A Comparative Study of Local and Reconstructed Rural Post-disaster Housing Case study: Layavol Oliya after the 1989 Manjil-Rudbar earthquake

Background and objectives: The earthquake is one of the serious threats in the present era, which disrupts local resources of rural communities. After the Manjil-Rudbar earthquake in June 21, 1989, many villages merged and displaced due to the vast damages. According to the adopted policies, Liyavol Oliya was one of these villages that displaced and merged with three other villages in an area called Chahar-Mahal. The displacement and integration caused changes in physical, typology and functions of habitation and subsequently the lifestyle and livelihoods of the residents. The purpose of this study is to determine changes in habitations as a result of displacement and integration of Liyavol village as well as changes in design, structure, spatial organization and types of reconstructed houses in comparison with local houses, 29 years after the earthquake. Method: Two approaches have been adopted to understand changes in these two types of housing. Initially, 4 local and 4 reconstructed houses (together with extensions and modifications made to the present) were field-documented in the aspects of form, typology and spatial organization. In addition, a semi-structured interview was conducted with residents of Liyavol-e-Jadid about housing extensions and its causes to get a brief overview of the history of reconstructed housing changes to date and how different spatial layers form, and its functions and layout. Findings: According to the findings, reconstructed houses have been altered in design and physical featured for materials, incorporation of new living spaces, different and variables definitions of privacy and security, construction technology and architectural elements such as roof and facade in comparison with local houses. As well as, some changes are observed in these two types because of the changes in land and housing dimensions, housing proportions, land and living spaces, flexibility of spaces, spatial priorities and distribution of rural housing, from the aspect of spatial organization. From the aspect of housing typology, changes in housing orientation can also be attributed to geo-climatic issues, climatic adaptation of housing, and reduction in the number of floors as well as the elevation from ground, and the reduction the impact of natural-environmental factors. Conclusion: It seems that, as the reduction of the physical vulnerability of Liyavol village to future disasters is considered to be one of the main criteria for reconstruction, considering the socio-psychological, cultural, livelihood and geographical-climatic factors affecting the typology, design and spatial organization and structure of rural housing have been neglected in this reconstruction. It must be acknowledged that just reconstruction of the houses through a native approach will not lead to success or public acceptance. Therefore, study the characteristics of remained local houses from the earthquake of 1989, changes, adaptations, and how current permanent housing is formed, as well as identification of the positive, negative and common and different aspects between them, may result to form optimal plans in deciding and implantations of future housing in this village.