4. Built Environment Perspective

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.

In this chunk, we explore how the understanding of climate change has evolved over time. Initially, from the 1980s to 2002, the focus was primarily on greenhouse gas emissions, which were seen as an environmental issue. This era emphasized the scientific community's role in identifying climate change as a problem resulting from human activities. The idea is that scientific understanding drives policy and action on climate change.

Think of it like a car manufacturer realizing that their cars produce a lot of harmful emissions. Initially, the focus is on reducing these emissions without considering other aspects like fuel efficiency or alternative energy. Over time, they would need to look at the entire vehicle's environmental impact.

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.

This chunk highlights the shift in perspective during the 2000s, where the understanding of climate change broadened to include social dimensions. Social scientists and development workers began collaborating with environmentalists to address climate change not just as an ecological issue but also considering its social implications, such as inequality and community resilience.

Imagine a community where a factory is causing pollution. Initially, environmentalists focus on reducing emissions. Yet, social workers step in to highlight how pollution disproportionately affects lower-income families, leading to a more comprehensive approach that includes economic and social justice in the solutions.

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 which is, and 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.

In the third era, the discussion of climate change expanded to include global justice, emphasizing the need for equitable responses to its impacts. This era also introduced legal dimensions, focusing on creating laws and norms that guide society’s interaction with the environment. The idea is to foster a legal framework that ensures everyone’s rights in the face of climate change.

Consider an international treaty aimed at reducing emissions. It's similar to creating a house rule for a group of roommates: everyone agrees to do their part in maintaining the common space, which not only benefits them but also ensures fairness in how they share and manage the shared resources.

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.

Here, we address the challenges in implementing the laws and regulations aimed at reducing climate risks, particularly in informal and coastal settlements. Despite the creation of legislative frameworks like the coastal regulation zone, actual enforcement has been lax, resulting in ineffective policies that fail to protect these vulnerable areas.

It’s like making sure a safety law is followed on a construction site. If the law exists but is not enforced, workers might ignore safety gear, putting everyone at risk. Similarly, without enforcement, communities in coastal regions remain at risk despite existing regulations.

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.

This chunk discusses the difficulty of integrating knowledge from various sources and scales, such as macro-level data from governments or organizations versus micro-level data collected by local practitioners. The lack of communication can lead to mismatched responses to climate risks, hindering effective adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies.

Think of it as a team sport where each player has a specific role. If the defenders don’t communicate with the forwards, they may not work together effectively, leading to missed opportunities. Similarly, different experts in climate science need to share insights to create cohesive strategies for 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?.

This chunk introduces the '6w framework,' which outlines critical questions regarding adaptation strategies for disaster risk. This framework helps clarify why adaptation is necessary, what it entails, and who should be involved in the process, creating a structured approach to addressing these challenges.

Consider preparing for a big storm. A good planning framework would ask questions like 'What supplies do we need?' 'Who will stay back to help?' and 'How do we deal with the aftermath?' The '6w framework' serves a similar purpose in guiding climate adaptation.

So there is a brief summary of this whole 6w framework has been listed out and now one of the important understanding from a built environment perspective what we can see is there is a scale mismatches.

This chunk emphasizes the importance of considering the built environment, which includes infrastructure and urban planning. It points out that architects and planners often overlook the larger ecological systems surrounding their projects, leading to a disconnection between human structures and natural environments, which can exacerbate climate vulnerability.

Imagine building a house without considering the local weather and land features. If the designs don’t account for local flood patterns or natural drainage, the house might face severe water damage. Thus, it is crucial to integrate knowledge about both man-made and natural systems.

And when we talk about an integrated multi-dimensional framework, so it investigates on three aspects; one is how different building practices have offered choices to variety of users and users, how the natural environment with its ecosystems and services has been integrated in the place making process in different disaster recovery process.

This chunk elaborates on the concept of an integrated multi-dimensional framework that examines how various building practices give options to different users. It also focuses on how natural environments, including ecosystems, should be considered in urban planning and disaster recovery, ensuring that human and ecological needs are balanced.

Think about creating a community park. It's not just about planting trees or installing benches; it also involves considering the local wildlife and water management. When the community participates in planning, it leads to a space that meets both human and ecological needs, enhancing overall resilience.

--