3. 6W Framework

Where we have also the knowledge mismatches in the norms when we talk about the climate change, it was when it was discussed in the 80s which was the first era from 80s to 2002 it was mostly focused on the greenhouse gas emissions. Where the most of the scientific community are involved, it is an environmental problem. Whereas in the second era from 2000s this has been seen by the International agenda, and also the social dimension come into the picture where the social scientists and the development workers have increased their cooperation in the second era. In the third era it also looks from the you know this has been felt by other countries and other regions. So this is become a question of global justice in the near future that is where the legal dimension came in third era.

In the 1980s, the primary focus of climate change discussions was on greenhouse gas emissions, viewed largely as an environmental issue. Moving into the 2000s, climate change began to be recognized globally, incorporating social aspects and increasing collaboration between scientists and development workers. By the third era, climate change was acknowledged not just as an environmental challenge, but as a matter of global justice, thus introducing a legal context that emphasized normative frameworks with the aim of guiding society towards sustainable practices.

Think of climate change like a huge, complex puzzle. In the 1980s, we were just focused on the big pieces (like emissions), whereas in the 2000s, we started to notice how those pieces connected to smaller ones (like social impacts), and by now we recognize it's not just about fitting the pieces together, but about making sure everyone can play and access the puzzle table.

This is where we need to talk about develop of certain legislative cultural and behavioral norms which determine the functioning of human society and how the interactions between nature and society were created. So many of these legislative norms were often violated in the context of informal and coastal settlements. For example, the coastal regulation zone which was formed in 1991 and revised 19 times until the tsunami have struck. But then they were barely implemented.

To address climate change effectively, it is vital to develop and adhere to legislative, cultural, and behavioral norms that guide society's interactions with nature. However, many existing laws, especially those related to coastal regulations formed in 1991, were not implemented effectively, especially in informal settlements, leading to further vulnerabilities to environmental disasters. This points to a disconnect between legislation and its practical application.

Imagine a neighborhood with a community garden. The gardeners create rules on watering and sharing fruits, but if those rules are not followed, the garden suffers. Similarly, laws about coastal settlements may exist, but if they aren’t enforced, the environmental damage continues, putting the community at risk.

Also the knowledge mismatches when we talk about different scales, different data sets, different climate and risk scientist’s practitioners which they do not bring the transparent communication and collaboration and joint programming between various levels of actor’s, institutions, and agencies. So there is all this actually leads towards an important question of how to use this macro-level knowledge data sets to inform the micro-level data sets.

Knowledge gaps exist when different scientists and practitioners deal with varying scales and types of climate data without effective communication. This lack of transparency and collaboration between actors at different levels of government and institutions raises a critical question of how to connect broader, macro-level climate data with localized, micro-level data for effective climate action.

Consider a teacher who has a curriculum that addresses global issues like climate change but teaches them without connecting to local examples, like community recycling programs. The students might understand the concept at a big-picture level but struggle to see its relevance in their own lives. Bridging that gap is essential for true understanding and action.

So for this Lei and Wang they actually come up with more explicit frameworks they call about “6w framework”. So they talk about why adaptation is needed for natural disaster risk, what is adaptation to disaster risk, and adapt to what, who has to adapt?. Who should adopt? How to adapt? What are the possible principles or criteria to assist effectiveness of adaptation?

The 6W Framework proposed by Lei and Wang addresses critical questions regarding disaster risk adaptation. It explores why adaptation is necessary, what adaptation entails, the target population for adaptation, the methods of implementation, and the principles that can guide effective adaptation efforts. This framework serves as a structured approach for understanding and planning adaptation strategies in the face of climate-related risks.

Think of the 6W Framework like a recipe for baking a cake: it outlines the reasons (why), the ingredients (what), the bakers (who), the method (how), and the best practices for success (principles). Just as following a recipe ensures a tasty cake, applying the 6Ws ensures a thorough approach to disaster risk adaptation.

So it is where in my current ongoing study I developed this framework where we have the spatial dimension and which has also the vulnerability in impacting on these, and there is also the adaptation process both pre-disaster in disaster post-disaster and the future risk which has a short-term and medium-term of single and multiple disasters. And this has a long-term adaptation through social learning.

The framework recognizes the importance of spatial dimensions and vulnerability in the adaptation process, addressing changes before, during, and after disasters. It emphasizes that adaptation is not just a reaction but involves learning over time, adjusting practices based on previous experiences and changing conditions. This is crucial for fostering resilience in communities facing multiple disaster risks.

Picture a teacher who continually adjusts their lessons based on student feedback and test results. This 'learning from experience' enhances their teaching. In the same way, communities need to adapt by learning from past disasters, making necessary changes to become more resilient in the future.

And this also talks about how the adaptive built environments open up choices, connect past and future, and how it can reintegrate the humans in nature for which cooperation coordination between various agencies political, technological, ecological, educational and as well as the participation and communication across various segments the global actors in the National.

The adaptive built environments framework emphasizes the need for various sectors—political, ecological, educational, and technological—to work together to develop sustainable and resilient practices. It underlines how integrating human and natural systems offers flexible choices and fosters cooperation, which is essential for thriving in a world fraught with disaster risks.

Imagine a concert where musicians from different backgrounds come together to create beautiful music. For this harmony to happen, they need to communicate and collaborate effectively. Similarly, creating resilient communities requires different sectors to synchronize their efforts and work towards a common goal of sustainability.

--