Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: does its application differ from that in industrially advanced countries?

Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

Ergonomics in industrially developing countries: does its application di!er from that in industrially advanced countries? D.H. O'Neill* International Development Group, Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe MK45 4HS, UK Received 16 July 1999; received in revised form 6 June 2000; accepted 3 July 2000

Abstract Demographic characteristics of industrially developing countries (IDCs) and some comparisons with industrially advanced countries (IACs), particularly those aspects relevant to ergonomics, are presented. The majority of IDC populations are engaged in subsistence agriculture (the `informala sector) and consideration is given to the scope for ergonomics interventions, aimed primarily at raising productivity to alleviate the poverty su!ered by rural families. Ergonomics issues prevalent in the `formala sector are also discussed and the importance of "nding simple, low-cost solutions through participatory approaches emphasised. The possible contributions of ergonomics to alleviating problems common to both sectors, such as transport, are also indicated and attention is drawn to the di$culties of applying formal standards. The improvement of living and working conditions from incorporating an ergonomics approach into the sustainable livelihoods model, by enhancing human capital, is described in the context of the other livelihood assets. This demonstrates the importance of the cultural dimension for the successful delivery of ergonomics bene"ts. The application of ergonomics di!ers between IDCs and IACs particularly through the limited infrastructure in IDCs to support ergonomics activity and interventions. This broaches the di!erent contributions that can be made by ergonomics and occupational health practitioners and implies the need for closer collaboration between these professions.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Developing countries; Agriculture; Technology transfer; Occupational health and safety; Cultural factors; Livelihoods

1. Introduction The terms `ergonomicsa and `industrially developing countriesa both represent enormous diversity in view point. My favourite de"nition of ergonomics * `the scienti"c study of human worka * as given by Pheasant (1991) almost de"es the imposition of boundaries because the concept of work is so broad. This embraces all aspects of human endeavour from #ying jumbo-jets, to enhancing the performance of professional athletes, to surviving on subsistence agriculture. A more rigorous, yet easily assimilable, de"nition of ergonomics remains elusive. Around ten years ago Ong and Kogi (1992) quoted the ILO de"nition of ergonomics as `the application of human biological sciences in conjunction with engineering sciences to the worker and his working environment, so

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-44-1525-860-000; fax: #1-441525-860-156. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.H. O' Neill).

as to obtain maximum satisfaction for the worker which, at the same time, enhances productivitya. De"ning ergonomics has remained the subject of considerable attention and, recently, the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) has published, for comment, this draft de"nition (Anon, 2000). `Ergonomics is the discipline concerned with the fundamental understanding of interactions among human and other elements of a systema. It continues `Ergonomists contribute to the design of tasks, jobs, products and environments in order to make them compatible with the needs, abilities and limitations of peoplea. However, the de"nition on the home-page of the IEA website * `Ergonomics is the scienti"c discipline concerned with interactions among humans and other elements of a system in carrying out a purposeful activitya * is crisper and probably the better suited for IDCs.

 http://ergonomics-iea.org/iea/main.html.

0003-6870/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 8

632

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

The term `industrially developing countriesa (IDCs) may imply a simple concept but, in practice, refers to highly heterogeneous arrays of cultures, availability of resources and levels of infrastructure. On the one hand, there exist well-developed social structures, usually based on a bountiful supply of natural resources (e.g. as in parts of south-east Asia), which may, in itself, parry the need for industrialisation. On the other hand, there exist more austere societies where the culture is focussed more on survival in habitats of limited natural resources, such as the arid zones of the Sahel. A widely acknowledged characteristic of most IDCs is a high population growth rate (see Table 1) which, in most cases, overburdens the inadequate infrastructure (e.g. health, education services) and exacerbates unemployment problems. The majority of the world's population resides in IDCs and still gain their livelihoods from rural pursuits, despite the increasing trend of urban migration. Statistics quoted by Spedding (1996) indicate that of the world population of 5.1 billion people, 2.3 billion are economically active and 1.1 billion (48%) of these are economically active in agriculture. These data can be expressed according to economic category, as shown in Table 2 (also taken from Spedding, 1996). Considering broader perspectives, some contrasting attributes of IDCs and industrially advanced countries (IACs) are shown in Table 3 (from Spedding, 1996) and in Table 4 (from North, 1987), with a focus on the ergonomics aspects. In undertaking this review, in which it is possible to do no more than describe super"cially some selected problems of IDCs, the question is posed `Is the application of ergonomics in the context of IDCs conceptually or practically di!erent from that in IACs?a In the subsequent sections, attention is drawn to the ergonomics problems in the various sectors of IDCs, and how they may be resolved, in order to answer this question. The motivation is the hope that through this, ergonomics, inter alia, will play its distinct role in reducing world poverty and improving the quality of life of the most disadvantaged people on the planet. The de"nition of absolute poverty is widely accepted as having to survive on less than 1 $(US) a day (e.g. see Winkelmann, 1998): reference to Table 2 shows that this embraces at least 71% of the IDC population, most of whom rely on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods. Increased agricultural productivity has been recognised as a major (but not the only) means of combatting poverty, as one dollar extra income in agriculture gives rise to 50 cents of extra income in the rest of

 Wisner (e.g. see Wisner, 1985) coined the term IDC in cognisance of the fact that many of these countries have a developed civilisation, although not based on commerce and the mass production of capital goods.

Table 1 World population characteristics (from Spedding, 1996)

Developed nations Developing nations Total

Population (millions)

Growth rate (% per year)

1988 1235 3880 5115

1950}75 1.13 2.33 1.96

1975}88 0.73 2.09 1.74

Table 2 Population engaged in agriculture and income, according to economic category (from Spedding, 1996) Economic category

Percent of labour force in agriculture

GNP per head ($)

Lower income Lower-middle income Middle-upper income Industrial market economies

71 59 29 7

270 750 1890 12960

Table 3 Di!erences between IDCs and IACs (from Spedding, 1996) IDCs

IACs

Underproduction Low yields Starvation Low body weight Poverty Crop product consumption Muscle powered (animal and human) High percentage of young people 79% of population rural Poor hygiene Contaminated water Poor control (over conditions) Food processed at home Poor infrastructure

Overproduction High yields Overeating Obesity A%uence Meat consumption Oil powered High percentage of old people 22% of population rural Good hygiene Clean water Good control (over conditions) Most food industrially processed Good infrastructure

Table 4 Ergonomics di!erences between IDCs and IACs (from North, 1987) IDCs

IACs

Prevalence of agriculture and primary industry De"nition of work task by the individual Close contact between consumer and manufacturer Wide range of technology, productivity and working conditions Lack of contact with technology

Prevalence of manufacturing industry and service sector Clearly de"ned work tasks, rationalised work Mass production: little contact between consumer and manufacturer Homogeneous level of technology, productivity and working conditions Workers familiar with technology since childhood Work for social identi"cation

Work for subsistence

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

633

the economy (Winkelmann, 1998, quoting Haggblade et al., 1991).

2. Agriculture Three types of agriculture co-exist in most IDCs * plantations, conventional commercial agriculture and smallholder crop (and often livestock) farming. The statistics presented above suggest that the smallholder sector, where enterprises are run on a family basis, should receive priority attention, as this is the main occupation in IDCs. Furthermore, the quality of life found in IACs has generally evolved through the establishment of industrially based economies which have grown out of a robust small-scale agricultural sector. A strong smallholder sector relies on successful completion of the cycle of production tasks by means of a process that is sustainable. For smallholders, the growing of crops*staples, vegetables or cash-crops*is more demanding than the management of livestock, which is often undertaken as a means of holding wealth, where the products (or outputs) provide spin-o! bene"ts. Crop production involves a sequence of distinct operations, between which there may be interactions, comprising land preparation, planting, crop care (i.e. control of pests, such as weeds and insects) and harvesting. The main interactions arise from the e!ects of land preparation on weeding, where, in general, better land preparation reduces the weeding demand. For most smallholder farming families, post-harvest processing and storage are also essential operations. The greatest constraints on crop production are land preparation and weeding (e.g. see Fig. 1). The former constraints are due to the energy requirement, and hence power demand as time is usually a limiting factor, and the latter because of the labourious, time-consuming nature of the work (Rogan and O'Neill, 1993). The fact that there is such a strong interaction between the two brings ergonomics considerations to the fore. Shahnavaz (1983) commented that working and non-working conditions in IDCs are so inter-related that they may be considered as an undivided totality. More research and development is needed to optimise crop productivity in terms of the "nancial, labour and energy (whether human, animal or engine powered * or some combination) inputs for di!erent farming systems within the whole livelihood perspective. Other aspects of agricultural production which warrant ergonomics attention include crop care: the application of chemicals * as fertilisers or pesticides * so as to protect the health of both the operator and the environment (Rainbird and O'Neill, 1995). This applies to IACs also but the nature of the problem in IDCs di!ers mainly in the type of personal protection required. In IDCs, chemicals are generally applied by hand or hand-held

Fig. 1. Land preparation in subsistence agriculture.

and manually powered equipment, so the main means of protection is by clothing, rather than by vehicle cabs as in IACs. In the hot environments of IDCs, adequate protective clothing adds to the heat stress of the operators, which is compounded by the metabolic heat load of using the equipment. The challenge is to identify suitable clothing which provides a good compromise between protection and thermal acceptability and, most importantly, which is a!ordable. Added to this is the need to explain why protection is needed and to motivate farmers to protect themselves. The safe storage and disposal of used chemicals are also issues, with which ergonomics should be involved through the presentation of comprehensible and assimilable information. Accidents and injuries are a serious concern in all types of agriculture and their prevention should be a signi"cant ergonomics issue. There are also economic implications as discussed by McNeill and O'Neill (1998), who costed the loss of earnings of agricultural workers in Ghana according to the nature of their injuries. The commonest injury was a cutlass wound, resulting in an average of just under 10 working days lost (equivalent to about 6 US$); the most severe, although relatively uncommon, was injury due to gunshot wounds, causing an average of 60 days lost work (at a cost of around 33$). In IACs some control of health and safety risks is exerted through legislation but in IDCs legislation, where it exists, is ine!ective. Appropriate ergonomics in the

634

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

Fig. 2. The economic cycle of diseases.

design of equipment and the development of work practices can help overcome this. Economic development is constrained by a combination of circumstances that may be succinctly described by the `economic cycle of diseasesa as shown in Fig. 2 (after FAO, 1992). This is particularly relevant to smallholder farming families in IDCs because the poverty, i.e. `low salariesa, is so overwhelming. This cycle can be broken only by strong interventions at the arrows. Clearly, government hand-outs to improve education or health are options and are being pursued, but the scale of need on a national basis in most IDCs renders such interventions relatively ine!ective. There would seem to be scope for ergonomics to intervene between `low working capacitya and `low productiona to convert the `low productiona into `moderate productiona. If this then results in slightly higher incomes, nutrition and the associated factors might also improve. Such an intervention would be based on enabling the low capacity worker to better apply his/her strength, skills and abilities, through improved equipment and working methods, thereby increasing productivity and output. A prime example, considering the above discussion, would be higher crop production through improved land preparation and weeding methods and equipment. Examples where these are being achieved in practice include improved hoes designed speci"cally for tillage or for weeding, adoption of draught animal power to reduce work intensity and drudgery, and di!erent crop establishment techniques to make the tillage and weeding demands more equitable. The use of engine-powered equipment to displace labour has been questioned in societies or communities where there may appear to be an abundance of manual labour, but such a solution would be advocated only to avoid bottle-necks during periods of peak demand. Furthermore, in many

IDCs the supply of able-bodied people is diminishing because of the AIDS pandemic. There is now an increasing number of examples of ergonomics interventions in other agricultural or domestic operations where performance or health and safety have been improved. Such examples include hoe design (Manuaba and Nala, 1969), pesticide application (Ghugare et al., 1991), handling of animal-drawn equipment (O'Neill, 1997), cooking equipment (Igbeka, 1993), charcoal production (Jafry and O'Neill, 1997) and harvesting grass fodder (O'Neill, 1997). The levels of energy expenditure in agriculture are high, as it is a labour-intensive occupation. This is also true of agriculture in IACs, but in IDCs fewer operations are mechanised as there is less opportunity for engines (powered by fossil fuels) to replace manual equipment. Another di!erence between IDCs and IACs is that most of the agricultural operations (with the possible exception of land preparation) are carried out by women which means that the physical stress of doing the work is proportionately greater. An indication of this problem is evident in Table 5 taken from Nag and Chatterjee's (1981) study of 8 female agricultural workers in eastern India. This situation is exacerbated by women having to carry out their domestic duties in addition to their agricultural tasks.

3. Factories and mines These di!er from the agricultural sector in that formal employment is far more common, but heavy manual work still predominates and, furthermore, the labour force may often be regarded as expendable. The main areas of industrial enterprise in IDCs are textiles, chemicals (including petrochemicals), steel, food, building/construction and ports/docks. The principal ergonomics concerns, at present, are oriented towards the fairly strongly interrelated issues of physical workload, physical environment, equipment design and health and safety. Teniswood (1987) cited a number of examples in Table 5 Energy costs of various agricultural activities (from Nag and Chatterjee, 1981) Activity

Energy (kJ/min)

HR (/min) %V O  

Standing Walking Digging (dry soil) Transplanting paddy Weeding/sickle/sitting Weeding/sickle/bending Harvesting paddy (sitting) Harvesting paddy (bending)

4.1 11.5 19.5 12.3 11.5 14.5 12.2 12.8

87 115 144 126 112 124 115 119

13.8 28.8 48.9 31.1 29.5 33.3 30.6 32.4

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

these areas where ergonomics has been applied successfully to improve working conditions and productivity. He concluded that the practice of ergonomics was essentially the same as in IACs but relevant anthropometric data were often lacking and that only `simplea solutions were likely to be adopted. Kogi, in his many publications (e.g. see Kogi, 1985, 1997; Kogi and Sen, 1987; Kogi et al., 1998) makes the point repeatedly that solutions must, above all, be simple and reached through a participatory process. Low cost is also important but the cost may be negotiable with factory managers if economic returns are obvious and quick. Designing work stations to accommodate working postures that may be regarded as unconventional in IACs, such as the squatting so popular in south east Asia, is an application of ergonomics speci"c to IDCs. The solutions are unlikely to be found in IAC texts (e.g. see Gurr et al., 1998) but would still employ the same principles of designing within appropriate reach and force envelopes. Although Sen (1984), for example, argues for work stations designed to facilitate squatting, there is evidence to discourage this practice, especially in engineering factories where the cleanliness of machined parts is essential for the proper functioning of the resulting assemblies (e.g. axles, gearboxes, etc.). Despite the lack of appropriate anthropometric data cited above and frequently mentioned elsewhere, many, if not the majority, of ergonomics publications emanating from IDCs have been devoted to this topic. One exception is the study by Ahasan et al. (1999) of metal-workers in Bangladesh. Stresses caused by thermal factors (heat and humidity), poor air quality (inorganic dusts, welding fumes), awkward body postures and noise were found. They were identi"ed through a comprehensive ergonomics approach encompassing classi"cation of jobs and integrating cultural and socio-economic factors. Although simple, low-cost, practical solutions were advocated as the best way of overcoming these problems, the constraints that they listed would be daunting for any ergonomists who wish to put in place low-cost interventions to improve working conditions. These constraints, many of which are interrelated, included (i) negative attitudes and the acceptance of unsafe practices, (ii) poor access to information and training, (iii) the poverty cycle (low wages, poor nutrition, etc. * see Fig. 2), (iv) weak trades unions and corruption and (v) lack of support from the international community. Similar "ndings have been reported by Mbakaya et al. (1999) in Kenya. According to Asogwa (1987), based on his experiences in Nigeria, the seriousness of workplace injuries is growing at a greater rate in IDCs than in IACs. He advocates three approaches to counter this (i) a positive attitude to health and safety towards hazard elimination, (ii) national e!orts to improve legislation and enforcement and (iii) greater international cooperation. Thermal stress is likely to be an even greater problem in factories and mines than it is in agriculture. The

635

appropriateness of the relevant International Standards to certain IDC situations is now being questioned (e.g. see Yoopat et al., 1998; McNeill and Parsons, 1999). Again, this seems to be a matter of accounting for the characteristics of the population, rather than a rejection of the basic ergonomics principles. The transfer of technologies, equipment and even production lines raises many ergonomics issues which, unfortunately, are often overlooked. These technological `packagesa must be checked not only for their physical suitability (anthropometrics, biomechanics) but also for their conceptual and cognitive attributes, particularly regarding population stereotypes. These include the information implied by switch or lever position (e.g. up for o!) or conveyed by colour (e.g. red for danger). Many of these are evident from knowledge of the culture and do not necessarily need experimentation. Care must be taken to accommodate other cultural or religious factors which may be of no signi"cance in IACs, or the country from which the technology originates. The training needs associated with the transfer of technology are often overlooked: this would not occur if ergonomics were part of the transfer package. Furthermore, any training (or retraining) programme should incorporate ergonomics principles.

4. Cross-cutting issues There are several issues with signi"cant ergonomics implications in IDCs which cut across all aspects of working and living. The most prominent of these are manual handling, transport, occupational safety and health and, as a consequence, (international) standards. Transport a!ects people whether they are passengers (Manuaba, 1979) or transporters but the situation demanding the greatest ergonomics attention is where people are transporters. This implicates the other issues of manual handling and health and safety. One of the biggest contrasts between IDCs and IACs is the amount of material that is shifted by human e!ort, whether in factories, construction or in the rural (`informala) sector. Manual handling in response to the transport need is the cause of many injuries and much long-term su!ering. There is greater potential for control in the `formala sector, and some progress is being made through the application of standards, but the informal sector remains almost impervious to such considerations. Apart from the obvious practical di$culties of disseminating the principles of `good practicea and of enforcing legislation, the demands are overwhelming and families existing at the subsistence level just do not have the luxury of adopting alternative practices. Crops must be transported from the "elds after harvest and then the fraction that is to be sold (to provide desperately needed cash) has to be taken to market. The prevalent mode of transport is

636

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

headloading and, generally, this is done by women. Typically, carrying crops to market would involve carrying up to 25 kg on the head for distances of up to 15 km two or three times a week. This would give an annual transport burden (assuming 3 times a week, or, roughly, every other day) of 58.5 ton-km. This is roughly similar to the "ndings of Barwell and Malmberg-Calvo (1988) that the annual transport requirements for agricultural production and marketing of a "ve-person household in Makete District, Tanzania, was 87 ton-km. Added to this are the demands of fetching water and fuelwood which could bring the average requirement of a typical household to 220 ton-km, taking approximately 4800 h, annually (Bryceson and Howe, 1993). In many cases, headloading is the only practicable method because of the nature of the paths and the terrain. There is huge scope for improving the transport infrastructure in rural communities, with very signi"cant contributions from ergonomics and logistics to ensure a thorough systems analysis to deliver comprehensive and user-friendly solutions. In particular the scope for intermediate means of transport (IMT) interventions (Sieber, 1999; Gebresenbet et al., 1997) incorporating an ergonomics perspective should be pursued. An example of an imaginative IMT development is given in Fig. 3, illustrating a mobile shop in Kenya. In the formal sector, appropriate manual handling limits must be de"ned, according to local populations, and applied. The applicability of IAC data in IDC circumstances may need validating. Some other occupational health and safety needs, with respect to personal protection equipment, have already been mentioned. Protecting the worker against airborne and respiratory hazards is no less important in factories than it is in agriculture, but exercising control may be more feasible in factories (Veturi et al., 1987). Nevertheless, employers will take action only if the enforcement authorities are strong enough or the economic advantages are immediately and unambiguously obvious. Protecting people at work from the dangers of heat stress will always be a problem in tropical countries, which most IDCs are. In the rural industries, where people have a degree of independence, periods of work will be chosen to avoid the hottest times of the day. However, during `bottlenecksa, survival depends on perseverance; guidelines or standards become irrelevant. The solution here is to avoid bottlenecks (see section on agriculture). In the formal sector, the applicability of standards to deal with heat stress, especially those developed in IACs, may also be questionable. Yoopat et al. (1998), for example, studied conditions in a Thai steelmill and concluded that applicability of ISO 7243 (1982)

 Barrows, bicycles, tricycles, pack animals, animal-drawn carts, scooters, etc. (i.e. anything between headloading and small `pick-upa trucks)

Fig. 3. Mobile shop in Kenya.

should be rati"ed. This is only one example, however, and more research is required. A comprehensive review of occupational health problems in IDCs has been compiled by Jeyeratnam (1992). He asserted that the di!erences between IDCs and IACs lie in the emphases and priorities for each. He argues the need to provide occupational health services through primary health care in IDCs whereas, in many IACs, this may be seen as the control of occupational disease. In other words, in IDCs, the emphasis must be on prevention and should be a national developmental priority, transcending the health sphere. This, however, opens a potential con#ict as to whether the prime responsibility should lie with the `Ministry of Laboura or `Ministry of Healtha. There is also the question of the responsibility of the employer, although this is of little or no relevance in the rural `informala sector. Clearly, there is a need for intersectoral collaboration and for including the `Ministry of Agriculturea, often the only means of reaching the rural labour force. According to Sekimpi (1992), the agricultural worker requires increased protection from occupational health threats because of the physically strenuous work, greater likelihood of under-nutrition and fatigue, and greater exposure to biological threats (e.g. zoonoses, parasitic diseases, organic dusts, etc.), plus their additive e!ects. Sekimpi (1992) also stated that primary health care must be the favoured model for improving occupational health in IDCs (quoting the Alma-Ata Declaration * WHO, 1978) and that agricultural health should have special consideration.

5. Discussion Thirty years ago, Singleton and Whit"eld (1968) were asked to justify the promotion of ergonomics in a particular IDC where so many millions of people were a%icted with, or dying of, diseases such as TB and

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

637

Table 6 Major elements making up the `Livelihood Assetsa Human

Natural

Physical

Social

Financial

Skills Knowledge Strength/Health

Land Water Biodiversity

Buildings Machinery Infrastructure

Networks Relationships A$liations

Savings Credit Remittances

leprosy. Their response was basically concerned with the proper use of manpower. In this respect, ergonomics must be an essential component of any nation's development strategy. Thirty years on, with the AIDS pandemic, this response would seem even more poignant. More recently, Kogi and Sen (1987), in their review of `Third Worlda ergonomics, commented that the major focus was the analysis of workplace problems. The work that they reviewed must surely have been directed at improving people's health and livelihoods but was this the aim perceived in the communities at large, or did the projects not deliver their intended outputs? Is there a bigger gap between ergonomics and occupational health in IDCs than in IACs? Is the potential contribution of ergonomics interventions fully appreciated by occupational health practitioners? Apart from interventions by multi-national companies, commented on by Meshkati (1989) and Wisner (1985) amongst others, international aid agencies have exerted a signi"cant in#uence on re-structuring IDCs through both governments and NGOs (non-government organisations). Many mistakes have been made along the way and no agency would deny that. It is worth considering the current philosophy of the British aid agency DFID (the Department for International Development, formerly the ODA } Overseas Development Administration) which has been formulated, taking account of past shortcomings, to avoid the pitfalls inevitable if a holistic approach is not adopted. Disregarding, as far as possible, political motivation, current thinking is based on families or households achieving economic security, which, for the vast majority in IDCs, depends on establishing food security (see Table 2). The approach is based on the concept that every family and community is endowed with various `capitalsa to some degree. These capitals, also described as the `livelihood assetsa, are the human, the natural, the physical, the social and the xnancial, comprising the elements shown in Table 6. Thus, in total, these capitals represent a large, multivariate array of livelihood assets, which individuals, families or communities can draw upon to increase their economic security (i.e. reduce their poverty) and improve their quality of life. To be e!ective and sustainable, any intervention to reduce poverty must, somehow, increase the sum total of these assets. An inappropriate intervention acting on just one of these capitals without due regard for the other elements, or consideration of their

interactions, could result in a net loss. For example, the introduction of inappropriate machinery to raise the physical capital could reduce labour productivity and have a negative impact on health. This is a conventional ergonomics scenario, but the multi-disciplinary approach that ergonomics o!ers renders it eminently suitable to provide a framework for this sustainable livelihoods model. The idea of human capital is not especially new; it underpins the concept of human resources which is now the focus of many management activities. However, the idea carries greater meaning when considered in the context of the other capitals shown in Table 6. In IDCs, human capital has commonly been used as a synonym for labour but, with the development of the `investing in peoplea approach, the other issues shown in the left hand column of Table 6 are brought into perspective. Oyowe (1996) pointed out that a child in an IAC is born wealthy because of its share of capital accumulated by earlier generations. In his terminology these include roads, schools, hospitals, telecommunications (i.e. physical in Table 6) and the less tangible such as democracy, trades unions, a free Press, etc. (i.e. the social in Table 6). According to Oyowe, a typical consequence is that, for example, a nurse in Germany earns 30 times more than one in Bangladesh although their duties, training and skills are much the same. The di!erence simply re#ects the higher dividend bestowed on them through di!erences in their heritages. One element of human capital which seems to have been somewhat underestimated in importance, at the micro level if not at the macro level, is nutrition. Gross energy balances of sectors of IDC populations have been considered and compiled in documents such as the FAO/WHO/UNU recommendations (WHO, 1985 * see also Durnin, 1987) but these tend to overlook the circumstances of individuals (i.e. the micro level). Longhurst (1997, 1984) took a closer look at individual circumstances, considering particularly the quality, intensity and time allocations of speci"c daily tasks, and formulated the idea of an `energy trapa. This demonstrates that the poorest members of communities are unable to transform enough of their energy into income

 For more on micro- and macro-ergonomics, see Hendrick (1995) or McNeill et al. (1999).

638

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

to create a surplus over subsistence. The richer people, on the other hand, are better able to employ others to undertake the energy-expensive tasks. Such a scenario is highly appropriate for an ergonomics intervention, particularly one by which a poorer person, or family, could, through improved equipment, transform more energy into income. Referring to Table 6, and identifying the roles of the various capitals, such an intervention would be regarded as part of the physical capital, would be designed for the human capital to act on the natural capital and, to succeed, must be compatible with the xnancial and social capitals. The constraints of the "nancial capital are self-evident * what cash or credit can a poor person access? The relevance of the social capital to ergonomics interventions warrants a little more discussion. Whereas networks and relationships are usually taken to have supportive or positive implications, a$liations may present constraints. For example, Acheson (1972) reported that older men in some Mexican villages were reluctant to learn new skills, particularly relating to crafts and industrial enterprises, as this represented a threat to their traditional prestige. Another example of the social capital tending to inhibit development of the human capital comes from India (Daftuar, 1975). Village life in rural India is deeply traditional and comprises close-knit societies operating under the main in#uences of family and caste. Work is shared and is regarded as a family responsibility, with the son of a carpenter expected to be a carpenter and so on. According to Daftuar (1975), a blacksmith will be assisted by his son who will, in e!ect, be his apprentice, learning and practising the same techniques. Attempts to bring in anyone from outside are likely to be resented. In a broader perspective, but not so evident in the rural (or informal) sector, certain tribal or ethnic groups have become associated with trades unions (see Cheater, 1989). From her examples, drawn mainly from the decolonisation period in eastern and southern Africa, it is not clear whether there was a net gain or loss to the communities at large. Although such organisations are often resistant to change, it would be wrong to brand them as Luddites. Jeyeratnam (1992) identi"ed a di!erence in approach (rather than in principle) by reference to occupational health. In IDCs this should be incorporated into primary health care schemes to deliver bene"ts whereas, in IACs there would appear to be su$cient infrastructure to rely on secondary schemes. This is not to say that there would not be bene"ts in IACs if ergonomics were incorporated into primary schemes. In IACs there are more mechanisms for ergonomics interventions and there are more opportunities to introduce the behavioural changes suggested by Moray (1995), and mentioned below, which would lead to increases in the sum total of livelihood assets. Kaplan (1995) commented that cultural factors are worthy of renewed interest after attention was initially

drawn to them within the scope of ergonomics by Chapanis (1975) and later by Wisner (1991). He suggests that, in today's global workplace, `"tting the job to the culturea may be more important than &"tting the job to the man', quoting a personal communication with Maurino (1993) * `technology is not a good traveller unless it is culturally calibrateda. Ultimately, we must be able to answer questions such as how does culture a!ect (i) the relationship between human performance and its controlling variables, (ii) sensory functions and (iii) cognitive processes and mental models (e.g. for training). Gurr et al. (1998), pursuing this line of thought, warn of the possibility that ergonomists, making cross-cultural recommendations, may even provide detrimental advice. They refer, in particular, to the case of sitting or squatting and are concerned that, with ergonomics being a construction of Western culture, the conclusions and recommendations from research into postural and musculoskeletal issues have a cultural bias. Moray (1995) stated that the need to help countries caught in the trap of rising population and falling natural and economic resources is surely a challenge that should attract ergonomists, rather than the development of technical solutions suitable for a capital-intensive society. What ergonomics has to contribute is a technology for changing behaviour to o!set problems. The task of ergonomics is to design a lifestyle support system that elicits the behaviour required to reduce the severity of global problems, taking into account cultural and environmental di!erences. This is a mammoth challenge, stretching ergonomics to the limit and, above all, demanding a holistic approach, with ergonomists playing their part in a multi-disciplinary team. At present, unfortunately, the necessary resources are not available and, maybe, the international will to assemble the necessary resources is not yet strong enough.

6. Conclusions The application of ergonomics principles in IDCs is not at odds with their application in IACs but the implementation would seem to require an extra challenge and, maybe, a di!erent starting point. Extra e!ort and skills are required (i) to compensate for the lack of infrastructure in providing a framework within which ergonomists can operate and ergonomics recommendations can be disseminated and realised, (ii) to deal with the hazy distinction between work and household security or family survival, (iii) to observe and respond to the cultural dimension(s) and (iv) to devise a!ordable improvements for people with very few, if any, cash assets. Ergonomics provides an approach which must be integrated into all national development plans aimed at combatting poverty, but ergonomics will be regarded as a useful input only if its potential and promises are

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

delivered. Converting ergonomics concepts into sustainable improvements in quality of life, whether primarily via improvements to working conditions or to occupational health, requires many other factors to be in place. Kaplan's (1995) comment about "tting into the culture is key to the delivery of ergonomics bene"ts. With the relatively low status of ergonomics in IDCs, largely attributable to infrastructural arrangements, it may be said that ergonomics (such as de"ned by Pheasant, 1991) is too important to be the sole responsibility of ergonomists. Nevertheless, with the potential for confusion over which government ministry should take the lead, as suggested by Jeyeratnam (1992), ergonomists must be at the forefront in addressing and orchestrating the development challenge. The need for ergonomics initiatives and ergonomists, providing cultural sensitivity and participatory skills, collaborating in multi-disciplinary teams and employing bottom-up rather than topdown technology development, is even more acute in IDCs than in IACs. Closer collaboration between occupational health and ergonomics practitioners o!ers a promising starting point. In considering the question posed in the title of this paper, the di!erence at the start of the new millennium, lies in where we are coming from, not where we are going to. The principles do not di!er nor do the goals of healthy and productive communities, but these goals will not necessarily be attained by taking the same track.

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the many in#uences, in particular DFID (the Department for International Development, London), whose sponsorship over a wide range of projects has enabled me to develop the views expressed. However, these views are entirely my own and may not be attributed to any of the organisations with whom and for whom I have worked.

References Acheson, J.M., 1972. Limited good or limited goods? Response to economic opportunity in a Tarascan pueblo. Am. Anthropol. 74 (5), 1152}1169. Anon, 2000. Ergonomics International News and Information, March 2000. Ergonomics 43 (3), 434}442. Asogwa, S.E., 1987. Prevention of accidents and injuries in developing countries. Ergonomics 30 (2), 379}386. Ahasan, M.R., Mohiuddin, G., VaK yrynen, S., Ironkannas, H., Quddus, R., 1999. Work-related problems in metal handling tasks in Bangladesh: obstacles to the development of safety and health measures. Ergonomics 42 (2), 385}396. Barwell, I., Malmberg-Calvo, C., 1988. Makete integrated rural transport project: the transport demands of rural households, "ndings from a village-level travel survey. Rural Transport Paper No. 19, ILO, Geneva, 90 pp.

639

Bryceson, D.F., Howe, J., 1993. Reducing household transport in Africa: reducing the burden on women?. World Dev. 21 (11), 1715}1728. Chapanis, A. (Ed.), 1975. Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Cheater, A.P., 1989. Social Anthropology: An Alternative Introduction. Routledge, London. Daftuar, C.N., 1975. The role of human factors engineering in underdeveloped countries, with special reference to India. In: Chapanis, A. (Ed.), Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 91}113. Durnin, J.V.G.A., 1987. Energy requirements - the 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU recommendations. Chemistry and Industry 543}547. FAO, 1992. Introduction to ergonomics in forestry in developing countries. FAO Forestry Paper 100, FAO, Rome. FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985. Energy and protein requirements. Technical Report Series 724, WHO, Geneva. Gebresenbet, G., O'Neill, D., Mutua, J., Oram, C., 1997. Technological support for rural agricultural transport and development. Keynote paper presentation to Improving Rural Agricultural Transport Systems for Enhanced Production and Marketing in Smallholder Farms of East Africa. Proceedings published by KENDAT (Kenya Network for Draught Animal Technology), Nairobi. Ghugare, B.D., Adhaoo, S.H., Gite, L.P., Pandya, A.C., Patel, S.L., 1991. Ergonomics evaluation of a lever operated knapsack sprayer. Appl. Ergon. 22 (4), 241}250. Gurr, K., Straker, L., Moore, P., 1998. Cultural hazards in the transfer of ergonomics technology. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 22, 397}404. Haggblade, S., Hammer, J., Hazell, P., 1991. Modeling agricultural growth multipliers. Am. J Agric. Econ. 73, 361}374. Hendrick, H., 1995. Future directions in macroergonomics. Ergonomics 38 (8), 1617}1624. Igbeka, J.C., 1993. Some ergonomic studies of Nigerian women involved in agricultural processing. Proceedings of XXV CIOSTA CIGR V Congress, 1993, pp. 183-189. ISO 7243, 1982. Hot environments * estimation of the heat stress on working man based on the WBGT index. International Standards Organisation, Geneva. Jafry, T., O'Neill, D.H., 1997. The role of ergonomics in development aid programmes. In: Robertson, S.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics, 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 60}65. Jeyeratnam, J., 1992. Occupational Health in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. xi}xii. Kaplan, M., 1995. The culture at work: cultural ergonomics. Ergonomics 38 (3), 606}615. Kogi, K., 1985. Participatory approach in applying ergonomics for workplace improvements in developing countries. In: Brown, I.D., Goldsmith, R., Coombes, K., Sinclair, M. (Eds.), Ergonomics International 85. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 370}372. Kogi, K., 1997. Ergonomics and technology transfer into small and medium-sized enterprises. Ergonomics 40 (10), 1118}1129. Kogi, K., Kawakami, T., Itani, T., Batino, J.M., 1998. Impact on productivity of low-cost work improvement in small enterprises in a developing country. In: Scott, P., Bridger, R.S., Charteris, J. (Eds.), Global Ergonomics. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 23}26. Kogi, K., Sen, R.N., 1987. Third world ergonomics. In: Oborne, D.J. (Ed.), International Reviews of Ergonomics, Vol. 1. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 77}118. Longhurst, R., 1984. The energy trap: work, nutrition and child malnutrition in northern Nigeria. Cornell International Monograph Series No 13, Ithaca, New York. Longhurst, R., 1997. Gender dimensions: the energy trap revisited. Paper presented at the Workshop Gender di!erentials in work intensity, sustainability and development, University of East Anglia, July 1997.

640

D.H. O+Neill / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 631}640

Manuaba, A., 1979. Ergonomics and development in Bali Indonesia. In: van Loon, J.H., Staudt, F.J., Zander, J. (Eds.), Ergonomics in Tropical Agriculture and Forestry. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation. Wageningen, pp. 108}112. Manuaba, A., Nala, N., 1969. A survey on patjols in Bali. Proceedings of 16th International Congress on Occupational Health, Tokyo, pp. 434-436. Mbakaya, C.F.L., Onyoyo, H.A., Lwaki, S.A., Omondi, O.J., 1999. A survey on management perspectives of the state of workplace health and safety practices in Kenya. Accid. Anal. Prev. 31, 305}312. McNeill, M.B., O'Neill, D.H., 1998. Occupational disorders in Ghanaian subsistence farmers. In: Hanson, M.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics, 1998, Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 592}597. McNeill, M.B., Parsons, K.C., 1999. Appropriateness of international heat stress standards for use in tropical agricultural environments. Ergonomics 42 (6), 779}797. McNeill, M.B., Parsons, K.C., O'Neill, D.H., 1999. Ergonomics considerations in technology transfer and development. Sci. Technol. Dev. 16 (3), 100}110. Meshkati, N., 1989. Technology transfer to developing countries: a tripartite micro- and macroergonomic analysis of human-organisation-technology interfaces. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 4, 101}115. Moray, N., 1995. Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty"rst century. Ergonomics 38 (8), 1691}1707. Nag, P.K., Chatterjee, S.K., 1981. Physiological reactions of female workers in Indian agricultural work. Hum. Factors 23 (5), 607}614. North, K., 1987. Ergonomics in developing countries: a need or a luxury? In: Ergonomics in Developing Countries: an International Symposium, Occupational Safety and Health Series No. 58, International Labour O$ce, Geneva, pp. 126-133. O'Neill, D.H., 1997. Participatory ergonomics with subsistence farmers. In: Robertson, S.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics, 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 232}237. Ong, C.N., Kogi, K., 1992. Application of ergonomics to developing countries. In: Jeyeratnam, J. (Ed.), Occupational Health in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 211}234. Oyowe, A., 1996. Investing in people. The Courier No 159 (SeptemberOctober 1996), pp. 45}47. Pheasant, S.T., 1991. Ergonomics, Work and Health. Macmillan Press, London. Rainbird, G., O'Neill, D.H., 1995. Occupational disorders a!ecting agricultural workers in tropical developing countries. Appl. Ergon. 26, 187}193.

Rogan, A., O'Neill, D.H., 1993. Ergonomics aspects of crop production in tropical developing countries: a literature review. Appl. Ergon. 24 (6), 371}386. Sekimpi, D.K., 1992. Occupational health services for agricultural workers. In: Jeyeratnam, J. (Ed.), Occupational Health in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 31}61. Sen, R.N., 1984. Application of ergonomics to industrially developing countries. Ergonomics 27 (10), 1021}1032. Shahnavaz, H., 1983. Ergonomics of developing countries: a conceptual approach. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ergonomics of Developing Countries, Centre for Ergonomics of Developing Countries, Lulea, Sweden. Singleton, W.T., Whit"eld, W., 1968. The organisation and conduct of a World Health Organisation inter-regional course on ergonomics for developing countries. Human Factors 10 (6), 633}640. Sieber, N., 1999. Transporting the yield: appropriate transport for agricultural production and marketing in sub-Saharan Africa. Transp. Rev. 19 (3), 205}220. Spedding, C.R.W., 1996. Agriculture and the Citizen. Chapman & Hall, London. Teniswood, C.F., 1987. Ergonomics in industry. In: Ergonomics in Developing Countries: an International Symposium, Occupational Safety and Health Series No. 58, International Labour O$ce, Geneva, pp. 183}191. Veturi, S.M., Lakshmi, B.K., Ganguli, A.K., Chakrabarti, A.K., 1987. The impact and feasibility of international/national standards in the prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in developing countries. Ergonomics 30 (2), 405}410. Winkelmann, D.L., 1998. Productivity, poverty alleviation and food security. In: Waterlow, J.C., Armstrong, D.G., Fowden, L., Riley, R. (Eds.), Feeding a World Population of More Than Eight Billion People * A Challenge to Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 264}272. WHO, 1978. Alma-Ata 1978. Primary health care. Report of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR. WHO, Geneva. Wisner, A., 1985. Ergonomics in industrially developing countries. Ergonomics 28 (8), 1213}1224. Wisner, A., 1991. New technologies and old thoughts: relations between ergonomics and cognitive anthropology. In: Singleton, W.T., Dirkx, J. (Eds.), Ergonomics, Health and Safety: Perspectives for the Nineties. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp. 41}55. Yoopat, P., Vanwonterghem, K., Intanaront, K., 1998. An assessment of workload in the Thai steel industry. Appl. Ergon. 29 (4), 267}271.