.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Fatigue Monitoring Technologies in Construction: How Professionals Perceive, Trust, and Prefer Subjective, Objective, and Hybrid Approaches
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.3390/buildings16112091.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Fatigue remains a persistent contributor to safety incidents in construction; however, limited research has examined how industry professionals perceive and prioritize fatigue monitoring approaches in real-world settings, particularly within the context of increasing digitization and data-driven safety management. To address this gap, this study conducted an exploratory survey of 103 construction professionals, including workers, supervisors, safety personnel, and project managers, to assess their familiarity with subjective, objective, and hybrid fatigue monitoring methods, along with their implementation preferences and perceived challenges. Descriptive statistical analysis and qualitative interpretation were used to evaluate familiarity levels and method preferences. The results indicate that subjective approaches, such as self-assessments and rating-based check-ins, are more widely recognized (mean ≈ 2.1/5), while awareness of objective, sensor-based systems remains lower (≈1.5/5). Despite this disparity, approximately 38% of respondents preferred hybrid approaches that integrate subjective inputs with wearable or physiological data, and a similar proportion perceived these approaches as the most reliable for operational decision-making. Additionally, more than 85% of participants indicated that fatigue monitoring could moderately to significantly improve job-site safety. These findings suggest that successful adoption depends on usability, user acceptance, and the effective integration of digital monitoring tools into construction workflows.
Keywords:
fatigue monitoring
construction safety
wearable sensing
hybrid monitoring systems
industry readiness
construction digitization
Journal
IF:
3.1
Papers:
1.7W
Citations:
2.5W
View more organizations