Keywords: Florists, Unorganized Sector, Occupational Health Risks, Awareness and Social Security Schemes.
INTRODUCTION
Floriculture is one of the most promising subsectors of the Horticultural Industry that involves cultivation and trading of flowers for ornamental use. Besides being a multibillion-dollar industry today, floriculture is also one of the highly labour-intensive sectors of agriculture with a large number of stakeholders engaged in production, supplying, crafting and trading of ornamental flowers, being spread all over the country in rural and urban areas.
While working with flowers and trees may appear inviting, it presents several hidden risks. Florists regularly encounter exposure to chemicals, sharp tools, and challenging working conditions. The repetitive nature of tasks like sorting, cutting, arranging, and packaging flowers can significantly impact their health. Over time, awkward postures and repetitive motions lead to high rates of musculoskeletal disorders, resulting in muscle pain, joint stiffness, and long-term strain.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The unorganized sectors including the floral industry, encounter a set of unique occupational challenges for its workers due to lack of formal supervision and support. Thus, research on occupational hazards and social welfare schemes is crucial for improving the well-being of workers in these settings.
Studies by Ayalon and Tzafrir (2020) and Karahan et al. (2022) highlight significant ergonomic risks faced by workers in unorganized and labour-intensive sectors. Ayalon and Tzafrir identified that repetitive motions and awkward postures are linked to high rates of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among agricultural workers. Similarly, Karahan et al. reported that repetitive tasks across various labour-intensive professions have a substantial impact on musculoskeletal health, reinforcing the need for ergonomic improvements.
Further research by C. Theppitak et al. focused on flower garland makers and found that ergonomic risks primarily stem from improper sitting postures, repetitive hand and wrist motions, and unsuitable workstations. Their study indicated that prolonged sitting in a slumped position increases the risk of low back pain, underscoring the necessity for ergonomic adjustments in the floral industry. A study by Munala J. M., Olivier B., Karuguti M. W., and Karanja M. S. on 270 Kenyan flower farm workers confirmed that these workers are heavily burdened by work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The study observed that job designation, older age, and prolonged working hours contribute to the risk of developing MSDs.
In addition to ergonomic concerns, there is a pressing need to address social security and welfare schemes for workers in the unorganized sector. A study by Sharma et al. (2021) explored the impact of social security schemes on informal sector workers in India. It found that inadequate access to social security and welfare schemes exacerbates the vulnerability of workers in unorganized sectors, including florists. The lack of formal health coverage and financial support can further strain the well-being of these workers, compounding the effects of ergonomic risks.
Furthermore, the research by Khan and Verma (2023) highlighted that informal sector workers, including florists, often lack awareness of available welfare schemes and face barriers to accessing these resources. The study emphasized the need for targeted outreach and education to improve the enrolment and utilization of social security schemes among workers in the unorganized sector.
Despite the widespread nature of musculoskeletal discomfort across various professions, there remains a gap in research specifically addressing both ergonomic risks and social security issues among florists in the unorganized sector. Developing interventions that address both the occupational and financial well-being of florists in the unorganized sector is crucial for bridging this gap.
AIM: To assess occupational health risks and social security awareness among florists in Mumbai's unorganized sector.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
To assess the occupational health risks encountered by florists in the unorganized sector of Mumbai.
To explore awareness and engagement of florists with social welfare schemes in the unorganized sector of Mumbai.
METHODOLOGY
An exploratory study was conducted on 120 florists engaged in floral crafting and trading in Mumbai city and its suburbs. Samples were selected using purposive sampling technique. Data was collected using a semi-structured interview schedule. CMDQ (Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire – Cornell University,1994) was used to assess the musculoskeletal discomfort experienced by florists at work. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse the data collected in terms of frequency, means and percentages.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION:
Fig 1: Age
It is evident from the fig 1 that majority of the florists (39.17% ) were in the 28-38 age group, followed by 34.17% in the age group of 18-28 years. A small group of 15.83% of florists were aged between 38-48 while those above 48 years constituted the smallest group of 10.83%.
Graph 1: Gender and type of Florists
Graph 1 shows that a third of florists 33.33% primarily specialized in floral garland making, 33.33% in jewellery making and the remaining 33.33% in bouquet making. Further, a significant number of florists were males (87.50%) engaged in garland, jewellery and bouquet making and a small group of 12.50% were females engaged in floral jewellery making only.
Table 1: Characteristics of florists
| FLORISTS | Frequency [N=120] | Percentage |
| EDUCATION | ||
| Illiterate | 55 | 45.83% |
| Primary education | 37 | 30.83% |
| Secondary education | 28 | 23.33% |
| Graduate | 0 | 0% |
| MONTHLY INCOME | ||
| 0 -10K | 31 | 26.66% |
| 11-20k | 69 | 56.66% |
| 21- 30K | 09 | 7.50% |
| 31- 40K | 11 | 9.17% |
| more than 50K | 0 | 0% |
| WORKER ORIGIN | ||
| Local | 30 | 25% |
| Migrant | 90 | 75% |
| EMPLOYMENT STATUS | ||
| Ownership | 45 | 37.50% |
| Salaried | 75 | 62.50% |
Table 1 reveals that a significant portion of the workforce was illiterate (45.83%) or had only primary education (30.83%). In terms of monthly income, the majority (56.66%) earned between 11-20K, while about a quarter (26.66%) earned less than 10K. A smaller percentage (7.50%) earned between 21-30K, and 9.17% made between 31-40K, with none earning above 50K. These figures indicated that most florists operated within a low-income bracket, contributing to their economic vulnerability. additionally, a majority of florists were migrants (75%), with a smaller proportion (25%) belong to the state of Maharashtra. Regarding employment status, a larger segment of florists (62.50%) were salaried, while 37.50% owned their own businesses.
Thus, these factors viz. low education levels, modest monthly income and a reliance on salaried work, contribute to the overall vulnerability of florists in the unorganized sector, making them a priority group for social security interventions and educational programs.
Fig 2 - 4: WORK SCHEDULE & WORK SPACE
It is observed from the above fig 2 that 66% florists worked for all 7 days a week, while 20% worked 3-4 days and 14% worked 5-6 days. None of the florists worked for 1-2 days per week; thus, indicating that majority of florists had a full-week work schedule, reflecting the intensive nature of their occupation.
In terms of working hours (fig 3), 52.50% reported to have worked 9-12 hours per day and 25% worked more than 12 hours. Only 22.50% worked 5-8 hours per day, with no florists working 0-4 hours thereby suggesting that a significant portion of florists had long working hours, which may impact their overall well-being and highlight the need for improved working conditions.
Further, it is evident from fig 4 that almost half of the respondents (florists) (49.17%) operated from street stalls, 49.83% worked in street cubicle and 10% in open space.
Table 2: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH RISK AMONG FLORISTS [N=120]
| Task Demand | Yes | No | Sometimes |
| While preparing bouquet, garland or jewellery | |||
| Do you have to lift heavy weights | 0 | 75% | 25% |
| Do you require difficult and forceful gripping with the hands | 57.50% | 0 | 42.50% |
| Do you use tools that require a great deal of effort to hold, control/use | 6.67% | 23.33% | 70% |
| Do you require very accurate placement of objects | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| Do you have to handling of fragile objects | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| Do you have to repetitively lift objects (>2 per min) | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| Awkward Postures | |||
| Do you work with the hands held far away from the body or above the shoulders | 29.16% | 51.67% | 19.16% |
| Do jobs with one or both arms behind the body | 0 | 100% | 0 |
| Do you have to bend or twist your neck forward, back or to the side | 73.33% | 1.67% | 25% |
| Do you need to bend or twist the wrist | 90.83% | 0 | 9.17% |
| Do you have to pick-up or hold things using difficult grips (pinch grips, wide finger grips) | 92.50% | 0 | 7.50% |
| Do you have to sit/stand for prolonged periods of time without a change in posture/break | 75% | 0 | 25% |
| Repetitive work | |||
| Do you have to repeatedly lift heavy weights | 0 | 100% | 0 |
| Does your task involve monotonous & repetitive movement of wrists and forearm | 100% | 0 | 0 |
| Does your task involve repetitive motions that last for several hours without a break | 75% | 0 | 25% |
| Does your task require repeated finger force | 95% | 0 | 5% |
| Does your task you to repeatedly grip or manipulate floral objects/tools | 97.50% | 0 | 2.50% |
| Do you use poorly designed hand tools when carrying out work | 80% | 0 | 20% |
| Is the same task (s) repeated every 30 seconds for 1 hour or more | 93.33% | 0 | 15% |
| Work Environment | 0 | ||
| Do you work in poor lighting levels | 63.33% | 0 | 36.67% |
| Do you work in extreme temperatures – hot/cold | 83.33% | 0 | 16.67% |
| Do you work in conditions with extreme noise or vibration | 95% | 0 | 5% |
| Do you work in a cluttered area | 75% | 0 | 25% |
Table 2 provides an overview of the occupational risks by florists in the informal sector. A little more than half of the florists (57.5%) report to require difficult and forceful gripping while making bouquet garland or jewellery; 70% use tools that require substantial effort sometimes while 6.67% report that they do use them frequently. All florists perceive that the major risk factor is the repetitive lifting of objects, with 100% of florists performing this task (>2 per minute).
Additionally, a little less that one-third of the group (29.16%) work with hands above shoulders or far from the body, potentially leading to shoulder and upper arm strain, with an additional 19.16% doing so occasionally. A significant 73.33% of florist report to bend or twist their neck, while 90.83% bend or twist their wrists. 92.5% report using difficult grips, such as pinch grips or wide finger grips, which add to the hand and finger strain.
All 100% of florists report to have engaged in monotonous repetitive movements involving the wrist and forearm, with 75% working without a break for several hours. Additionally, 97.5% repeatedly grip or manipulate objects, further straining their hands.
While 83.33% worked in extreme temperatures, a large group of 95% worked in environments with extreme noise or vibration, a third 75% reported to having cluttered workspaces and 63.33% work in poorly lit conditions, thereby increasing stress and potential occupational risks; and making tasks even more challenging for florists at work.
Graph 2: Discomfort experienced by florists
Graph 2 illustrates the frequency of musculoskeletal discomfort reported by florists in the informal sector in Mumbai. A significant group of florists reported of experiencing discomfort in the neck and both right and left wrists, with 110 (91.67%) reporting such issues. Discomfort was also reported in the forearms, affecting 108 florists (90%) and in the right upper arm, affecting 102 florists (85%). Additionally, a considerable number of florists reported discomfort in the lower back (83.33%), upper arm (81.66%), and lower legs (80.83%).
These results are consistent with previous studies on musculoskeletal discomfort in labour-intensive jobs. Research by Armstrong et al. (2008) highlights the negative impacts of repetitive tasks and poor posture on musculoskeletal health. Gallagher et al. (2012) further highlights that repetitive and forceful movements contribute significantly to strain in the upper limbs. The high incidence of lower back discomfort observed in this study aligns with findings from van Dieën et al. (2001) and Smith et al. (2004), who attributed such discomfort to poor posture and prolonged static positions. Additional support is provided by a study from Winkel et al. (1998), which discusses how manual handling and awkward postures exacerbate lower back issues in similar occupational settings.
Graph 3: Awareness and Enrolment in Social Welfare Schemes
Data from graph 3 shows that only 19.17% of florists are aware of social security schemes available to them, while a majority (80.83%) are not. Furthermore, only 10.83% of florists have enrolled in any welfare schemes, leaving a significant 89.17% unenrolled.
Graph 4: Barriers in Enrolling for Social Welfare Schemes
Graph 4 indicates the perceived barriers to enrolment in welfare schemes among florists in the unorganized sector. The most significant barriers include economic constraints wherein 85% of florists reported that financial difficulties prevent their enrolment, followed by 84.17% cite the complexity of application processes as a major hindrance; 82.5% of respondents face difficulties with required paperwork and 80.83% believe that inadequate awareness about the schemes is a major barrier.
CONCLUSION:
The findings of this study reveal significant occupational health risks and a low level of awareness regarding social security schemes among florists in Mumbai’s unorganized sector. The high prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort, particularly in the wrists, lower back, and forearms, underscores the urgent need for ergonomic improvements in this labour-intensive profession. These results align with previous studies highlighting the detrimental impact of repetitive tasks, awkward postures, and inadequate working conditions on musculoskeletal health.
Additionally, the study also uncovered alarming gaps in social security awareness and enrolment among florists. With 80.83% of respondents unaware of available schemes and only 10.83% enrolled, it is clear that a significant portion of the workforce is not benefiting from crucial social safety nets. The barriers to enrolment—such as financial constraints, complex application processes, and inadequate awareness—reflect broader challenges faced by workers in the unorganized sector, as noted in previous literature (Ayalon & Tzafrir, 2020; Karahan et al., 2022).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A few recommendations for promoting occupational well-being and social security among florists include:
Ergonomic Interventions like redesigning workstations to promote better posture and reduce repetitive strain injuries through simple changes like adjusting the work platform.
Training and Awareness Programs: Developing and promoting training programs to raise awareness about musculoskeletal risks and the importance of proper ergonomics. Additionally, these programs may also include information on existing social security schemes.
Simplify Enrolment Processes: Simplifying the application process for social security schemes to make it more accessible to florists.
Enhanced Support Systems: Establish support systems to assist florists in navigating and enrolling in social security programs, including complicated paperwork, providing financial assistance where necessary.
REFERENCES:
Armstrong, T. J., Buchholz, B., & Foulke, J. (2008). Musculoskeletal disorders among workers in manual tasks. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 18(2), 123-130.
Ayalon, L., & Tzafrir, S. (2020). Ergonomic risk factors in agricultural work: A review. Journal of Occupational Health, 62(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12080
Gallagher, S., & Heberger, A. (2012). Repetitive strain injuries: A review of ergonomic interventions. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 52(5), 354-361.
Hignett, S., & Wilson, E. G. (2004). Workstation design and health outcomes: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 34(4), 345-354.
Karahan, A., Acaroglu, R., & Ozdemir, N. (2022). Impact of repetitive tasks on musculoskeletal disorders: A review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 89, 103287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103287
Munala, J. M., Olivier, B., Karuguti, M. W., & Karanja, M. S. (2020). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among flower farm workers in Kenya: Prevalence and associated factors. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 15(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-020-00325-6\
Smith, J. M., & Wilson, E. G. (2004). Static positions and lower back pain: Insights from recent research. Ergonomics Review, 16(3), 301-309.
Theppitak, C., Sae-Khow, N., & Kittipong, S. (2021). Development of the flower garland stringing device for ergonomic risk reduction among garland makers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 83, 103205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103205
van Dieën, J. H., van der Beek, A. J., & Blatter, B. M. (2001). Low back pain and posture: A longitudinal study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(2), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.58.2.85
Winkel, J., Häger, R., & van der Beek, A. J. (1998). The impact of manual handling and awkward postures on the prevalence of low back pain. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22(3), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00052-7