打印

作者

Jamie Lim;Brian Kane;David Bloniarz

来源

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING,Vol.53,Issue1,Article 126736

语言

英文

关键字

Arboriculture;Worker safety;Safety standard

作者单位

University of Massachusetts (Amherst), Department of Environmental Conservation, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA, 01003, United States;University of Massachusetts (Amherst), Department of Environmental Conservation, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA, 01003, United States

摘要

Arboricultural safety standards exist in some countries, but it is unclear how many standards exist, how they compare to one another, and whether (and how many) countries share standards. To address these gaps, we obtained and analyzed arboricultural safety standards from 29 countries. We determined which safety categories were included in each standard to highlight frequently and infrequently included categories. We computed the proportion of all safety categories included in each standard, and we compared standards to determine their similarity with one another. Among 29 countries, 14 unique standards exist. Of 90 safety categories gleaned from the standards, 19 were included in all standards and 20 were included in all but 1 standard. Standards in Hong Kong, Poland, Singapore, Spain, and Sweden included at least 90 % of 90 safety categories. Our findings can be used by safety committees around the world to develop or revise local standards; they may also be used to help develop an international best management practices guide for safety.