Introduction

Housing has become one of the fundamental challenges of urban policymaking in peripheral and border cities, as the inability of the formal system to provide sustainable housing for low-income groups has led to the expansion of informal settlements and the deepening of spatial inequality. In this context, the housing issue is not limited to insufficient supply or lack of economic affordability; rather, it reflects a structural gap between centralized, quantity-oriented formal policies and the lived, cultural, and institutional realities of the city. The city of Zahedan, as one of the country’s less-developed border cities, represents a prominent example of this condition. Rapid population growth, unplanned horizontal expansion, and the settlement of a significant share of residents in informal areas have turned it into a focal point of spatial inequality and policy inefficiency. Despite the implementation of national housing programs, field evidence indicates that these policies have not led to a sustainable improvement in housing quality or the realization of spatial justice in peripheral areas. Accordingly, this study aims to explain the gap between formal housing policies and the lived realities of informal settlements in Zahedan from the perspective of professional actors’ experiences and perceptions. It seeks to answer the question of how this gap manifests across different dimensions and what implications it holds for spatial justice and policy effectiveness.

Methodology

This research was conducted using a qualitative and interpretive approach, employing a case study strategy to enable an in-depth analysis of the local context. The study population consisted of professional actors involved in housing policymaking, planning, and implementation in Zahedan. Sampling began purposively and continued through a snowball technique until theoretical saturation was reached. In total, 36 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. After full transcription, the data were analyzed using thematic analysis in three stages: open coding, organization of intermediate themes, and extraction of final themes. The analytical process sought to identify patterns of meaning and conceptual relationships embedded in participants’ experiences, thereby generating a coherent interpretation of how housing policies are perceived and enacted in practice. To enhance analytical rigor, the data were systematically organized and repeatedly reviewed, and final themes were consolidated based on conceptual convergence and recurring patterns.

Results and discussion

The analysis revealed that the policy–reality gap can be conceptualized across three principal dimensions. First, there is a misalignment between formal policies and the lived, institutional, and cultural conditions of informal settlements. Participants emphasized that housing policies have primarily focused on the quantitative production of housing units, while insufficient attention has been paid to physical quality, tenure security, cultural compatibility, and social sustainability. Settlement in structurally vulnerable and hazard-prone areas, the expansion of unstable rental arrangements, the absence of locally adapted support packages, and managerial instability were identified as key manifestations of this misalignment. Second, spatial inequality and justice-related challenges emerged as central concerns within supportive housing policies. The findings indicate that the distribution of educational, healthcare, and infrastructural services between central and peripheral areas remains uneven, resource allocation criteria lack transparency, and participatory mechanisms function weakly. Vulnerable groups, particularly female-headed households, have received limited consideration in policymaking processes. Third, broader environmental, economic, and demographic factors were identified as neglected dimensions of policy design. Climatic conditions, environmental pressures, unstable migration patterns, and the cultural diversity of Zahedan have not been systematically incorporated into housing strategies. The implementation of standardized national models without contextual adaptation has consequently undermined the sustainability of settlement patterns. Overall, the findings suggest that policy inefficiency stems less from resource scarcity and more from institutional centralization, weak inter-organizational coordination, insufficient data systems for identifying target groups, and the absence of a justice-oriented and context-sensitive perspective.

Conclusion

The results indicate that the continuation of a purely physical and quantity-driven approach cannot lead to sustainable improvements in informal settlements, and that the realization of spatial justice requires a fundamental redefinition of housing policy along three key directions. First, a shift is needed from a production-centered logic toward a quality-oriented and justice-driven framework. Second, multi-level governance mechanisms and the active participation of residents and local institutions in decision-making processes must be strengthened. Third, support packages should be designed in alignment with the environmental, cultural, and demographic characteristics of the city. The practical implication of these findings for urban managers and policymakers is that housing interventions in peripheral cities can only succeed when grounded in a deep understanding of the local context, reinforced by social capital, and accompanied by greater institutional transparency. From a theoretical standpoint, the study underscores the intrinsic link between housing policy and spatial justice and demonstrates that neglecting the lived experiences of professional actors contributes to the reproduction of the gap between formal policy and urban reality. By foregrounding field-based professional perceptions, this research provides an analytical framework for rethinking housing policies in peripheral and border cities.