Reframing construction sites as psychosocial work environments: a conceptual framework

• Systematic review maps site conditions to mental health and wellbeing outcomes

• Integrates JD-R and Salutogenesis to interpret site-related demands/resources

• Identifies 34 indicators grouped into five modifiable site domains

• Presents a new conceptual model for site-level wellbeing interventions

• Highlights how better site design and welfare facilities can reduce safety risks

The construction industry is a large, fast-paced and technically complex sector that employs approximately 273 million workers (about 7% of the global workforce) and contributes around 13% of global gross domestic product (Global, 2020; Betts et al., 2015; Santamouris and Vasilakopoulou, 2021). Despite its central role in infrastructure development and economic growth, the construction sector has been consistently ranked as one of the most hazardous industries, with persistently high rates of fatalities, occupational diseases and injuries (Waage et al., 2010). These risks are shaped by sector-specific working conditions, including job insecurity, exposure to extreme environmental conditions, and limited welfare provisions, which intensify work demands and generate physical and psychological risks (Kurtzer et al., 2020; Vischer, 2008; Golzad et al., 2023). This combination of physical and psychosocial demands leads to sustained psychological pressures that place construction workers at heightened risk of adverse mental health and well-being (MHW) outcomes (Fayyad et al., 2024; Omer et al., 2025). MHW has consequently emerged as a critical occupational issue, with construction consistently identified as one of the poorest-performing sectors internationally (Chan et al., 2020).

Across the national contexts, construction workers exhibit disproportionately high levels of psychological distress and suicide. Across national contexts, construction workers exhibit disproportionately high levels of psychological distress and suicide. In the UK, the construction sector has been reported to experience some of the highest suicide rates among occupational groups (Office for National Statistics, 2023). In the USA, construction workers experience one of the highest suicide rates across occupational groups, with rates estimated to be several times higher than the national average (Peterson, 2020). Similarly elevated levels of psychological distress have been documented in Australia, where approximately one in four construction workers report symptoms of depression or anxiety (Black Dog Institute, 2023). Evidence from Canada and China also indicates high levels of mental ill-health among construction workers, particularly among migrant labour populations who often face additional psychosocial and environmental stressors (Blair Winkler et al., 2024). Beyond workforce suffering, poor MHW imposes substantial economic costs through reduced productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism and workforce turnover, with workplace-related mental ill-health accounting for billions in annual losses across national economies (Anthony et al., 2024; Carter and Stanford, 2021).

While previous studies have substantially advanced understanding of mental health risks in construction, evidence on site-level conditions remains fragmented. Existing literature predominantly focuses on psychosocial or organisational stressors such as job control, work pressure and organisational justice, often overlooking physical, environmental and workplace spatial design or examining them as isolated factors (Chan et al., 2020; Gómez-Salgado et al., 2023; Tijani et al., 2021). Review papers addressing environmental hazards, including heat exposure or safety systems typically lack integration across multiple site conditions and rarely apply theories rooted in psychology science to explain MHW outcomes (Acharya et al., 2018; Duckworth et al., 2024; Kineber et al., 2023). In addition, studies remain limited in their ability to conceptualise construction sites as environments with both adverse and health-promoting aspects (Malaki et al., 2025; Saraji and Mehany, 2025). A comprehensive review of the literature reveals a clear lack of a coherent, theory-informed synthesis that explicitly positions construction sites as psychosocial–physical work environments and systematically links observable, modifiable site-level characteristics, distinct from organisational or industry-wide influences, to both negative and positive MHW outcomes (Bendak et al., 2022; Xiang et al., 2014).

To address the above deficiencies, this study aims to provide a systematic review of how construction site-level characteristics influence workers’ MHW through the lens of established MHW frameworks. To this end, three objectives are formulated:

1. to identify site-level characteristics influencing workers’ MHW;

2. to interpret these characteristics through established MHW frameworks; and

3. to map the evidence to both adverse and positive MHW outcomes to inform site-focused research and intervention design.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The theoretical underpinning and research design are first described. The Results section addresses the first objective by collating and categorising site-level construction site characteristics reported in the literature. A subsequent theory-informed interpretation section addresses the second objective by interpreting these characteristics through established MHW frameworks. Finally, the synthesis of adverse and positive MHW outcomes addresses the third objective and informs implications for site-focused research, design and intervention.

This study is anchored in the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model and the Salutogenesis framework. Together, these frameworks provide complementary lenses for interpreting both adverse and positive pathways linking the physical work environment to MHW outcomes.

The JD–R model conceptualises work environments in terms of job demands that require sustained physical or psychological effort and job resources that help achieve work goals, reduce demands and support well-being (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017; Demerouti et al., 2001) . The JD–R model was used as a classificatory framework to distinguish site-level characteristics according to their primary functional role. In this study, site conditions were coded as job demands when they represented construction site exposures and work conditions requiring sustained effort and associated with physiological or psychological strain, or as job resources when they functioned to reduce demands, support task performance or recovery, or buffer the negative effects of demands (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). These classifications were applied during data extraction based on how site characteristics were described, operationalised and interpreted in the original studies, including reported mechanisms and measured variables. This approach enabled a consistent and transparent organisation of heterogeneous evidence while avoiding assumptions beyond the scope of the reported data.

The Salutogenesis framework focuses on factors that support health and well-being rather than solely on disease, emphasising the role of Sense of Coherence (SOC) in shaping how individuals perceive and cope with environmental conditions (Antonovsky, 2002). The Salutogenesis framework complements the JD–R model by providing an interpretive perspective on how work environments may support positive adaptation and well-being through SOC. In this study, SOC was treated as an analytical construct comprising three dimensions, comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness, to support interpretation of site-level characteristics linked to positive MHW outcomes. Rather than assuming direct measurement of SOC across all studies, these dimensions were used cautiously as interpretive categories to organise findings where authors explicitly reported mechanisms or outcomes aligned with clarity, coping capacity, control, purpose or perceived value.

Where included studies directly assessed SOC or closely related constructs, findings were mapped to the corresponding SOC dimension. Where SOC was not explicitly measured, mapping was undertaken only when the linkage was supported by clear descriptions, participant accounts or author interpretations consistent with salutogenic theory. To avoid over-interpretation, no causal inferences were drawn beyond the evidence reported in the original studies; instead, SOC was used as a conceptual lens to clarify how site-level conditions may contribute to both adverse and positive MHW outcomes.

Together, the JD–R and Salutogenesis frameworks underpin the conceptual framework of this study (Supplementary Figure S1), enabling systematic classification of construction site characteristics as stressors, resources or coherence-enhancing elements influencing workers’ MHW.

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al., 2021) guidelines and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology (Aromataris and Munn, 2020) to ensure transparency and rigour across search, screening, appraisal and synthesis. The JD-R and Salutogenesis frameworks informed the development of inclusion criteria, data extraction and the categorisation of site-level factors. The methodology includes database searching, study selection, bibliometric mapping and a theory-informed narrative synthesis linking construction site characteristics with MHW outcomes.

Using the PRISMA with JBI methods can enable an enhanced appraisal and synthesis. In this stance, a protocol is developed to guide inclusion criteria, search strategies, data extraction, quality appraisal and synthesis in line with the conceptual framework (Figure 1). Methodological quality was assessed using appropriate JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. Two reviewers independently appraised each study, resolving disagreements through discussion or third-party review. Appraisal outcomes informed interpretation but were not used for exclusion. Appraisal outcomes were not used as exclusion criteria; instead, they informed the interpretive weighting of evidence during synthesis, with findings from methodologically weaker studies treated with greater caution.

Following clarification of the study objectives and scope (Step 1), the review process proceeded to evidence identification and selection (Step 2) using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were specified a priori to capture peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2014 and 2025 that examined how construction site-level physical, environmental, spatial and operational characteristics influence construction workers’ MHW. Eligible studies were required to analyse site-level characteristics as job demands, job resources or coherence-enhancing features.

To maintain conceptual and analytical clarity, the study explicitly distinguished site-level factors from broader organisational or managerial determinants. Site-level factors were defined as conditions and arrangements directly within the construction workplace, including physical exposures, environmental controls, site layout, welfare facilities, safety provisions and on-site work practices. Organisational-level factors, such as leadership style, safety culture, human resource policies, contractual arrangements and corporate governance, were considered outside the primary scope of this study. Where included studies incorporated organisational or managerial elements, only findings explicitly linked to site-level conditions or their on-site implementation were extracted and synthesised. Studies in which organisational or managerial factors constituted the primary analytical focus, without a clear connection to site-level characteristics, were excluded. Non-English publications and non-peer-reviewed sources (e.g. conference papers, reports, books, editorials and review articles) were also excluded to ensure methodological consistency and analytical rigour.

Based on these criteria, a systematic literature search was conducted using keywords reflecting the relationship between construction site characteristics and MHW, including “construction site characteristics”, “mental health”, “well-being”, “worker health and safety”, “environmental factors”, “ergonomics”, “safety features”, “welfare amenities” and “work settings and practices”. These terms were expanded into structured search strings through preliminary scoping, keyword analysis, indexing terms (e.g. MeSH) and expert input to ensure comprehensive coverage. The complete database-specific search strings are provided in Supplementary Table S1.

The search was implemented across three major databases, including Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed, selected for their coverage of construction, engineering and health-related research (Chan et al., 2020; Zong et al., 2024). Database-specific keyword adaptations were applied (Supplementary Table S1), and backward and forward citation tracking was undertaken to identify additional relevant studies.

Retrieved records were collated and duplicates were removed using EndNote 21. Study selection followed PRISMA procedures (Figure 1) and was conducted in four stages. The search initially identified 1,695 records, which were reduced to 1,351 following de-duplication. After title and abstract screening, 578 articles were assessed at full-text level, of which 48 were remained eligible. Three additional studies published in 2025 were identified through citation tracking, resulting in a final sample of 51 articles included in the study.

As a complementary analytical step, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to examine the conceptual structure of the literature using keyword co-occurrence analysis in VOSviewer (v1.2.4). Standardised author keywords were analysed using a full-counting method with a minimum occurrence threshold of two, allowing identification of thematic clusters related to construction site characteristics and MHW. Bibliometric analysis was used to contextualise thematic patterns and research emphases within the field, rather than to determine study inclusion, classification or causal interpretation (Zong et al., 2024).

Bibliographic and methodological information (author, year, country, study design and sample size) was extracted alongside variables aligned with the review objectives. Construction site characteristics were identified as observable features of the construction site setting and coded in accordance with the JD-R and Salutogenesis frameworks, as defined in Section 3.2. MHW outcomes were classified as negative (e.g. stress, burnout) or positive (e.g. well-being, engagement), enabling consistent mapping of site-level risks and protective features across studies.

To strengthen coherence between empirical findings and theoretical interpretation, results are organised across three analytically linked layers:

1. domain-level evidence on construction site characteristics and associated MHW outcomes;

2. explicit interpretation of each domain using the JD-R model and Salutogenic mechanisms; and

3. consolidation of these interpretations within a coherent conceptual framework.

Publication output shows a steady increase over time, with notable growth from 2020 onwards and continued expansion into 2025. Recent studies (Alruqi et al., 2025; Guo et al., 2025), increasingly integrate psychosocial and environmental site-level factors, reflecting growing recognition of construction environments as determinants of worker’s MHW.

Identifying the journals that act as key outlets for publishing studies on a topic is of value to practitioners, directing them towards the best knowledge resources on the topic, and to investigators, identifying the best outlets for publishing (Golizadeh et al., 2018). Across the 51 included studies, publications are distributed across 31 journals. The most frequent outlets are International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and Buildings (each n = 4; 7.8%), followed by Applied Ergonomics (n = 3; 5.9%). Several journals contributed two articles, while the remaining 30 journals each contributed one article (58.8%), indicating substantial disciplinary diversity (Supplementary Table S2).

Regarding geographical distribution, the reviewed studies span 23 countries, with the highest contributions from China (9 studies), followed by Australia (6), Malaysia and Hong Kong (5 each) and Saudi Arabia (3). Moderate contributions were observed from Iran, the United Arab Emirates, India and New Zealand (2 each), while the remaining countries like the USA, UK, Italy and others, contributed one publication each. This global spread (Supplementary Figure S2) underscores the wide-spread international attention to this topic.

The reviewed studies represent diverse participant groups, with most focusing on general construction workers (approximately 70%), rather than specific professions or groups, the remining have focused on safety managers and executives (10%), migrant workers (7%), construction professionals (4%) and site managers (3%). Smaller proportions involve civil engineers, apprentices and technical trades (each ≤ 2%). Gender representation has also received increasing attention, and several large-scale studies have included samples exceeding 900 participants, including Omer et al. (2024) and Jiang et al. (2020).

The co-occurrence network reveals three major thematic clusters (Supplementary Figure S3). The red cluster centres on physical and occupational risks such as heat stress, injury and productivity, reflecting the intersection of environmental hazards and mental health challenges on construction sites. In addition, the green cluster captures broader worksite-related terms such as site, risk and perception, indicating strong links between environmental conditions and perceived health risks. Moreover, the blue cluster encompasses construction site, workplace, environment and safety, representing built environment features and workplace design considerations. These clusters collectively illustrate how site-specific factors are interconnected with both physical and mental well-being outcomes.

An analysis of research methodologies indicates a clear evolution over time (Figure 2). Early studies (2014–2016) primarily relied on field-based measurements, questionnaires and thermal indices (WBGT, TWL). From 2017 onwards, researchers increasingly incorporated physiological monitoring tools (e.g. HRV, EMG) alongside qualitative interviews. The 2022–2024 period marked a shift towards integrated, technology-driven approaches, combining biometric sensors, environmental monitoring and psychosocial assessments. In 2025, emerging studies expanded this integration further, adopting semi-structured and multilingual surveys, EDA-based physiological tracking, CFD-assisted environmental sensors and advanced analytical models (SEM and DEMATEL), to evaluate construction workers’ MHW.

Across the included studies, construction site characteristics were synthesised during the analysis into a set of 34 distinct site-level indicators, which were subsequently organised into five recurring site-level domains: Environmental Conditions, Amenities and Welfare Facilities, Safety and Security, Physical Space Design, and Work Settings and Practices. Together, these domains capture the principal categories through which construction site characteristics have been examined in relation to MHW outcomes across diverse geographical, occupational and study contexts. The full mapping of indicators to these domains is presented in Figure 3.

This section reports domain-level evidence on construction site characteristics and their associations with workers’ MHW outcomes. Findings are presented descriptively, focusing on reported exposures and outcomes without theoretical interpretation.

Environmental conditions were the most frequently examined domain across the reviewed studies. Reported site exposures included extreme heat, high humidity, poor ventilation, excessive noise, air contaminants and solar radiation. Multiple studies documented associations between these exposures and adverse mental health outcomes, including psychological stress, emotional exhaustion, cognitive fatigue and reduced subjective well-being (Al-Bouwarthan et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; Kawakami et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2021).

Heat-related exposures were particularly prominent, with studies reporting increased fatigue, irritability, concentration difficulties and mood disturbances under high thermal load conditions (Ahmed et al., 2020; Omer et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2017). Noise and air quality issues were also associated with elevated stress levels and diminished perceived comfort and well-being (Chan et al., 2016; Yasmeen et al., 2020).

Amenities and welfare facilities were examined in relation to workers’ comfort, recovery and psychological states. Reported site features included the availability and condition of rest areas, shaded spaces, hydration points, sanitation facilities and eating areas. Studies consistently linked inadequate or poorly maintained welfare facilities to increased stress, dissatisfaction and fatigue (Ahmed et al., 2020; Farshad et al., 2014; Irfan et al., 2024).

Conversely, studies documenting access to adequate rest spaces and basic amenities reported associations with lower perceived strain and improved subjective well-being, particularly in physically demanding or hot environments (Umar and Egbu, 2020; Zhang et al., 2023). Welfare-related findings were reported across diverse construction contexts, including large infrastructure projects and smaller site operations.

Safety and security-related site characteristics included hazard control measures, safety infrastructure, site supervision and perceived risk management practices. Several studies reported that inadequate safety controls, overcrowded workspaces and exposure to unmitigated hazards were associated with heightened stress, anxiety and reduced sense of safety (Hsu et al., 2016; Messeri et al., 2019; Radzi et al., 2024)

Studies also highlighted the psychological burden associated with working in environments perceived as unsafe or poorly regulated, particularly where workers felt risks were unavoidable or insufficiently managed (Umar and Egbu, 2020). Associations between safety conditions and mental health outcomes were observed across both short-term and long-duration construction projects.

Physical space design features included site layout, access routes, workspace dimensions, zoning and ergonomic configuration. Evidence indicated that constrained layouts, narrow access points, poor spatial organisation and limited ergonomic consideration were associated with increased frustration, cognitive load and feelings of confinement (Teddlie, 2016; Umar and Egbu, 2020).

Studies examining spatial organisation also reported links between poorly structured layouts and reduced task efficiency, elevated stress and diminished perceived control over the work environment (Yasmeen et al., 2020). These findings were reported across both indoor and outdoor construction environments.

Work settings and practices encompassed site-level arrangements such as working hours, task scheduling, workload intensity, rest cycles and on-site coordination. Multiple studies associated long working hours, limited rest opportunities, high physical workload and deadline pressure with psychological strain, fatigue and burnout symptoms (Jia et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2023; Yi and Chan, 2015).

The current study also identified additional site-related stressors, including bullying cultures, FIFO/DIDO arrangements, managerial overload, technological strain and confined or tunnel-based work settings (Biggs et al., 2025; Jia et al., 2016; Ross et al., 2025; Sun et al., 2025). These factors were reported to co-occur with both physical and psychological demands in complex construction sites.

In line with the analytical approach outlined in Section 4.2, the identified domains were interpreted through the JD-R model and the Salutogenesis framework to clarify how site-level characteristics relate to workers’ MHW. This subsection reports the outcome of this interpretive mapping, while detailed findings are provided in  AppendixTable A1.

Across the reviewed studies, most site characteristics within the domains of environmental conditions, safety and security, physical space design and work settings and practices were identified as job demands, reflecting conditions that require sustained physical or psychological effort and are associated with strain-related MHW outcomes. Commonly reported demands included thermal exposure, noise, constrained spatial layouts, heavy workloads and time pressure (Bitencourt et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2016; Omer et al., 2024).

In contrast, characteristics within the Amenities and Welfare Facilities domain, along with some features in Safety and Security and Work Settings and Practices, were identified as job resources when they were reported to support task performance, recovery or coping capacity. These included access to rest areas, hydration facilities, ergonomic tools, safety monitoring systems and structured work–rest arrangements (Rani et al., 2022; Techera et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2017).

Using the Salutogenesis framework, site characteristics were interpreted in relation to the three dimensions of SOC. Evidence from the reviewed studies indicated that site features influencing clarity, predictability and intelligibility of the work environment were most closely aligned with comprehensibility, particularly within the domains of physical space design and safety and security (Chan et al., 2016; Kawakami et al., 2024).

Features related to access to practical coping resources, recovery opportunities and workload regulation were predominantly aligned with manageability, spanning environmental conditions, amenities and welfare facilities, and work settings and practices (Ahmed et al., 2020; Irfan et al., 2024; Ofori et al., 2025).

Evidence relating to meaningfulness was less frequently explicit but emerged in studies describing site conditions that supported dignity, fairness, recognition and perceived value of work, particularly in relation to welfare provisions and safety practices (Jia et al., 2019; Ronis et al., 2006). Where SOC dimensions were not directly measured, alignment was based on interpretive consistency with reported mechanisms and outcomes, as documented in  AppendixTable A1.

The integrative conceptual model summarises the synthesis of the reviewed evidence. Figure 4(a) presents the JD-R pathway, while Figure 4(b) presents the Salutogenic pathway, illustrating how construction site characteristics may contribute to both positive and negative MHW outcomes. Together, the two pathways synthesise the empirical and interpretive findings of this study, conceptualising construction sites as environments that shape workers’ MHW through both demand–resource dynamics and coherence-related mechanisms. This integrated representation provides a structured foundation for the discussion of implications in the following section.

Beyond synthesising existing evidence, this study makes a distinct conceptual contribution to the construction safety and well-being literature by systematically reframing construction sites as psychosocial–physical workplaces. By consolidating 34 site-level indicators into five analytically coherent domains, the study provides a structured and integrative classification that links environmental safety design with workers’ MHW outcomes.

The study further extends established occupational health frameworks, particularly the JD-R model and the Salutogenesis framework, into the built environment domain, which remains underexplored in safety science research. Empirical studies in construction contexts support the relevance of the JD-R perspective in explaining workers’ psychological outcomes. For example, Onwuegbuchulam et al. (2024) highlight that work characteristics such as workload, leadership practices and peer support significantly influence well-being among construction professionals (Onwuegbuchulam et al., 2024). Similarly, research examining construction workers’ health indicates that demanding work conditions increase psycho-physical strain, while resources such as job control and supervisor support play a critical buffering role in mitigating these effects (Sommovigo et al., 2021). Building on this evidence, the present study demonstrates that construction site characteristics themselves, such as environmental conditions, safety provisions and site organisation, may function as structural job demands or resources shaping workers’ MHW.

The findings are also consistent with the Salutogenic perspective, which emphasises the role of resources that enable individuals to maintain health in demanding environments. Central to this framework is the concept of SOC, suggesting that individuals cope more effectively with stress when work environments are perceived as comprehensible, manageable and meaningful. Hansson et al. (2022) show that stronger SOC is associated with improved mental health and adaptive coping capacity (Hansson et al., 2022). Complementing this perspective, occupational psychology research further demonstrates that the interaction between job demands and available resources influences workers’ well-being through cognitive and coping mechanisms that shape how workplace challenges are interpreted (Fayard and Mayer, 2023). Extending this perspective to construction environments, the present study highlights how site-level characteristics may operate not only as risk factors but also as health-supporting resources that influence workers’ capacity to maintain psychological well-being in demanding project settings.

By integrating these theoretical perspectives with site-based evidence, the proposed conceptual model advances current understanding of how construction environments simultaneously generate risk and promote resilience. This contribution provides a defensible theoretical foundation for future empirical testing and for embedding mental health considerations into site design, planning and safety management research.

For the project management team, the results suggest that environmental controls (e.g. shading, ventilation, noise mitigation), spatial clarity and ergonomic layout should be treated as core design considerations rather than secondary safety measures (Ahmed et al., 2020; Omer et al., 2024). Similarly, adequate and accessible welfare facilities function as everyday recovery resources, with their quality and proximity influencing stress and fatigue outcomes (Farshad et al., 2014; Irfan et al., 2024).

The findings also indicate that safety management practices shape psychological responses to risk not only through hazard control, but also through predictability, clarity and perceived fairness in site operations (Techera et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2023). This highlights the importance of integrating environmental management, welfare provision and work organisation within routine site supervision and safety systems.

At a regulatory and policy level, the results support a preventive, site-level approach to MHW that embeds mental health considerations within existing workplace health and safety standards, site requirements, and guidance on environmental controls and welfare infrastructure. Such an approach aligns with contemporary moves towards proactive risk management across high-risk industries such as construction, mining and oil and gas, where regulatory frameworks are increasingly incorporating psychosocial risk management alongside traditional physical hazard control (Chan et al., 2020; Peterson, 2020).

This study reframes gaps in the literature through the JD-R model and the Salutogenesis framework, revealing limited integration between site-level demands, resources and cognitive-emotional mechanisms that shape MHW (Moon and Ryu, 2024; Onwuegbuchulam et al., 2024). Existing research lacks explanatory depth, causal modelling and theory-informed synthesis of how construction site characteristics simultaneously generate risk and promote resilience. Four interrelated gaps are identified across individual, site, project and industry levels (Figure 5):

1. Individual Level

At the individual level, research remains narrowly focused on short-term symptoms such as stress and fatigue, with limited examination of chronic mental health conditions (e.g. anxiety, depression, PTSD) and minimal attention to positive well-being, resilience and recovery processes (Hsu et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2017). This restricts theoretical application of both JD-R (which conceptualises long-term strain–resource dynamics) and Salutogenesis (which emphasises meaningfulness and manageability). Emerging psychosocial stressors, including technological overload, ethical tensions in AI-based monitoring, and fairness in recognition systems, are beginning to be documented but remain weakly theorised in relation to site conditions (Li et al., 2025; Ofori et al., 2025).

1. Site Conditions Level

At the site level, studies predominantly examine isolated environmental demands (e.g. heat, noise) without analysing cumulative or interacting effects, limiting alignment with JD-R concepts of combined job demands and buffering resources (Yang et al., 2021). Spatial layout, accessibility, ventilation, lighting and environmental coherence, central to manageability and comprehensibility in Salutogenesis, remain insufficiently operationalised (Radzi et al., 2024; Yasmeen et al., 2020). Although welfare amenities, cooling measures and safety infrastructure are frequently reported, they are rarely conceptualised as systematic resources that shape coping capacity or coherence (Kwong et al., 2023). The dominance of cross-sectional designs further restricts understanding of cumulative exposure and long-term psychological adaptation (Liu et al., 2023):

1. Project Level

At the project level, research documents workload intensity and scheduling pressures but rarely integrates these with physical site design, access constraints or environmental exposures that amplify demands and deplete resources (Radzi et al., 2024). Differentiated stress pathways among managers, supervisors and trades are increasingly reported, yet remain weakly embedded within unified site-based analytical frameworks (Biggs et al., 2025; Sun et al., 2025). Moreover, safety research continues to privilege physical protection over psychological dimensions of design, such as wayfinding, visibility and emergency spatial cues, which are critical to perceived control and manageability in both JD-R and Salutogenic perspectives (Yosef et al., 2022).

1. Industry Level

At the industry level, mental health initiatives remain largely disconnected from theory-informed models of site design. Existing standards prioritise hazard mitigation and productivity, with limited incorporation of JD-R constructs or Salutogenic principles such as demand–resource balance, comprehensibility and meaningfulness (Chan et al., 2016). Integrated predictive frameworks linking multiple site characteristics (e.g. layout, temperature, noise, welfare) to MHW outcomes are scarce (Zhang et al., 2023). Indoor environmental quality, inclusive and accessible design, and equity-oriented planning remain underexplored despite their relevance to manageability and long-term well-being (Imrie and Hall, 2003; Manley, 2016). While industry programs and multidimensional well-being indices show promise, their theoretical consolidation within JD-R and Salutogenic models is still limited (van Heerden et al., 2025).

This study demonstrates that construction site characteristics, beyond organisational or individual determinants, play a substantive role in shaping workers’ MHW. Synthesising evidence from 51 studies, the findings show that environmental stressors, inadequate amenities, unsafe configurations and poor spatial design are consistently associated with negative outcomes such as stress, fatigue, anxiety and burnout. Framed through the JD-R model and the Salutogenesis framework, the review further identifies how supportive site features, including ergonomic layouts, adequate ventilation, welfare amenities and visible safety controls, function as resources that promote resilience, engagement and emotional well-being.

The conceptual model developed extends existing psychological frameworks into the built-environment domain, providing a structured account of how site-level conditions operate as both demands and resources. By foregrounding modifiable, site-based factors, this study offers a practical foundation for environment-centred safety and well-being interventions in construction. Future research should empirically test the proposed pathways, examine contextual variation across project types, and integrate real-time environmental and psychosocial monitoring to support proactive, preventive approaches to mental health and safety in high-risk work settings.

Despite the above contributions, several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study was limited to English-language publications. Secondly, the search was restricted to studies indexed in major academic databases, which may have excluded relevant research published elsewhere. Finally, the study focused specifically on site-level characteristics, with only limited consideration of broader organisational or industry-level factors that may also influence workers’MHW. These limitations provide opportunities for future research to further expand the evidence base in this area.

The authors acknowledge the University of Canberra for supporting this research through the doctoral research program.

Bendak, S., Jouaret, R. and Rashid, H. (2022), “Effects of high ambient temperature on constructionworkers performance: a longitudinal empirical study”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 81, pp. 197-202.

Carvajal-Arango, D., Vasquez-Hernandez, A. and Botero-Botero, L.F. (2021), “Assessmentof subjective workplace well-being of construction workers: a bottom-up approach”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 36, p. 102154.

Chinnadurai, J., Venugopal, V., Kumaravel, P. and Paramesh, R. (2016), “Influence of occupationalheat stress on labour productivity–a case study from chennai, India”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 245-255.

Dutta, P., Rajiva, A., Andhare, D., Azhar, G.S., Tiwari, A., Sheffield, P. and Group, C.S. (2015),“Perceived heat stress and health effects on construction workers”, Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 151-158.

Eaves, S., Gyi, D.E. and Gibb, A.G. (2016), “Building healthy construction workers: their views on health, wellbeing and better workplace design”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 54, pp. 10-18.

Esmaeilifar, R., Iranmanesh, M., Shafiei, M.W.M. and Hyun, S.S. (2020), “Effects of low carbon waste practices on job satisfaction of site managers through job stress”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 115-136.

Guo, Y., Chan, A.P., Wong, F.K., Li, Y., Sun, S. and Han, X. (2019), “Developing a hybrid cooling vest for combating heat stress in the construction industry”, Textile Research Journal, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 254-269.

Kordmiri, S.H.M., Aliabadi, M., Golmohammadi, R., Bovenzi, M. and Farhadian, M. (2023), “Combined effects of noise and hand-transmitted vibration on workers’ muscle and mental fatigues in a simulated construction operation”, La Medicina Del Lavoro, Vol. 114, p. e2023021.

Liu, Q., Zhong, Z. and Li, Y. (2025), “Research on construction workers’ job well-being and unsafe state: from the perspective of maslow hierarchy of needs”, Medicine, Vol. 104 No. 31, p. e43605.

Onubi, H.O., Carpio, M. and Hassan, A.S. (2024), “Job satisfaction in green construction projects: antecedent roles of green work climate, pro-environmental construction practice and green human capital”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1857-1878.

Pogačar, T., Žnidaršič, Z., Kajfež Bogataj, L., Flouris, A.D., Poulianiti, K. and Črepinšek, Z. (2019), “Heat waves occurrence and outdoor workers’ self-assessment of heat stress in Slovenia and Greece”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16 No. 4, p. 597.

Radzi, A.R., Rahman, R.A., Alias, A.R. and Almutairi, S. (2023), “Validating the impact of psychological, physical, and social factors on workplace Well-Being at construction sites”, International Journal of Integrated Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 245-255.

Szer, I., Lipecki, T., Szer, J. and Czarnocki, K. (2022), “Using meteorological data to estimate heat stress of construction workers on scaffolds for improved safety standards”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 134, p. 104079.

Tennakoon, T.M.M.P., Ranasinghe, U., Samaraweera, A., Rameezdeen, R., Gallage, S., Newman, W.R., White, B.J. and Lim, D.N.T.W. (2025), “Work-related factors affecting mental well-being of young construction workers in South Australia”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 682-698.

Yi, W. and Chan, A.P. (2017), “Effects of heat stress on construction labor productivity in Hong Kong: a case study of rebar workers”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 14 No. 9, p. 1055.

Zhang, L., Yuan, J., Yin, X., Gu, T., Lu, Y., Liu, P. and Skibniewski, M. (2025), “The emotional equation: how psychosocial support boosts safety practices in the context of construction 5.0”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 16, p. 1632848.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.