
doi: 10.1002/ajim.23286
pmid: 34459007
AbstractBackgroundLogging and landscape work are among the most hazardous occupations, and one of the most dangerous tasks in these occupations is tree felling. While much research has been conducted to examine fatalities from logging and landscape services, there is a dearth of research looking specifically at tree felling. There is a need to focus on hazards associated with tree felling activities so that proactive prevention strategies can be developed.MethodsAn Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) database was used to identify occupational tree‐felling fatalities in the United States during the period from 2010 through the first half of 2020. We compared data for the two industry segments of logging and landscaping services.ResultsThere were 314 fatalities over the period. The victims were overwhelmingly male with the median age being 43. Struck‐by was the number one event type causing fatalities, with the head being the number one body part involved in fatalities. Falls from elevation was the only event type significantly different between the logging and landscaping industries. Poor decision‐making is noted as a key component of fatal incidents, but bystanders were fatally injured due to the actions of others.ConclusionsTree felling is one of the most hazardous activities for both loggers and commercial landscapers and is a common cause of fatalities; significant differences in events and source are encountered in those two occupations. Loggers should continue efforts to adopt mechanized harvesting methods. Landscape services tree fellers should receive training related to fall prevention.
Databases, Factual, Accidents, Occupational, Humans, Accidental Falls, Occupations, United States, Trees
Databases, Factual, Accidents, Occupational, Humans, Accidental Falls, Occupations, United States, Trees
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 12 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
