Past earthquakes have consistently highlighted the vulnerabilities of the built environment. Current building codes, which focus primarily on life safety, fail to address the need for buildings to remain functional after a seismic event. The emerging concept of post-earthquake functional recovery aims to integrate recovery-based objectives into building codes. However, literature reveals a predominant focus on engineering parameters, with limited attention given to the perspectives of building users; a critical gap in understanding a building’s comprehensive functionality and path to functional recovery. Whilst structural integrity is essential, functionality following a disaster is not determined by physical stability alone. Thus, this study addresses this gap by exploring the perceptions and expectations of office building users (both tenants and property owners) regarding building functionality and post-earthquake functional recovery in New Zealand’s major urban centres: Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch. A qualitative research strategy was employed, utilising interpretative phenomenological and grounded theory methods to develop insights from the lived experiences of twenty-six (26) participants. The study applied a systems thinking approach using a socio-technical systems (STS) framework to develop micro (single construct) and macro (multiple constructs) models of building-system functionality. The findings demonstrate that a building’s functionality is nuanced, multifaceted, and context dependent. It encompasses physical, economic, social, organisational, technical, regulatory, and environmental elements, and is ultimately determined by users’ specific needs and priorities. A key divergence emerged: whilst property owners prioritise economic and environmental factors, tenants focus on the socio-organisational aspect, viewing the physical workspace as an embodiment of corporate identity, culture, and values. Regarding expectations for post-earthquake functional recovery, the post-pandemic era has drastically reshaped outlooks. Unlike previous earthquakes, where tenants scrambled for any available space, there is now increased demand for flexibility due to the hybrid work model. The immediate return to an office following a major earthquake is now expected to support critical business functions, with essential services including power or a standby generator, technology to access files, water, as well as operations of air conditioning and elevators. By advancing socio-technical systems theory and elucidating building users’ perspectives for a building’s functionality and post-disaster functional recovery, this research provides evidence-based, social science insights to inform more holistic and effective risk governance in property and disaster risk management
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research
