1.1. First Era: Focus on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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.

The first era of climate change discussion took place from the 1980s to 2002. During this time, the primary focus was on greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global warming and climate change. This period marked significant involvement from the scientific community, who identified greenhouse gases as a major environmental issue that needed attention. The emphasis was on understanding how these gases contributed to climate change and what could be done to mitigate their effects.

Imagine a factory responsible for producing a lot of smoke that pollutes the air. In the 1980s, scientists were like the firefighters, trying to identify the source of the smoke (in this case, greenhouse gases) and finding ways to reduce it to improve air quality (the environment).

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.

The second era, beginning in the 2000s, marked a shift in how climate change was approached. It transitioned from a primarily scientific focus to a more comprehensive international agenda that included social aspects. In this phase, social scientists began collaborating with development workers, highlighting the importance of understanding the social impacts of climate change and the need for cooperative efforts across different fields to address climate issues effectively.

Think of it as a community project where the initial focus was just on cleaning up a polluted river. As the project evolved, it began to include people from various backgrounds, such as health experts and community leaders, who contributed different perspectives and solutions. This teamwork helped address not just pollution but also the impacts on local communities.

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.

The third era brought about a deeper understanding of climate change's impact on different regions and countries. It highlighted the concept of global justice, recognizing that climate change affects various communities unequally. This era saw an increased emphasis on legal frameworks and cultural norms that govern how societies interact with nature and each other, reinforcing the idea that fair and equitable solutions are needed to address the challenges posed by climate change.

Imagine a classroom where some students always get extra resources while others struggle with limited supplies. In this scenario, global justice is like ensuring that all students receive the same quality of resources and support, regardless of their background, so that everyone can succeed together.

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 actors, 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.

This section addresses the challenges related to knowledge mismatches in climate science. Different scientists and institutions working at various scales (local, national, global) often use different data sets and methods, which can lead to gaps in understanding. The lack of transparent communication and collaboration hinders effective action against climate change. The key challenge is figuring out how to integrate large-scale data with more localized information for better decision-making.

Think of it like trying to assemble a puzzle where some pieces are from different sets. If the pieces don’t fit together well or if you don’t communicate effectively about which pieces go where, you won’t be able to see the whole picture. This is what happens when scientists and institutions don’t collaborate effectively.

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.

The adaptation strategies designed to tackle climate change face challenges due to scale mismatches. While disaster risk reduction focuses on immediate events (like floods or hurricanes), climate change adaptation requires a long-term approach that considers the ongoing implications of these events over time. Understanding these differences is crucial for developing effective strategies that address both immediate and long-term needs.

Consider a farmer who only thinks about the next harvest without preparing for future seasons. If there's a drought, short-term solutions might help temporarily, but without a long-term adaptation strategy like planting drought-resistant crops, the farmer may face severe losses in future harvests.

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?.

The 6W framework developed by Lei and Wang provides a structured approach to understand climate adaptation in the context of disaster risk. It includes six critical questions: 'Why', 'What', 'Who', 'How', 'When', and 'Where' regarding adaptation strategies. This framework helps clarify the importance of adaptation, the specifics of what needs to be adapted, and who should be involved in the adaptation process.

Imagine preparing for a storm. You ask yourself questions like: Why do I need to prepare? (To protect my home) What do I need to do? (Secure windows, gather supplies) Who should help? (Family, neighbors) How can we work together? (Shared tasks) This process mirrors how the 6W framework guides us in 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.

From the perspective of the built environment, the 6W framework emphasizes that it is crucial to consider scale mismatches when planning and constructing buildings and infrastructure. Effective planning should integrate environmental and social aspects, ensuring that structures do not only serve their immediate purposes but also contribute to long-term resilience against climate risks.

Think of building a house on a floodplain. If the builders only consider the house itself without understanding the larger flood risk and how it interacts with the environment, they may create a structure that seems sound but is actually very vulnerable to future disasters. An effective framework would assess these external risks in planning.

--