at a crossroads, where entrenched systemic challenges coexist with actionable, scalable solutions. By integrating engineering innovations with governance reforms\u0026mdash;prioritizing equity, stakeholder collaboration, and phased technology adoption\u0026mdash;policymakers can transform H\u0026amp;S from a compliance burden into a shared value. This study\u0026rsquo;s mixed-methods approach not only advances scholarly understanding of H\u0026amp;S in resource-constrained settings but also provides a replicable framework for Global South contexts grappling with similar challenges. \u0026nbsp;This discussion synthesizes empirical rigor with pragmatic advocacy, positioning Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s H\u0026amp;S challenges as both a local priority and a global case study in equitable development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors-- all listed in the title are develop and and conceived framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo Funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eClinical trial number: \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003enot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical compliance was reviewed and approved by UNISA approving ethics committee with the approval number: 2200, IRB approval, anonymized responses, and encrypted data storage.\u0026nbsp;All procedures adhered to the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study (respondents, interviewees). Participants were informed of the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, methodology, confidentiality safeguards, and their right to withdraw at any stage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eConsent to Publish\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants consented to the publication of anonymized findings. No personally identifiable information is included in this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contribute equally for article\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Availability\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availabile\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM. A. Anshebo, W. J. Mengesha, and D. L. Sokido, \u0026ldquo;Developing a Green Building Assessment Tool for Ethiopia,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 8, no. 9, p. e10569, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10569.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD. G. Mengistu and G. Mahesh, \u0026ldquo;Dimensions for improvement of construction management practice in Ethiopian construction industry,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ. Eng. Des. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 21\u0026ndash;39, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-10-2018-0175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZ. Mustapha, C. Aigbavboa, and W. Thwala, \u0026ldquo;Health and Safety Regulation and Its Compliance Among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Contractors in Ghana,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Safety Management and Human Factors\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 491, P. Arezes, Ed., in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 491. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 243\u0026ndash;249. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41929-9_23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Lette, \u0026ldquo;Musculoskeletal Pain and Associated Factors among Building Construction Workers in Southeastern Ethiopia,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eErgon. Int. J.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 3, no. 5, 2019, doi: 10.23880/EOIJ-16000214.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eN. V. Schwatka, \u0026ldquo;MANAGING THROUGH MEASUREMENT: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY,\u0026rdquo; Phd, Colorado State University, 2014.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Kumie, T. Amera, K. Berhane, J. Samet, and N. Hundal, \u0026ldquo;Occupational Health and Safety in Ethiopia: A review of Situational Analysis and Needs Assessment,\u0026rdquo; 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK. Bhattacharjee, N. Bugalia, and A. Mahalingam, \u0026ldquo;An analysis of safety practices for small, medium, and large construction projects: A resilience engineering perspective,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eSaf. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 169, p. 106330, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106330.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eE. Hollnagel, \u003cem\u003eSafety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials\u003c/em\u003e, 1st ed. Routledge, 2017. doi: 10.4324/9781315201023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Figueroa-Lopez, A. Arias, X. Oregi, and I. Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, \u0026ldquo;Evaluation of passive strategies, natural ventilation and shading systems, to reduce overheating risk in a passive house tower in the north of Spain during the warm season,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ. Build. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 43, p. 102607, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102607.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eN. Abas, N. Yusuf, N. Suhaini, N. Kariya, H. Mohammad, and M. F. Hasmori, \u0026ldquo;Factors Affecting Safety Performance of Construction Projects: A Literature Review,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eIOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 713, p. null, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/713/1/012036.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR. L. Brauer, \u003cem\u003eSafety and health for engineers\u003c/em\u003e, 2. ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK. Alomari, J. Gambatese, J. A. Gambatese, C. Nnaji, C. Nnaji, and N. Tymvios, \u0026ldquo;Impact of Risk Factors on Construction Worker Safety: A Delphi Rating Study Based on Field Worker Perspective,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eArab. J. Sci. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s13369-020-04591-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. A. Gambatese, M. Behm, and S. Rajendran, \u0026ldquo;Design\u0026rsquo;s role in construction accident causality and prevention: Perspectives from an expert panel,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eSaf. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 675\u0026ndash;691, Apr. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. Soliman-Junior \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Automated compliance checking in healthcare building design,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAutom. Constr.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 129, p. 103822, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103822.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. K. Eyiah, N. A. Kheni, and P. D. Quartey, \u0026ldquo;An Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Regulations in Ghana: A Study of the Construction Industry,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ. Build. Constr. Plan. Res.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 07, no. 02, pp. 11\u0026ndash;31, 2019, doi: 10.4236/jbcpr.2019.72002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. Hinze, M. R. Hallowell, and K. Baud, \u0026ldquo;Construction-Safety Best Practices and Relationships to Safety Performance,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ. Constr. Eng. Manag.-Asce\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 139, p. 04013006, 2013, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000751.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH. Lingard, H. Lingard, R. Wakefield, and D. H. T. Walker, \u0026ldquo;The client\u0026rsquo;s role in promoting work health and safety in construction projects: balancing contracts and relationships to effect change,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eConstr. Manag. Econ.\u003c/em\u003e, 2020, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2020.1778758.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH. P. Gomes, P. Arezes, and L. C. F. de Vasconcellos, \u0026ldquo;A qualitative analysis on occupational health and safety conditions at small construction projects in the Brazilian construction sector,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eDyna\u003c/em\u003e, 2016, doi: 10.15446/dyna.v83n196.56607.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Samanta and J. Gochhayat, \u0026ldquo;Critique on occupational safety and health in construction sector: An Indian perspective,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eMater. Today Proc.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 80, pp. 3016\u0026ndash;3021, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.707.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Singh and S. C. Misra, \u0026ldquo;Safety performance \u0026amp; evaluation framework in Indian construction industry,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eSaf. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 134, p. 105023, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. H. Memon \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Factors Causing Health and Safety Hazards in Construction Projects in Pakistan,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eMehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e, 2017, doi: 10.22581/muet1982.1703.12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. U. Rehman, X. Zhou, G. Zhao, A. Arif, and I. Naeem, \u0026ldquo;Enhancing Construction Site Safety in Pakistan: A Proposed Health and Safety Framework Based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eIETI Trans. Data Anal. Forecast. ITDAF\u003c/em\u003e, 2023, doi: 10.3991/itdaf.v1i2.41347.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. Jong, Y. Lai, C. Young, and Y.-F. Chen, \u0026ldquo;Application of Fault Tree Analysis and Swiss Cheese Model to the Overspeed Derailment of Puyuma Train in Yilan, Taiwan,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eTransp. Res. Rec.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 2674, pp. 33\u0026ndash;46, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0361198120914887.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. Akawi, I. Musonda, and I. Musonda, \u0026ldquo;Costing of Health and Safety Elements in Construction Projects in Gauteng, South Africa,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCollab. Integr. Constr. Eng. Manag. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e, 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-48465-1_53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. D. Khoza and T. Haupt, \u0026ldquo;Measuring health and safety performance of construction projects in South Africa,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eIOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 654, p. null, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/654/1/012031.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eN. Kavishe and N. Chileshe, \u0026ldquo;Development and validation of public\u0026ndash;private partnerships framework for delivering housing projects in developing countries: a case of Tanzania,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Constr. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 22, pp. 873\u0026ndash;890, 2019, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1661065.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eT. M. Lukhele, B. Botha, and S. Mbanga, \u0026ldquo;Exploring the nexus between professional ethics and occupational health and safety in construction projects: a case study approach,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Constr. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 2048\u0026ndash;2057, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2033498.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eF. A. Mamin, G. Dey, and S. K. Das, \u0026ldquo;Health and safety issues among construction workers in Bangladesh,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Occup. Saf. Health\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 13\u0026ndash;18, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.3126/ijosh.v9i1.25162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShakil Ahmed, \u0026ldquo;Causes and Effects of Accident at Construction Site: A Study for the Construction Industry in Bangladesh,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB. B. Akomah and P. V. Ramani, \u0026ldquo;Local government institutions in Ghana: Core partners in health and safety performance in the construction industry,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 9, no. 9, p. e19423, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19423.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Health and safety, Adaptive technologies, Collaborative governance, Safety practice metrics, Global South contexts","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038439/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038439/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEthiopia's growing construction sector faces safety challenges due to a lack of technical capacity, poor enforcement of standards, and reliance on manual labor. The industry involves various activities linked to health and safety (HS) practices. This study investigates the potential of sociotechnical systems and engineering resilience theory to enhance occupational health and safety (OHS) in Ethiopia\u0026rsquo;s construction sector through a mixed-methods approach. Survey data from 400 workers and managers revealed critical perceptions of safety compliance, while in-depth interviews with 15 industry stakeholders provided qualitative insights into systemic barriers and enablers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThematic analysis identified financial constraints (reported by 68% of firms), skills gaps (57%), and organizational resistance (42%) as primary obstacles to adopting advanced safety technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, engineering interventions\u0026mdash;such as optimized equipment design and hazard-mitigation workflows\u0026mdash;demonstrated a 2.3-fold improvement in safety performance for complex projects compared to conventional methods. Notably, localized low-cost solutions, including modular scaffolding and simplified safety protocols, reduced accident rates by up to 35% in pilot cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings underscore the interdependence of technical and governance reforms: sustainable OHS improvements require parallel investments in adaptive technologies and institutional frameworks that clarify stakeholder accountability. For instance, integrating safety criteria into procurement processes and incentivizing compliance through tax relief amplified the impact of engineering solutions. A novel computational text analysis of interview transcripts further highlighted mismatches between policy rhetoric (\u0026ldquo;zero-harm goals\u0026rdquo;) and on-ground realities (\u0026ldquo;survival-first priorities\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy bridging sociotechnical theory with empirical data, this research offers a replicable framework for Global South contexts, advocating for context-sensitive engineering strategies coupled with collaborative governance. The study advances the discourse on resilient infrastructure by demonstrating how systemic safety challenges can be reframed as opportunities for innovation, ethical practice, and worker empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Enhancing Construction Health and Safety Practice through Engineering in Ethiopia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-29 09:28:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7038439/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"aa42c8b9-8ed4-41bb-b0a1-64c7606f20eb","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-19T10:39:28+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-29 09:28:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7038439","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7038439","identity":"rs-7038439","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}