2.2. Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation Challenges

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 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.

This chunk discusses how the perception and understanding of climate change have evolved over three distinct eras. The first era (1980-2002) was mainly focused on greenhouse gas emissions as an environmental issue. In the second era (2000s), climate change started to be viewed within a broader international agenda that included social dimensions and the cooperation of various stakeholders, including social scientists and development workers. The third era introduces the concept of climate change as a global justice issue, emphasizing the legal dimensions of climate action and the need for legislative norms to guide human interactions with nature. It suggests that over the years, our understanding has shifted from a purely environmental issue to a complex challenge involving ethics and social justice.

Imagine a person who starts with a narrow view of their health, only focusing on their diet (like greenhouse emissions in the first era). As they learn more, they realize that exercise, mental health, and community support are equally important (reflecting the broader view of climate change in the second era). Eventually, they understand their health is connected to environmental factors, like clean air and safe communities, which resonates with the global justice perspective of the third era.

Also the knowledge mismatches when we talk about different scales, different data sets, different climate and risk scientists 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. And who should take this into consideration, in what way a clear roadmap is needed for a better integration of CCA and DRR.

In this chunk, the author highlights the issue of knowledge mismatches that occur due to varying scales, data sets, and the roles of different climate and risk scientists. The lack of transparent communication and collaboration leads to ineffective strategies in addressing climate change and disaster risk. It emphasizes the need for a clear roadmap to connect macro-level knowledge (broad data and theories) with micro-level actions (local implementations). This is crucial for effective Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) efforts.

Think of a big puzzle where the pieces are scattered (macro-level knowledge). Each piece represents a different aspect of climate change or disaster risk. If one person only works on their small piece without communicating with others, the overall picture remains unclear. However, if everyone shares their pieces (data) and collaborates, they can see how to fit them together effectively, creating a complete picture that addresses both adaptation and risk reduction.

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. Whereas the spatial scales respective to regions and localities prone to occur, well it is a global scale sometimes is a continental and intercontinental impacts.

This chunk summarizes the fundamental differences and challenges between Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA). DRR strategies often focus on immediate disaster events, which can lead to scale mismatches since they may not account for long-term climate changes. For instance, a drought can span multiple years and may not be seen as an immediate disaster. Conversely, CCA takes a long-term view that aligns with gradual climatic shifts affecting broad spatial scales, which can include local, continental, and even global impacts.

Consider a city planning for floods as a disaster event (DRR), but then realizing that climate change will lead to increased rainfall over the years (CCA). If the city's planning only focuses on immediate flood responses, it may not effectively prepare for the long-term consequences of climate change, just like a farmer who plants only for this year's harvest may fail to consider the future impacts of changing weather patterns.

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?.

This chunk introduces the '6W framework' proposed by Lei and Wang, which aims to clarify the various aspects of adaptation strategies. The six questions—Why, What, To Whom, Who, How, and What Criteria—serve as a comprehensive guide to understanding the need for adaptation in the context of disaster risk. This framework prompts discussion about the rationale behind adaptation, the specific alterations needed in behavior or practices, the stakeholders involved, and the principles that can enhance the efficiency of these adaptations.

Imagine you are planning a party. The '6W framework' would help you consider why you're hosting (celebration), what kind of party (theme), who you are inviting (guests), who is responsible for what (roles), how to organize it (planning), and what criteria will ensure it’s fun for everyone (success factors). Applying this logic to disaster adaptation ensures a thorough approach.

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. At the same time how different rebuilding processes have addressed the challenges to connect both past and future needs and aspirations of the beneficiaries.

This chunk explores an integrated multi-dimensional framework aimed at enhancing resilience to disasters and climate change. It examines three main aspects: the variety of building practices that provide choices for users, the integration of natural ecosystems into the planning and rebuilding processes, and how rebuilding efforts can address both historical needs and future aspirations of communities. This holistic approach seeks to connect the past with the future, ensuring that development is sustainable and inclusive.

Think of a community rebuilding after a flood. They might use different styles of buildings that cater to families, businesses, and community spaces (diverse building practices). By incorporating local ecosystems (like wetlands) into their plans, they help prevent future floods while ensuring the community's wishes and needs (both past and future) shape the rebuilding process. It's like merging history with innovation to create a stronger foundation for tomorrow.

--