## 4 Empirical Analysis
### Causal Relationship Analysis Based on DEMATEL
Using Equation (5), the comprehensive relation matrix of the safety performance indicators for PBC was determined, \(Q_{16\times 16}\); see Table 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Valid**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{1}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{2}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{3}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{4}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{5}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{6}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{7}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{8}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{9}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{10}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{11}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{12}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{13}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{14}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{15}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{16}\)}} \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Questionnaire**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{1}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{2}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{3}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{4}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{5}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{6}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{7}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{8}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{9}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{10}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{11}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{12}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{13}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{14}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{15}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(X_{16}\)}} \\ \hline
2 & 0 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 3 \\
3 & 0 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 0 & 1 & 1 An analysis of Table 6 reveals that in terms of influence degree, indicator \(X_{6}\) (construction and implementation of safety management systems) has the highest influence degree, indicating that \(X_{6}\) is most likely to trigger and affect other performance indicators. It is followed by \(X_{1}\) (personnel safety awareness and attitude) and \(X_{14}\) (quality and safety status of prefabricated components). Regarding the degree of being influenced, \(X_{14}\) (quality and safety status of prefabricated components), \(X_{1}\) (personnel safety awareness and attitude), and \(X_{6}\) (construction and implementation of safety management systems) are the top three indicators, suggesting they are most susceptible to being affected by other performance indicators. Based on this, using the centrality values \(R_{i}\) from Table 7 as the horizontal axis and the causality values \(S_{i}\) as the vertical axis, a causality diagram is plotted, as shown in Figure 1.  
An analysis of Figure 1 shows that, in terms of cause classification and effect classification, quadrants I and II belong to the cause group, while quadrants III and IV belong to the effect group. In terms of the influence degree and being influenced degree, quadrants I and IV belong to the influence group, while quadrants III and II belong to the influenced group. In the cause group, \(X_{5}\) (safety education and training) has the highest centrality value (3.0502), followed by \(X_{7}\) (safety technical disclosure and construction organization design) and \(X_{4}\) (physiological and psychological health of personnel). In the