In most post-disaster reconstruction programs, relocation of affected settlement is perceived to be an appropriate solution to reduce vulnerability and increase safety to the risk of future hazards. Nonetheless, investigation of various experiences in the country illustrates that outcomes of relocation firmly have not been acceptable for affected people who have been displaced after the disaster. So in some experiences people left the new settlements built by safe technologies in safe places and have come back to old ones despite their vulnerability and probability of hazards in them. In order to explain the necessity of revising the policy of settlements relocation after disasters, the study is taken to indicate in-situ policy for Alishahi Village after Fars Province 2010 Earthquake and to investigate its pros and cones. This is done by using field experiences of authors during the reconstruction procedure, field observations and in-depth interviews with the field study approach and case study method one year after reconstruction time. The policy taken in Alishahi reveals that relocation and resettlement after disasters is not the only choice which is available and by eliminating or reducing vulnerability of the built environment against hazards which may occur in the settlement, in-situ policy may be evaluated as a better option in terms of people’s satisfaction and utilization of existing assets despite higher costs at the beginning of reconstruction. It should be in mind that resistance against hazards cannot be obtained unless accurate observation during reconstruction period. Also in order to have buildings resistant after this period, community capacity has to be elevated by holding educational programs. Beside, while it was thought that the use of indigenous materials and labors and reliance on local knowledge of villagers lead to a slowdown in the reconstruction, in the mentioned experience the reconstruction, compared to the same villages, were done according to the predetermined schedule with the establishment of public participation in the various stages of the housing including planning, deciding and implementation, It also emphasize that designing new houses have to be according to villagers’ needs, demands and nostalgias, so it won’t cause interference in their way of life forming during years and lead to least modifications after reconstruction time.

Policy is a procedure and idea, which is used in different levels to solve the problems of human societies. There may be different organizations in each country, which are bound by certain policies relevant to their procedures in meeting people’s needs and expectations. Housing policies are examples of such courses of actions for solving the residential needs of people. With the growing rate of immigration from countryside to urban regions, it is necessary to pay special attention to rural developments. Since rural housing is the most important need in these habitats and has a direct impact on the city-bound movement of the population, evaluating the relevant policies is of utmost importance. This paper provides  an evaluation of the loan-based government policies for rural housing.

Rural housing is more complex than urban housing as it usually has to cope not only with human needs but with the health requirements of livestock as well. There is usually a need for covered space for all sorts of occupations including weaving, basket making, and production of ropes or fishing nets, drying and processing food etc.

Rural housing should provide the physical environment, the necessary services, and the facilities required for the well-being of the family, their in-house occupations, and even their education. All these necessary aspects for an acceptable housing condition are sometimes brought into question by the poor choice of materials and the structural vulnerability of the constructions.

Moreover, rural housing has suffered from the lack of proper development planning and implementation programs. Most of the policies for rural housing have not been successful because of the neglect of these key aspects. The loan-based programs with the target of alleviating the housing problems in rural areas have not met the affordability criteria for such initiatives. In addition, these  programs have not taken the basic differences of rural and urban housing into consideration and have therefore been a poor copy of the same agenda for the cities. Therefore, the rural housing  remains a grave challenge for governments. There seems to be an urgent need for addressing the scale and dynamic nature of housing issues in a rural setting. It should be seen as an on-going process of improvements in the qualitative and quantitative aspects of residential developments in these regions with special attention to the social, economic, and environmental considerations.

In this study, the present problems of rural housing are reviewed, and subsequently, the government resolutions for these problems are examined. Governmental policies in Iran are formulated in the form of five-year plans. Therefore, the strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and weaknesses are examined within the same timeframe using a strategic analysis approach. Results show that in rural housing policies, quantitative aspects of the construction are given more value, while other factors such as the regional climate, the use of local labor and materials,  and participation receive less attention.