5. Integrated Multi-Dimensional 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 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 the progression of climate change awareness over three significant eras. In the first era (1980s to 2002), the focus was primarily on greenhouse gas emissions, viewing climate change as an environmental issue. During the second era (2000s), the perspective shifted to include social dimensions, highlighting collaboration among social scientists and development workers. The third era recognizes climate change as a global justice issue, emphasizing the need for legal frameworks and norms to govern human interactions with nature. This evolution illustrates how our understanding of climate change has expanded from a scientific problem to a multifaceted societal challenge.

Consider the evolution of smartphone technology. Initially, smartphones focused on basic communication features (like the first era’s focus on greenhouse gases). Over time, they began to integrate social apps and functions, serving as platforms for community engagement (like the second era). Finally, smartphones are now essential tools for social justice movements, representing interconnected global issues (similar to the third era of climate change awareness).

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 drought 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 key challenges faced in aligning disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). It highlights that DRR often focuses on short-term responses to specific disasters, while CCA requires a long-term mindset to address gradual changes, like droughts that develop over many years. Moreover, it emphasizes the spatial dimension, noting that disasters can affect local, regional, and even global scales, complicating coordinated responses between different geographical areas.

Think about preparing for a marathon versus a sprint. Preparing for a sprint requires quick, immediate actions (like disaster risk reduction), while training for a marathon involves a long-term commitment to endurance and consistency (like climate change adaptation). Both are important, but they require different strategies and time considerations.

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?

This chunk introduces the '6W framework' created by Lei and Wang, which serves as a guide to understanding adaptation in response to natural disaster risks. It poses essential questions that need to be answered to create effective adaptation strategies, such as identifying the reasons and situations necessitating adaptation, who should be involved in the adaptation process, and the principles that should guide these adaptations. This structured approach is crucial for ensuring that adaptation efforts are comprehensive and effective.

It's like a recipe for baking a cake. Just as you need to know what ingredients you need (the 'who' and 'what') and the steps to follow (the 'how') to ensure your cake turns out right, the 6W framework helps planners outline all necessary components for effective adaptation to disaster risks.

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 discusses the integrated multi-dimensional framework that evaluates three main aspects related to disaster recovery. It looks at how various building practices provide diverse choices for users, how environmental ecosystems have been incorporated into recovery processes, and how rebuilding efforts are designed to meet both historical and future aspirations of the communities affected by disasters. This holistic view encourages adaptability and sustainability in planning and reconstruction efforts.

Consider how urban parks are designed. They not only provide green spaces for current residents (user choices), but they also reflect the area’s history through preserved landmarks (connecting past and future), and they integrate local wildlife habitats into urban settings (ecosystem services). By addressing these multiple dimensions, parks enhance community resilience, similar to how a multi-dimensional framework addresses disaster recovery.

--