Investigation of Alishahi Village Reconstruction's consequences after 2010 Fars Earthquake

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 have not firmly 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 came back to old ones despite their vulnerability and probability of hazards. In order to explain the necessity of revising the policy of settlements relocation after disasters، the study is trying to indicate in-situ policy for Alishahi Village after 2010 Earthquake in Fars Province 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. 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 kept in mind that resistance against hazards cannot be obtained unless accurate observation during reconstruction period is taken into consideration. Also in order to have resistant buildings after this period، community capacity has to be elevated by holding educational programs. Besides، while it was thought that the use of indigenous materials and labors and reliance on local knowledge of villagers would lead to a slowdown in the reconstruction، but in the mentioned experience and in comparison with similar villages، this reconstruction was done according to the predetermined schedule with public participation in the various stages of the housing including: planning، deciding and implementation. It also emphasizes 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 formed during years and lead to least modifications after reconstruction time.