2.1. Macro-Level and Micro-Level Knowledge Integration

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 three eras in the historical evolution of climate change knowledge. The first era (1980-2002) focused primarily on greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting a time when environmental issues were tackled mainly from a scientific and environmental perspective. The second era recognized the importance of social dimensions, bringing in social scientists and development workers to collaborate on climate issues and placing them on the international agenda. The third era adds a legal framework to the discussion, emphasizing global justice and the need for legislative norms that govern human interactions with nature.

Think of climate change knowledge like layers of an onion. At first, we just looked at the outer layer—the science of greenhouse gases in the 80s. As we peeled back the layers, we discovered complex social and legal dimensions that affect climate policies today. Just like how a chef needs to understand the ingredients and flavors to create a balanced dish, policymakers now need to integrate scientific, social, and legal knowledge to effectively address climate change.

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. 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.

This chunk highlights the challenges in integrating knowledge about climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). It mentions that there are often mismatches in knowledge among different scientists and practitioners. Moreover, there is a lack of transparent communication and coordination, making it difficult to effectively utilize macro-level data (broad, general data) to inform micro-level data (specific, localized data). A roadmap is needed to create better integration between these approaches.

Consider a team of doctors from different specializations trying to treat a patient. If they don’t communicate clearly about their findings and treatment plans, the patient could end up getting conflicting treatments. Similarly, in climate action, if scientists and practitioners don’t work together effectively and share their knowledge, the efforts to adapt and reduce risks will be fragmented and less effective.

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. 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. Temporal and functional challenges; because this is more to do with the short and medium-term and mostly to the event related, and this has more of a prevention and also the long term adaptation strategies.

This chunk addresses the challenges that arise from mismatches in scale and funding between disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). It explains that while disaster events might be short-term (like floods), their effects can last much longer and affect various regions differently. CCA typically takes into account longer-term changes and challenges, which adds complexity to integrating immediate disaster responses with strategic adaptation plans.

Imagine training for a marathon. While you need to prepare for the race in the short term through regular runs, you also have to think about your overall health and fitness goals over the years. If you only focus on one race and neglect the long-term approach, you might not perform well in the marathon. Similarly, addressing climate change requires both immediate disaster responses and long-term planning for adaptation.

Whereas the differences in function of agencies plays players involved and what is the scope of work roles and funding, because at the end of the day, funding is the most important part. Mismatches regarding the norms: when we have the legislative norms, urban planning norms, coastal regulations how they enter do not relate to each other that is one aspect. Knowledge mismatches when we say the different types and scales of knowledge data sets and work applied. So for this Lei and Wang they actually come up with more explicit frameworks they call about “6w framework”.

Here, the importance of funding and normative mismatches in knowledge frameworks is discussed. The ‘6W framework’ proposed by Lei and Wang aims at clarifying critical questions regarding disaster adaptation. It addresses why adaptation is necessary, what it entails, who needs to adapt, how adaptation can be achieved, and outlines principles for effective adaptation. This framework seeks to resolve mismatches in knowledge and application across different scales and contexts.

Think of the '6W framework' like a recipe book for making a successful meal. It breaks down the process into essential questions you need to answer: Why are you cooking? (Why adaptation?) What ingredients do you need? (What is adaptation?) Who will eat the meal? (Who has to adapt?) How will you cook? (How to adapt?) This structured approach guides you through the complexities of meal preparation much like it guides decision-makers through the complexities of climate adaptation.

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 describes an integrated multi-dimensional framework that looks at how various building practices impact choices available to different users. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating natural environments and ecosystems into planning processes, particularly in relation to disaster recovery. This approach aims to ensure that adaptation strategies are not only functional but also inclusive, reflecting the needs and aspirations of different stakeholders.

Imagine planning a community park. If you only consider the play structures without incorporating the surrounding trees, water bodies, and natural landscape, you miss out on creating a vibrant community space. An integrated approach in building practices ensures all elements work together harmoniously, just like a well-designed park, enhancing both user experience and ecological health.

--