Qualitative research explores tenant experiences with earthquake recovery in commercial buildings, indicating the need for integrative strategies.
Purpose Post-earthquake functional recovery is an emerging concept in the built environment, often examined through engineering parameters, with limited attention given to building users. While structural integrity is critical, a building’s functionality following a disaster is not solely determined by its physical stability. This study investigates the perspectives of office tenants across three major New Zealand cities. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative research strategy was employed, drawing on interpretative phenomenological and grounded theory methods. A systems thinking approach, underpinned by a micro-level building-system functionality framework, was used to illustrate the dynamic relationship between users and their buildings. Findings This study reveals that a building’s functionality is intrinsically linked to how well it supports an organisation’s specific needs, as the physical workspace directly embodies corporate culture and values. For commercial property investors, a compelling strategy must therefore converge social and technical perspectives, recognising that the ability to align the physical asset with profound socio-cultural shifts is critical to determine long-term asset value and resilience. Practical implications The findings highlight that tenant perceptions and behaviours are profoundly shaped by situation, context and time. The widespread adoption of work-from-home (WFH) arrangements has become a core component of business continuity plans (BCP). Immediate return to an office following a major disaster is generally reserved for critical business functions with essential services such as power/standby generator. Originality/value This study advances understanding of post-disaster recovery by applying a micro-level building-system functionality framework, demonstrating that functionality is both technically and socially driven.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nkrumah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: