5.3. Disaster Recovery Processes

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.

The discussion around climate change has evolved significantly over decades. Initially, in the 1980s, the focus was primarily on environmental issues related to greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists were concerned about how these emissions impacted our environment. Moving into the 2000s, the conversation shifted to include social dimensions, recognizing that climate change is also a social issue that requires input and cooperation from social scientists and development workers. By the time we reached the third era, climate change was acknowledged as a global justice issue, indicating that its impacts are felt differently across various regions and countries.

Think of climate change discussions like a school project that starts with a few students focusing on one specific aspect, like science (greenhouse gas emissions), then grows to include social studies (how communities are affected), and finally, brings in a broader perspective by incorporating ethics about fairness (global justice).

So to summarise whole aspect we see that differences and challenges we have disaster risk reduction and the climate change adaptation. This because it is aimed at the adaptation strategy which tells of scale mismatches because it is aimed at disaster event, it is a long term implications. A draught is not just only a matter of one month, it may come from years of years or together.

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) have different focuses and challenges. DRR often deals with immediate events, like a flood or earthquake, while CCA involves long-term strategies to deal with climate change impacts, like droughts, which can last several years. This creates a mismatch in how we plan and respond to these issues, with strategies for short-term disaster events sometimes not aligning well with long-term climate strategies.

Imagine trying to plan a team sports match. On one hand, you prepare for immediate play and tactics (like responding to an earthquake), and on the other hand, you work out a training program for improving skills over a season (preparing for drought). If these two aspects don’t align, the team struggles during both matches and over time.

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?.

Lei and Wang introduced the '6W Framework' to clarify critical questions about adaptation in the context of disaster risk. This framework consists of six questions: Why adaptation is necessary? What does adaptation involve? What are we adapting to? Who needs to adapt? How should adaptation be achieved? And what principles should guide effective adaptation? This structured approach helps organizations and governments plan better and address adaptation comprehensively.

It's like preparing for a family camping trip where you need to ask essential questions: Why are we going? What do we need to do to enjoy it? What unexpected weather situations should we prepare for? Who is responsible for what? How should we pack? What are our rules for safety and fun? Answering these questions helps ensure a successful outing.

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.

The integrated multi-dimensional framework looks at how building practices provide options for diverse users and how they incorporate the natural environment and its ecosystems into planning and recovery following disasters. This means considering how buildings can be designed not just for immediate needs but also to harmonize with natural systems, promote sustainability, and provide multiple benefits to different communities after a disaster.

Imagine designing a community garden where not only people can grow their food, but the layout also helps prevent flooding by absorbing rainwater. This design considers how buildings and nature can work together rather than treating them separately.

--