Hazard Identification and Risk Prioritization Among Vendors and Visitors of a Traditional Wet Market in Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

1. Introduction

Traditional wet markets are an integral part of everyday life in urban and peri-urban areas of Southeast Asia, not only as places of commerce, but also as centers of life where food systems, social ties, and informal economic activities converge [1]. Indonesia alone has more than 14,000 officially registered traditional markets, a figure that hardly reflects the true scale of the sector: millions of vendors eke out a living in these spaces, many of whom have no other meaningful source of income, while tens of millions of consumers pass by their stalls every day. Especially for the urban poor and lower-middle-income households, traditional markets are often the only realistic option for obtaining fresh protein, vegetables, and daily necessities at affordable prices. However, the physical conditions inside many of these markets tell a very different story. Walk through a typical traditional market in Indonesia, and the dangers are hard to ignore: stalls packed beyond capacity, old buildings that survive more by habit than by care, drainage systems struggling to cope, electrical installations that would raise concerns in any formal workplace, and almost no signs that anyone has given serious thought to what happens when things go wrong. Overcrowding, damaged infrastructure, poor sanitation, exposed electrical installations, and a near-total lack of emergency preparedness are not exceptional cases, but rather widely documented features of traditional market environments, each of which represents a significant occupational health and safety (OHS) problem [2,3].

The emergence of COVID-19 has placed traditional wet markets in the global spotlight, with much attention focused on their potential role in the transmission of zoonotic diseases [4,5]. The policy discussions and regulatory responses that followed were not without merit, but they came at a cost: public health attention to traditional markets has since narrowed significantly, focusing almost entirely on infectious diseases, while other equally pressing issues have gone largely unaddressed. The physical and structural OHS realities in these environments, the hazards that cause injuries, damage health over time, and create daily functional impairments for vendors and visitors, completely independent of any pathogens, remain far less studied than they should be, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where the gap between what regulations say and what actually happens on the ground tends to be widest [6,7]. The occupational risk profile facing workers in informal market environments is, in practice, extensive: prolonged standing and carrying heavy loads takes a toll on the body; poor ventilation or open spaces expose workers to thermal stress; cleaning agents and food preservatives pose chemical hazards; crowded market entrances create a significant risk of traffic accidents; wet and uneven floors make slips and falls a near-daily occurrence; and the combination of open-fire cooking and dense combustible materials creates fire conditions unacceptable in formally regulated workplaces. Yet, few of these hazards have been systematically documented, let alone addressed through structured control programs.

Compounding this is a governance landscape in Indonesia’s traditional markets that can only be described as fragmented. A formal legal framework does exist. Law No. 1 of 1970 concerning Occupational Safety and Government Regulation No. 50 of 2012 concerning the Occupational Health and Safety Management System both contain explicit mandates for hazard management across the workplace, but these instruments were written with formal employment relationships in mind, and that distinction is crucial [8]. Most traditional market traders are informal workers who are self-employed: without employment contracts, without social security registration, and without adequate access to occupational health services. Structurally and practically, they are outside the reach of regulatory protections that were never designed for them. If market management units exist, they are typically staffed by local government personnel whose day-to-day priorities focus on revenue collection and administrative routines, rather than safety oversight. A predictable consequence of this arrangement is a systematic lack of OSH accountability in some of the country’s most densely populated and physically hazardous work environments. This is not a unique problem in Indonesia. Studies from African market contexts have documented remarkably similar conditions, where traders routinely experience ergonomic stress, chemical hazards, fire risks, and traffic hazards, without any formal protection mechanisms, shaped by the same logic of informality and regulatory exclusion [9,10].

Nanggalo Market, located in the densely populated Nanggalo sub-district of Padang, West Sumatra, is a prime example of this pattern. It has developed organically since the 1960s, expanding gradually in response to population growth and commercial demand without any formal spatial planning, infrastructure investment, or development of safety and health systems. Nanggalo Market, located in the densely populated Nanggalo sub-district of Padang, West Sumatra, is a prime example of how this pattern manifests itself on the ground. The market did not emerge from any formal planning process; it has grown organically since the 1960s, expanding gradually in response to population pressures and commercial demand, with infrastructure and spatial organization lagging far behind [11]. Currently, the market hosts approximately 170 permanent vendors and 350 itinerant street vendors across approximately 217,250 m² of land, attracting several thousand visitors daily. Previous research at the site has revealed significant issues in environmental sanitation, inadequate waste management, unreliable water supplies, and food-handling practices that fall far short of acceptable standards. What has been missing until now is a systematic effort to comprehensively map the market’s OHS (Occupational Safety and Health) risk landscape: a multi-zone hazard identification exercise that goes beyond sanitation, encompasses the breadth of physical and structural risks present across the market’s various activity zones, and, crucially, captures how these risks are actually perceived and experienced by vendors, visitors, and market managers.

Bridging this gap requires a methodological approach that can do two things at once: capture the true diversity of hazards spread across different spatial zones within a market, while remaining practical within the resource realities that characterize most research in low- and middle-income countries. The AS/NZS 4360:2014 risk management standard fits this description perfectly. It offers a validated matrix framework built on a simple yet effective logic: risk levels are determined by ranking the severity of consequences against the likelihood of their occurrence, and the resulting picture guides control priorities [12,13]. This standard has been applied in various occupational and environmental risk contexts, although its systematic application in traditional wet markets in Indonesia has not been previously documented.

Although the existing literature on OHS in traditional market environments continues to grow, its scope and application remain limited. Most available studies address only one hazard category in isolation, such as fire risk or food contamination, and focus on formal retail environments whose underlying infrastructure differs substantially from that of unplanned wet markets or markets in high-income countries, where minimum safety standards are structurally enforced rather than simply aspirational [14,15,16]. A comprehensive, multi-hazard assessment that considers the full activity profile of Indonesia’s traditional wet markets and systematically incorporates the perspectives of traders, visitors, and management personnel has not been published previously.

This study was designed to directly address this gap. Conducted at Nanggalo Market, it presents a multi-zone hazard identification and risk prioritization exercise that combines a structured elicitation survey, systematic direct observation, and triangulated key informant interviews to generate an evidence base for OHS governance in traditional wet market environments. This study makes three main methodological and empirical contributions: first, the application of a multi-stakeholder elicitation approach that simultaneously captures different hazard perceptions across all key actor groups; second, the systematic application of the AS/NZS 4360:2014 risk matrix to the Indonesian wet market context; and third, the development of an activity-based risk control matrix that translates identified hazards into prioritized and actionable recommendations spanning the entire control hierarchy. These findings are intended to serve as a practical reference for local health authorities, market management units, and policymakers involved in traditional market governance across Indonesia and in similar settings in the broader low- and middle-income region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Setting

This study employed a qualitative observational design combining a structured elicitation survey, systematic direct observation, and triangulated semi-structured interviews. The study was conducted at Nanggalo Market, Nanggalo District, Padang City, West Sumatra, Indonesia. The market occupies approximately 217,250 m², accommodates approximately 170 permanent kiosk vendors and 350 street vendors, and attracts thousands of visitors daily. Nanggalo Market has been operating since the 1960s and has gradually expanded over time, without ever being guided by spatial planning or a formal, structured occupational safety and health system.

2.2. Participants

Hazard identification was conducted through elicitation with 45 purposively selected participants: 20 vendors, 20 visitors, and 5 market management personnel. Elicitation participants were asked to freely identify hazards they had encountered in each of the six pre-defined activity zones. Risk assessment triangulation was performed with 7 key informants (3 vendors, 3 visitors, and 1 head of the Market Management Unit), selected for their depth of experience at the site. All participants provided verbal informed consent prior to data collection.

2.3. Data Collection

Data collection proceeded in three stages. First, structured observation checklists were used to document physical conditions across all six activity zones: (1) traffic and parking area, (2) buying and selling activities, (3) culinary activities, (4) building structure, vendor tables, and floor conditions, (5) security and stray animals, and (6) emergency access. Second, elicitation surveys were administered individually to the 45 participants, who were asked to identify hazards in each zone without prompting. Third, in-depth interviews with the 7 key informants were conducted to triangulate and validate the identified hazards and current control measures. Interviews were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia and audio-recorded with participant consent.

2.4. Risk Assessment Method

Risk assessment followed the AS/NZS 4360:2014 standard. Each identified potential hazard was assessed by its associated risk, then evaluated on two dimensions: Consequence (C), scored 1 to 5 (from negligible to catastrophic), and Likelihood/Probability (L), scored A to E (from rare to almost certain). The risk level was determined by the intersection of these scores on the standard risk matrix. Risk levels were categorized as Low, Moderate, High, or Extreme. For each identified high or extreme risk, current controls were documented, and recommendations were formulated in accordance with the ISO 45001:2018 hierarchy of controls [17].

2.5. Data Analysis

Elicitation data were analyzed using frequency tabulation to identify the most frequently reported hazards per zone. These were then ranked, and the highest-frequency hazard per zone was designated as the primary potential hazard. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed using the Miles and Huberman thematic framework: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification [18]. Findings from observation, elicitation, and interview were triangulated to confirm hazard identification and assess the adequacy of existing controls.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

This study did not involve any biological intervention on human subjects. All human participation was limited to information provision through surveys and interviews. Prior to participation, all participants received clear and comprehensive information regarding the study objectives, procedures, potential risks, and anticipated benefits.

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participants were assured that all collected data would be treated with strict confidentiality and anonymity. Personal identifiers were removed from all records, and data were securely stored and accessible only to the research team for academic purposes. Participants were explicitly informed of their right to decline participation or to withdraw at any stage of the study without academic, personal, or professional consequences. No coercion or undue influence was exercised during recruitment or data collection.

The study presented minimal risk to participants. Throughout the research process, all reasonable measures were taken to protect participants’ dignity, autonomy, rights, and well-being.

3. Results

3.1. Hazard Identification by Activity Zone

A systematic hazard identification across the six activity zones of Nanggalo Market identified 10 key potential hazards, each associated with specific risks to the safety and health of vendors, visitors, and market management staff. These hazards were found to be distributed across all zones, indicating that occupational safety and health risks in this market are not concentrated in one area or type of activity, but rather permeate the entire market. This pattern aligns with the market’s history of gradual, unplanned growth, in which space expansion and increased vendor density over time occurred without the development of appropriate safety infrastructure or well-structured, documented hazard management protocols.

Zone 1, which encompasses the traffic and parking area at the market entrance, presents two primary hazards: high traffic density on weekends and holidays and the absence of directional signage at vehicle entry and exit points. Both of these hazards stem directly from the lack of traffic management planning, where the volume of vehicles accessing the market on peak days far exceeds the capacity of available road space and parking areas. Zone 2, which encompasses the trading activities on the main market floor, presents two additional hazards: narrow circulation paths between vendor stalls and the absence of a vendor zoning system. These two conditions interact to create a disorganized spatial environment where pedestrian flow is impeded, and visitor navigation is inefficient, simultaneously increasing both physical and safety risks. Zone 3, the culinary activity zone, presents one primary hazard: uncovered food displayed in open stalls, with direct implications for food safety and the potential for foodborne disease transmission through vector contact and contamination of the surrounding environment.

Zone 4, which encompasses building structure, merchandise counters, and floor conditions, generated the highest number of hazards among the study’s zones, reflecting the multiple impacts of aging infrastructure, inadequate maintenance, and wet conditions resulting from fresh fish and meat handling activities. The two primary hazards identified for this zone were slippery, wet floors in the fish and meat areas and dark, inadequate restroom facilities, both of which represented the highest frequency and most structurally entrenched risks in the overall study. Zone 5, which encompasses security conditions and stray animal activity, identified the free movement of cats and goats throughout the market as its primary hazard, with consequences including contamination of merchandise, food safety issues, and an increased risk of zoonotic disease transmission. Zone 6, the emergency access zone, generated the two most critical hazards in the overall study: the absence of evacuation route signs in the market area and the lack of portable fire extinguishers throughout the market. Taken together, these deficiencies reflect a systemic failure in emergency preparedness that leaves both vendors and visitors with little or no ability to provide a targeted response in the event of a fire or other acute emergency.

Table 1 presents a consolidated summary of the ten primary potential hazards and their associated risk outcomes by activity zone. Complete elicitation frequency data, including all hazard items identified per zone and endorsement counts disaggregated by respondent group, are provided in Table S1 of the Supplementary Material.

3.2. Hazard Elicitation Frequencies by Zone

Analysis of information collection frequency data across six activity zones revealed striking variations in both the volume and types of hazards reported by respondent groups, reflecting differences in how traders, visitors, and market managers experience and understand risks within the same physical environment.

Zone 4, which encompasses the building structure, merchandise counters, and floor conditions, recorded the highest number of hazard reports across the entire study, with respondents identifying 10 distinct hazards in this zone. The concentration of so many hazard categories in this single zone reflects the cumulative impact of neglected facility maintenance and the absence of a structured physical management system at Nanggalo Market. Of all hazard items listed across all zones, the slippery and wet floors of the fish and meat stalls had the highest frequency of endorsement, with 33 of 45 respondents (73.3%) identifying them as a significant hazard. The consistency of this finding across all three groups of respondents, vendors who work on these surfaces daily, visitors who pass through them, and managers responsible for the market facilities, confirms that these hazards are not simply a matter of individual perception or sensitivity, but are a real, widely recognized, and persistent physical condition. Furthermore, minor injuries from cutting and processing food in the same zone were reported by 10 respondents, suggesting that direct physical injuries from these activities constitute an additional occupational health burden alongside the risk of slipping in the same area. Meanwhile, 13 respondents (28.9%) reported dark and inadequate toilet conditions, reflecting a dual concern: the risk of injury from poor lighting and the sanitation implications of facilities that are far from adequate in number and condition to serve the daily volume of visitors.

Zone 6, which covers emergency access, recorded the second-highest concentration of high-frequency reports, despite containing only two hazard items, underscoring the critical nature of the identified deficiencies. The absence of evacuation route signs was reported by 28 of the 45 respondents (62.2%), making it the hazard item with the second-highest frequency of endorsement in the entire study. Seventeen respondents (37.8%) identified the absence of portable fire extinguishers. The fact that these two elements, essentially the most basic prerequisites for emergency preparedness in any public space, were completely absent in Nanggalo Market, and that their absence was acknowledged by nearly two-thirds of all respondents, indicates an emergency preparedness gap that is no longer simply a reflection of administrative negligence but has reached a deeper level of institutional neglect.

In Zone 2, which encompasses buying and selling activities, 27 respondents (60.0%) identified narrow circulation paths between vendor stalls, making it the third-most-frequently reported hazard overall. This finding reflects the structural consequences of the market’s organic growth: as the number of vendors increased over decades without adequate spatial planning, the pedestrian paths between stalls gradually narrowed due to the expansion of displays and the addition of informal sales areas. The high level of recognition among visitors, with 16 out of 20 respondents mentioning this hazard, suggests that crowded paths are most felt by those navigating the market without fixed spatial reference points, increasing physical fatigue and vulnerability to opportunistic theft amidst the crowds.

Zone 1, which includes traffic and parking areas, was the fourth most frequently reported source of hazard, with 23 respondents (51.1%) citing traffic congestion on weekends and holidays as a significant problem. This hazard has a specific temporal dimension: unlike structural deficiencies, which are permanent and ever-present, traffic risks are concentrated on specific days, creating predictable peak risk periods that can therefore be managed through scheduled administrative interventions. Furthermore, the absence of directional signage at market entrances and exits, reported by six respondents, exacerbates the risk of congestion by removing the most basic navigational infrastructure that allows for the natural self-regulation of traffic flows.

In Zone 5, which covers security and stray animals, 15 respondents (33.3%) reported that cats and goats freely enter the market area, posing a significant hazard. While the most frequently cited immediate consequence was disruption to merchandise, the broader implications of this uncontrolled animal access, including fecal contamination of food display surfaces and the opening of zoonotic transmission routes, elevate this finding to a level of significance far beyond mere reporting frequency. Meanwhile, Zone 3, which covers culinary activities, recorded the lowest total number of reports of all zones, with uncovered food identified by 6 respondents (13.3%) as a primary concern. This low frequency likely reflects not an absence of significant risk, but rather a habit among vendors and visitors who have become accustomed to seeing open food displays as common in traditional markets and therefore no longer perceive them as a hazard worth reporting.

Overall, the frequency of information collection data revealed a hazard landscape concentrated on the market’s physical infrastructure, particularly floor conditions and emergency preparedness systems, with secondary concerns in spatial management and traffic safety. The distribution of reports across respondent groups further reinforces the notion that no single actor group has a comprehensive understanding of the market’s overall risk environment. Vendors tended to be more sensitive to hazards they directly encounter in their daily work routines, visitors were more likely to perceive risks related to comfort and safety while shopping, and market managers demonstrated a higher awareness of structural issues and emergency access. These gaps in perceptions across groups underscore the methodological value of a multi-stakeholder information collection approach as a crucial first step in assessing occupational safety and health in environments with similar characteristics.

3.3. Risk Assessment and Prioritization

Table 2 presents the full risk assessment matrix, including consequence score (K), likelihood score (P), composite risk level, current controls, and recommended interventions for all ten identified risks. Seven risks were classified as high-level and three as moderate.

3.4. Current Control Adequacy

An assessment of existing control measures at Nanggalo Market revealed a significant gap between the severity of the identified risks and the adequacy of the responses implemented. Of the seven risks classified as high, only one had a documented control measure: wet and slippery floors in the fish and meat stalls. Even then, it was limited to daily floor mopping by the vendors themselves and verbal warnings to visitors to exercise caution when passing by. On the one hand, this practice reflects that the vendors were aware of the danger and not completely ignorant. On the other hand, their response was administrative, addressing a problem that actually required an engineering solution. No structural controls were found during the observation phase or key informant interviews: no non-slip flooring, no anti-slip coating, no correction of the floor slope, and no covered drainage channel directing water away from the pedestrian path. All that was available was a bucket, a mop, and the hope that visitors were alert enough not to slip. Such a strategy places safety entirely in the hands of human compliance, and experience everywhere shows that, however well-intentioned, human compliance is too fragile a foundation to support safety in high-risk environments visited by thousands of people daily. For the other six high-risk situations, the absence of portable fire extinguishers, the absence of evacuation signs, narrow circulation paths, traffic hazards, the absence of vendor zoning, and the dark and inadequate restroom conditions, the situation is even more concerning: not a single control measure can be identified, either through direct observation or through the testimony of informants. These risks are not only uncontrolled; they appear to have never been on the control agenda at all.

For the other six high-risk areas, the picture is even more alarming: no control measures could be identified through either direct observation or informant testimony. The absence of portable fire extinguishers throughout the market zone means there is no first-line response capacity at all if a fire breaks out in the culinary area or elsewhere, with nothing to do but watch the flames grow while waiting for the fire department to arrive. The absence of evacuation route signs leaves vendors and visitors in the dark when an emergency occurs: no arrows, no exit signs, nothing to follow as panic begins to grip hundreds of people in a confined space. Narrow circulation routes were reported by 60% of respondents to have been left as is, with no kiosk reconfiguration, no one-way traffic system, and no enforcement of the rule that merchandise displays should not extend beyond the boundaries of stalls. On busy days, congestion at the market entrance is not managed by the Transportation Agency, and no parking or directional signs have been installed to regulate vehicle movement. The lack of a vendor zoning system persists to this day, with no documented improvement plan from management. When all of this is viewed collectively, what emerges is not simply a picture of a resource-strapped market, but rather an environment where most of the highest risks have never been formally recognized as problems to be addressed. There is no risk register, no inspection schedule, and no designated safety officer. These hazards aren’t waiting for a budget to be addressed; they haven’t even been included in the discussion about what needs to be fixed.

Of the three moderate risks, partial control was found in only one case. Parking congestion on weekends and holidays was managed haphazardly by informal parking attendants who directed vehicles with hand signals, no floor markings, no physical barriers, no formal signs, and no documented procedures. While their presence helped somewhat prevent total chaos, the system relied entirely on the presence and initiative of individuals with no formal authority, no standard training, and no accountability mechanisms. When attendants were absent due to illness, holidays, or other reasons, there was no backup system in place to cover their shifts. For the other two moderate risks, the situation was more stark: the risk of foodborne illness from open food serving in the culinary area and the risk of merchandise contamination from stray animals entering the market area, both of which lacked documented control measures at the time of data collection. There were no standardized covers provided by management, no animal control schedule, and no procedures to refer to. Overall, the picture emerging from this assessment of control adequacy is consistent: at Nanggalo Market, responses to both high and moderate risks are almost entirely informal, undocumented, and dependent on individual initiative, unsupported by systems. This is not simply a technical weakness that can be resolved with a few infrastructure improvements. It reflects the absence of a structured safety culture, and building that culture is a long-term undertaking that requires commitment from market management, local authorities, and the vendor community itself.

The overall picture emerging from these assessments is one of systemic, not incidental, unpreparedness. If the entire inventory of controls at Nanggalo Market were compiled into a single list, it would list just two: daily floor mopping in one zone, and informal parking arrangements at the entrance. That is the totality of the formal response to ten hazards covering the risks of fire, physical injury, mass emergencies, and food contamination in a market visited by thousands of people daily. The near-total absence of structured OHS controls, particularly for high-risk areas, reflects more than a lack of budget or technical resources. It reflects the absence of OHS management as a recognized and actively implemented responsibility. There is no documented risk register, no regular inspection schedule, no formally designated safety officer, and no reporting mechanism to identify new hazards before they become incidents. In these circumstances, hazard management is not implemented; it is simply left to wait. Risks are allowed to accumulate until something bad happens, and only then is a response made. As long as visitor numbers continue to grow, as market activity continues to expand, and as long as there are no structural changes in the way these markets are managed, the conditions that generate these risks will not improve on their own; they will gradually worsen, to the point where a small, preventable incident becomes something much more difficult to manage.

4. Discussion

This study is the first to conduct a comprehensive OHS risk assessment of traditional wet markets in West Sumatra, mapping 10 hazards across six activity zones, seven of which are categorized as high risk. The range of hazards identified, from physical injury to sanitation and fire risks to the lack of emergency access, illustrates the complexity of OHS governance in markets that have grown naturally without adequate safety planning. What makes this situation difficult to address is not simply budgetary or human resource constraints, but a more fundamental governance gap: traditional markets in Indonesia are owned and managed by the government, but the vendors who staff them are informal workers legally excluded from national labor protections [19]. They trade daily in an environment fraught with multiple hazards, yet no one is officially responsible for their safety. This structural ambiguity has allowed hazards to accumulate for decades without ever triggering systematic corrective action, and the study’s findings clearly reflect the consequences of prolonged neglect.

The prevalence of high risk at Nanggalo Market is not surprising when viewed in a broader context. Systematic reviews of OSH conditions in Sub-Saharan African markets show a nearly identical pattern: most occupational hazards are uncontrolled or only minimally managed, largely due to the informal status of traders and the absence of effective regulatory oversight [20]. Similar concerns have been documented across South and Southeast Asian contexts, where market workers report daily exposure to ergonomic stress, excessive heat, chemicals from detergents and pesticides, and the risk of traffic accidents, all without access to meaningful formal OSH protection. The findings of this study extend this line of evidence to the Indonesian context, and the message is clear: OSH control gaps in traditional markets are not local issues stemming from particular cultural or geographic idiosyncrasies, but rather reflect the structural nature of informal workplaces in developing countries, where occupational safety regulations do exist in the form of written rules but are rarely actually present on the market floor where the hazards are most acutely felt [21,22]. Bridging the gap between what is written in policy and what happens on the ground cannot be resolved simply by revising regulations; it requires concrete capacity-building at the market-management level, particularly for management units that currently lack the technical knowledge or institutional mandate to implement systematic hazard control.

Wet and slippery floors in fish and meat stalls were the most frequently reported hazard acknowledged by 73.3% of respondents, and this aligns with previous studies that have identified slips and falls as a leading cause of injury in wet market environments [14,15]. Mechanically, the risk is easy to understand: standing water, blood, fish scales, and other organic debris create a surface nearly devoid of friction, making it particularly dangerous for vendors who stand for hours while lifting heavy loads. But what is truly interesting about this finding is not the danger, since that has long been recognized, but rather the response to it. The only control measures currently in place are daily floor mopping by vendors and verbal warnings to customers to be careful. Imagine: a hazard acknowledged by three-quarters of all respondents, yet the only response given is a bucket of clean water and a repeated message of “watch out, it’s slippery.” Such an approach relies entirely on the consistency of human behavior, when what is needed is a solution that works even when no one is paying attention. ISO 45001:2018 asserts that engineering controls, such as replacing flooring with non-slip surfaces, texturing wet work areas, improving floor slopes, and blocking drainage channels to prevent pooling in pedestrian areas, are inherently more effective than administrative measures because they reduce hazard exposure without relying on anyone’s compliance [17,23]. The cost of such improvements pales in comparison to the cost of a tradesperson’s slip: broken bones, weeks of absence from work, and medical bills that must be covered without any occupational health insurance.

The absence of portable fire extinguishers and evacuation route signs throughout the Nanggalo Market area is one of the most worrying findings in this study, not because of the numbers, but because of what could happen when both are absent simultaneously. Market fires are not hypothetical in Indonesia: over the last two decades, several large traditional markets have been completely destroyed by fire, including several in West Sumatra, including Padang itself. If traced, almost all of these incidents share the same pattern: dense, closely packed buildings; piles of flammable materials in the kitchen and grocery stalls; outdated electrical installations; and no extinguishers ready for use when the fire first broke out. These conditions are not typical of other markets in the past; they are the conditions of Nanggalo Market today. The risk matrix in this study assigned a consequence score of 4 (major to critical) and a probability of occurrence of D (highly likely to occur), resulting in a high-risk classification that is approaching the extreme level, considering the physical density of the market and the proximity of cooking activities to the surrounding dry goods stalls [24]. The kitchen is the most vulnerable: open-flame stoves, LPG cylinders stored under the counters, and poorly ventilated cooking areas all sit side by side in a cramped space. A single spark in this area, without extinguishers and a clear evacuation route, could potentially escalate into a disaster within minutes, amidst hundreds of vendors and customers with nowhere to run. Providing portable fire extinguishers in every market zone and posting clearly visible evacuation signs shouldn’t be a matter of debate; it’s a minimum threshold of emergency preparedness that should have been in place long ago, not something waiting for a new budget or policy to be implemented.

The multi-stakeholder elicitation approach employed in this study yielded a much richer hazard map than would have been possible if only one group of respondents had been involved. Visitors were more likely to mention narrow circulation paths and disturbances from wild animals than regular vendors, because they came to the market without familiar spatial knowledge; obstacles that were already “normal” to vendors still felt real and disruptive. Vendors, on the other hand, were more likely to report slippery floors and the risk of cuts in the fish and meat areas, hazards that are only truly felt when standing on these wet surfaces for eight hours a day, not simply by passing through them. Market managers demonstrated a higher awareness of structural weaknesses and emergency access issues than the other two groups, yet herein lies a difficult irony: those most aware of the market’s physical deficiencies are also those who have done the least to improve them. This gap between awareness and action is not merely a byword; it is part of the problem itself. The divergence in hazard perceptions among these three groups has direct implications for designing OHS programs: interventions that rely solely on manager input risk underestimating physical hazards at the field level; Those who only listen to vendors may miss the navigation and safety experienced by visitors; while those who ignore the perspectives of managers may not address structural issues that can only be addressed through institutional decisions [25,26]. The elicitation framework used in this study, which systematically engaged all three groups without prior direction or suggestion, offers a replicable model for hazard identification in similar traditional markets, where diverse perspectives not only enrich the data but are a prerequisite for a comprehensive understanding of risks.

The risk of foodborne illness from uncovered food served in the culinary zone was classified as moderate in this study’s matrix, primarily because its consequence score is lower than that for acute physical injury. However, this classification should be read with caution; a moderate number in the matrix does not necessarily imply a low risk in practice. Research consistently shows that traditional wet markets, particularly those that handle fresh meat, fish, and cooked food in close proximity without physical separation, create conditions highly conducive to the transmission of enteric pathogens [4,24] The pathways for contamination do not need to be looked far: flies perching alternately on raw fish and rice packets, cockroaches moving freely under the counter, and rats leaving their tracks in the corners of the storage areas were all reported by respondents in this study as normal occurrences. Furthermore, raw and ready-to-eat foods often share the same surfaces without barriers, creating a daily risk of unnoticed cross-contamination. Studies of Indonesian markets consistently find that food hygiene practices remain far below safe thresholds, not simply because vendors are unconcerned, but because they lack the basic tools to maintain them: no adequate food coverings, no refrigeration, no vector-protected storage areas [27]. The WHO itself has emphasized that hygiene education alone is insufficient in such environments; what is needed are structural interventions that change the physical conditions in which food is sold, not just the behavior of the people selling it. The moderate risk classification in this study should therefore be understood as a starting point, not a conclusion: the public health burden of foodborne illness stemming from the conditions of Nanggalo Market is likely much greater than reflected in the matrix score, given the high daily visitor volume and the chronic, rather than incidental, nature of exposure.

Contamination pathways in the culinary zone of Nanggalo Market do not require extraordinary circumstances; they occur through everyday, accepted practices: flies moving from garbage to open food, cockroaches moving under serving tables, and rats, whose presence was reported by some respondents as “normal” in the market. Cross-contamination between raw and ready-to-eat foods on shared surfaces exacerbates these conditions, yet no one actively recognizes it as a risk. Studies in Indonesian markets consistently find that food hygiene practices remain far below safe limits, and that the root of the problem lies not simply in vendor awareness but in the lack of basic infrastructure that would enable them to maintain such standards [28]. Findings from Gusti et al.’s study of preventive health behaviors among farmers in West Sumatra reinforce this picture: knowledge and social support do contribute to protective behavior, but neither is significant when the work environment does not support their implementation [29]. Vendors who know that food should be covered may still fail to do so if no covering is available; vendors who understand the importance of separating raw and cooked food may still fail to do so if their counter is only one meter wide. This is an important reminder for anyone designing an OHS program in traditional markets: education and hygiene awareness campaigns have their value, but they will not produce lasting change unless the market’s physical conditions are improved. OHS governance in environments like Nanggalo Market must operate on two levels: improving infrastructure as a prerequisite and building behavioral capacity as a follow-up. Prioritizing the latter without addressing the former will only result in knowledge that has no place in practice.

The presence of cats and goats roaming freely in market areas was reported by 33.3% of respondents, and the impacts extend beyond messy merchandise or food contaminated with animal fur. Animals moving freely between fish stalls, meat counters, and prepared food preparation areas carry fecal contamination, creating a direct pathway for the transmission of zoonotic pathogens to food surfaces and human hands. In the post-COVID-19 context, where the international public health community has increased scrutiny of biosafety conditions in traditional wet markets globally, these findings have relevance beyond the boundaries of a single market or city [4,5,30]. While the zoonotic risk profile of domesticated cats and goats differs significantly from that of the wild animals at the center of pandemic discussions, the underlying principle remains: contact between animals, humans, and food in crowded public spaces should be controlled, not made commonplace. Complicating the situation further is the fact that these animals are largely not unowned wild animals; they are pets of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods, left to roam unsupervised. This means that solutions cannot come solely from within the market. Coordination between market managers and the local Animal Husbandry Department is needed for systematic control of stray animals, as well as an educational campaign that reaches animal owners in the surrounding area, an intervention that is relatively low-cost but whose biosafety benefits can be felt far beyond the market walls.

Addressing OHS issues at Nanggalo Market sustainably requires more than physical improvements or management policy updates. It requires a governance mechanism rooted in the community and capable of long-term sustainability. The Occupational Health Post offers the right framework for this, a recognized community-based model within Indonesia’s public health system that reaches informal-sector workers who have traditionally fallen outside formal OHS protection [31]. Through the Community Health Center (Puskesmas) whose coverage area includes Nanggalo Market, the Occupational Health Post offers can be activated as a low-cost institutional platform for routine hazard monitoring, vendor health education, periodic health checks, and emergency response training. While its potential has long been recognized, the implementation of the Occupational Health Post offers in Indonesia’s traditional markets remains far from optimal, reflecting weak cross-sectoral coordination among health agencies, trade agencies, and market managers. Activating the Occupational Health Post offers at Nanggalo Market is not simply adding a new service, but a real-world test of whether this existing model can work effectively in one of the most needed contexts, while also opening up opportunities for replication to thousands of other traditional markets in Indonesia and in developing countries with similar characteristics.

This study has several limitations that should be noted. The study was conducted at only one market location, so the findings are not necessarily broadly generalizable; comparative studies across traditional markets in other cities in Indonesia are needed in the future. Furthermore, while the elicitation method used was effective in capturing a comprehensive range of hazards, it did not yield quantitative data on the incidence or prevalence of injuries and health problems; linkage with health facility data from the local Community Health Center is recommended to strengthen the analysis in future research. Finally, the risk matrix approach relies primarily on subjective assessments of consequences and event probabilities, which can vary across raters; inter-rater reliability was not formally tested in this study, and this should be considered in the future development of similar methodologies.

5. Conclusions

Nanggalo Market exhibits a complex work environment with far-from-adequate OHS risk controls for both traders and visitors. This study identified 10 hazards across six activity zones, seven of which were categorized as high risk according to the AS/NZS 4360:2014 matrix. The lack of technical and administrative controls for most of these high risks, including the absence of portable fire extinguishers and evacuation route signs, is a serious issue that requires an immediate response from market managers and local authorities. The multi-stakeholder elicitation approach employed in this study revealed significant differences in hazard perceptions among traders, visitors, and managers, highlighting the need for all stakeholders to engage in OHS data collection in traditional market environments. The proposed control recommendations cover the entire risk control hierarchy, with technical controls being the top priority for hazards stemming from structural conditions. As a long-term measure, activating community-based Occupational Health Posts (UKK) through primary health care facilities is recommended as an affordable and sustainable OHS governance mechanism, not only for traditional markets in Indonesia but also for similar contexts in other developing countries.