The February 2023 earthquakes, centered near Kahramanmaraş on the East Anatolian Fault, killed tens of thousands of people and damaged or destroyed hundreds of thousands of buildings across eleven provinces. For earthquake engineers, the scale of the destruction was grimly familiar: Türkiye has long carried one of the world’s highest seismic hazard exposures, and successive earthquakes over the past decades have repeatedly exposed weaknesses in construction quality, code enforcement, and retrofit policy. What made the 2023 disaster particularly troubling, the authors note, was that many of the collapsed buildings had been built after major regulatory reforms and had passed through the country’s formal building inspection regime. Buildings that were, in the language of the state, inspected and compliant, failed in exactly the ways that inspection was supposed to prevent.

Türkiye overhauled its building inspection system in 2018, replacing an older framework in which municipal authorities directly controlled construction oversight with a system of licensed private building inspection firms. The reform was, on its face, a classic governance modernization: it moved inspection out of the hands of bodies that critics said were under-resourced and vulnerable to local political pressure, and into the hands of accredited private professionals with defined legal responsibilities. The logic was that accountability would transfer along with the task. Inspectors would be liable for what they certified; developers and contractors would face independent scrutiny; and the state would retain a supervisory role. The new paper argues that this transfer never truly happened, and that understanding why requires looking at how accountability actually behaves inside complex regulatory systems.

The central conceptual move in the Comment is the distinction between transferring a task and transferring accountability. A reform can hand a function, such as structural inspection, to a new actor while leaving the underlying incentives, information flows, and sanction mechanisms unchanged. In that case, the authors argue, accountability is not transferred but displaced: it drifts into institutional gaps where no actor is meaningfully answerable for failure. The private inspector may lack the independence, resources, or legal exposure to enforce the code against powerful developers. The municipality may believe it has washed its hands of oversight. The central government may assume the new system is self-policing. Each actor can point to another as the responsible party, and the chain of answerability that should connect a stamped drawing to a safe building quietly dissolves.

The field evidence from the 2023 earthquake zone gave the authors an unusually direct test of this hypothesis. Post-reform buildings that had been through the inspection process collapsed in the same manner, and at comparable rates in some localities, as older buildings constructed under the previous regime. If the reform had genuinely transferred accountability, one would expect the inspected stock to perform measurably better under identical shaking. The reconnaissance findings, gathered as part of an Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team mission supported by UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funding, indicated that the formal inspection stamp had not functioned as a reliable proxy for structural quality. The paper treats this not as evidence that inspection is useless, but as evidence that inspection without genuine accountability transfer is a procedural ritual rather than a safety mechanism.

The authors ground their argument in comparative institutional analysis, and their acknowledgements point to Chile as an instructive counterpoint. Chile’s regulatory framework, refined after its own long history of great subduction-zone earthquakes, is widely regarded as achieving a closer coupling between design authority, construction oversight, and liability. The paper credits Juan Carlos De La Llera Martín of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile with clarifying details of that framework, suggesting that the authors use it to identify the institutional conditions under which accountability transfer can actually work. The contrast matters because it rules out a lazy conclusion that private inspection is inherently flawed. The lesson is instead conditional: the same institutional design can succeed or fail depending on whether liability, professional incentives, and enforcement capacity move together with the task.

Underlying the analysis is a set of technical realities about what building inspection can and cannot achieve. Structural safety in a major earthquake depends on decisions made long before an inspector arrives on site: geotechnical assessment, architectural configuration, the quality of reinforcement detailing, concrete strength, and the integrity of the construction sequence. An inspector who visits intermittently cannot retroactively verify hidden reinforcement or correct a poorly proportioned frame. Effective oversight therefore depends on continuous professional responsibility across the whole delivery chain, with each actor, designer, contractor, inspector, and certifier, bearing a defined and enforceable share of the risk. Where the law assigns nominal responsibility but the market makes rigorous enforcement economically suicidal for the individual professional, or where inspectors are paid by the developers they are meant to police, the nominal chain of accountability becomes a chain of plausible deniability.

The paper’s framing of the 2023 disaster as an invitation to urban disaster is deliberately forward-looking. Türkiye faces an enormous retrofit challenge: millions of existing buildings predate modern seismic codes, and the reconstruction of the earthquake zone is itself a vast new wave of construction passing through the same governance system. If the displacement of accountability identified in the Comment is not corrected, the same failure mode could recur in the rebuilt cities, and in the megacity of Istanbul, where seismologists anticipate a major earthquake on the North Anatolian Fault within the coming decades. The authors’ argument implies that the most urgent investment is not only in engineering capacity but in institutional design: independent funding for inspectors, genuine professional liability, transparent records, and state supervision with real teeth.

What gives the Comment its wider resonance is that the failure mode it describes is not unique to Türkiye or to earthquake engineering. Governance reforms worldwide, in building safety, food safety, financial oversight, and environmental regulation, routinely devolve tasks to private or quasi-independent actors on the assumption that accountability follows automatically. The 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London, for example, exposed a comparable tangle of fragmented responsibility in building regulation, where no single actor felt answerable for the safety of the cladding system. The Nature Communications paper offers a conceptual vocabulary, accountability transfer versus displacement, that can be applied across these domains, and a sober empirical anchor in the Turkish earthquake evidence.

The authors are careful about what their evidence can and cannot support. Their Comment draws on reconnaissance observations and institutional analysis rather than a comprehensive statistical audit of the collapsed building stock, and they acknowledge the contribution of an anonymous building inspection professional who provided context on current inspection practice in Türkiye. But the core claim is difficult to dismiss: a regulatory reform that looks like accountability transfer but leaves answerability where it was before is worse than no reform at all, because it manufactures public confidence in a system that has not changed. As reconstruction accelerates across the earthquake zone and Istanbul’s clock keeps ticking, the paper’s message is that the safety of cities depends not on the existence of inspection regimes but on whether the people who run them can truly be held to account when the ground shakes.

Subject of Research: Building governance reform and accountability transfer in seismic building inspection, examined through the 2023 Türkiye earthquake disaster

Article Title: Building governance reform without accountability transfer invites urban disaster

Article References: Aktas, Y. D., & Johnson, C. (2026). Building governance reform without accountability transfer invites urban disaster. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-78062-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-78062-2

Keywords: building governance, accountability transfer, Türkiye earthquake 2023, building inspection, seismic safety, urban resilience, governance reform, earthquake engineering, regulatory failure, Chile building regulation, disaster risk reduction, Nature Communications

Research led by A. Tekgöz, A.B. Bayyar, and M.F. Afyonoğlu revealed that the earthquake resulted in a reevaluation of familial roles and responsibilities. The traumatic experience led families to strengthen their emotional connections, demonstrating an increased capacity for support and collaboration. This shift was not uniform, as social stratifications influenced how families responded to the crisis. Wealthier families exhibited different coping mechanisms compared to those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, highlighting the intersectional nature of this analysis.

The researchers employed a qualitative methodology, incorporating interviews and surveys to gather data from families affected by the earthquake. Through these personal narratives, a nuanced understanding of family dynamics emerged, showcasing how individuals navigated their relationships amidst the chaos. Families reported a rise in collective problem-solving and a stronger reliance on one another for emotional and practical support, indicating a shift from individualistic to communal approaches in dealing with trauma.

The study also identified service gaps that became apparent after the earthquake. As families turned to local, governmental, and non-governmental organizations for assistance, it became clear that traditional services were often ill-equipped to address the complex needs arising from such multifaceted crises. Recommendations included the development of more tailored services that consider family dynamics, cultural backgrounds, and socioeconomic status, ensuring that the diverse needs of families are met.

Particularly noteworthy was the emergence of informal support networks, which proliferated in the aftermath of the earthquake. Neighbors, friends, and extended family members often stepped in to fill the void left by formal support systems, fostering a sense of community solidarity. This aspect of the study underscores the importance of social capital in crisis recovery, pointing to the potential for community-based approaches to enhance resilience.

Intersectionality played a critical role in understanding these transformed family dynamics. The researchers noted that gender, age, and economic status significantly influenced how individuals experienced and responded to the disaster. For instance, women often took on caregiving roles, which not only reinforced traditional gender roles but also highlighted their agency in navigating familial and community needs. Meanwhile, children and teenagers found themselves in supportive roles, taking care of younger siblings or assisting in household responsibilities, demonstrating their resilience and adaptability.

An analysis of mental health needs further underscored the necessity for targeted psychosocial services post-earthquake. Many families reported increased levels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. Acknowledging these mental health challenges is critical to developing effective responses; thus, the researchers advocated for the integration of mental health services within family support programs, promoting holistic approaches to recovery.

Technology also emerged as a pivotal factor in how families maintained connections and accessed resources. The use of social media and communication apps allowed for real-time sharing of information, support, and resources. However, this reliance on technology also revealed disparities in access and affordability, a crucial consideration for service providers attempting to meet diverse family needs in the digital age.

Furthermore, cultural perspectives on family and support structures were integral to understanding how different communities coped with the earthquake’s aftermath. The study highlighted variations in communal attitudes toward seeking help, which often tied back to cultural norms and values. To enhance service responsiveness, the authors emphasized the importance of cultural competency within providers, ensuring that services resonate with the unique characteristics of various families.

As families continue to navigate the long-term effects of the 2023 Türkiye earthquake, ongoing research and analysis will be vital in shaping future interventions. The findings from Tekgöz, Bayyar, and Afyonoğlu establish a framework for understanding the complexities of intra-family relationships during crises, serving as a guide for policymakers and practitioners tasked with addressing the needs of vulnerable families.

In closing, the transformative nature of familial relationships in the wake of the Türkiye earthquake is a testament to human resilience and adaptability. The ongoing discourse surrounding these changes highlights the necessity for continued research into familial dynamics in the context of crisis. By addressing service gaps and emphasizing the importance of community connections, society can take proactive steps toward bolstering support systems for families in times of need.

The insights gleaned from this critical intersectional analysis not only illuminate the post-earthquake landscape in Türkiye but also offer valuable lessons for future disaster preparedness and response initiatives. As we move forward, it is imperative that we prioritize the well-being of families as integral components of recovery efforts and recognize the complexity of their needs in the face of adversity.

Ultimately, the findings of this study encourage a reimagining of how we support families in crisis situations. By fostering environments that promote collaboration and resource-sharing among families, communities can enhance their collective resilience, setting a foundation for recovery that empowers individuals and strengthens familial bonds.

Subject of Research: Intra-family relationship transformation and service recommendations post-2023 Türkiye earthquake.

Article Title: Intra-Family Relationship Transformation and Service Recommendations After 2023 Türkiye Earthquake: An Intersectional Analysis.

Article References: Tekgöz, A., Bayyar, A.B. & Afyonoğlu, M.F. Intra-Family Relationship Transformation and Service Recommendations After 2023 Türkiye Earthquake: An Intersectional Analysis. J Child Fam Stud 34, 2698–2716 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-025-03150-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-025-03150-8

Keywords: Türkiye earthquake, family dynamics, intersectionality, trauma recovery, social services, community support.