5.2. Natural Environment Integration in Place Making

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.

This chunk discusses the evolution of the perspective on climate change over three distinct eras. In the first era, from the 1980s to 2002, the focus was primarily on greenhouse gas emissions, leading to the understanding that climate change is an environmental issue. In the second era starting in the 2000s, there was a shift towards an international perspective that included social dimensions, whereby social scientists collaborated more with development workers. Finally, in the third era, climate change began to be viewed through a lens of global justice, emphasizing how its impacts vary across different regions and countries.

Think of a story that starts with a person learning about a health issue, viewing it as a problem that only affects individuals (first era). As more discussions occur, they begin to realize that the issue is part of a larger community concern, prompting collaboration among different groups (second era). Finally, they recognize that this health problem has different effects based on one's social and economic status, and that addressing these disparities is crucial (third era).

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. So many of these legislative norms were often violated in the context of informal and coastal settlements. For example, the coastal regulation zone which was formed in 1991 and revised 19 times until the tsunami have struck. But then they were barely implemented.

In this chunk, the discussion shifts to the legal aspects of climate change and place making. The third era not only highlights climate change's impact as a matter of global justice but also underscores the necessity for developing specific legislative norms that dictate how societies function in relation to the environment. However, it points out that these laws, especially in informal coastal settlements, were not effectively enforced. The Coastal Regulation Zone, initiated in 1991, exemplifies this issue; despite being revised frequently, its implementations fell short, showcasing a gap between policy and practice.

Consider a community that has established laws to protect its local park. However, if those laws are not enforced, people continue to litter and disregard park rules, leading to a degraded environment. This situation mirrors how climate regulations exist but are not always implemented effectively in vulnerable areas.

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.

This chunk emphasizes the problems stemming from knowledge mismatches among different scales of climate data and the stakeholders involved. Often, the data produced at a macro level by climate scientists doesn't translate well to the specific needs of local practitioners. This lack of collaboration and transparent communication creates barriers in effectively using data to inform localized decision-making and programs.

Imagine a school district that conducts broad assessments on student performance but fails to share those results with individual teachers. Without understanding the overall trends, teachers struggle to tailor their lessons to meet their students' needs. This illustrates how macro-level insights can be rendered ineffective without proper communication down to the micro-level.

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.

This chunk summarizes the challenges between disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). DRR typically targets immediate disaster events, while CCA looks at longer-term strategies for adapting to climate change. The distinction creates scale mismatches; for instance, a drought is not merely a short-term event but can have implications that unfold over several years, complicating effective planning for communities at risk.

Think of a person preparing for a basketball game. Focusing solely on preparing for the game itself (DRR) without considering the importance of developing stamina over the long term (CCA) will leave them unprepared for future games. This highlights the need for balancing short-term preparations with long-term strategies.

So for this Lei and Wang they actually come up with more explicit frameworks they call about “6w framework”... principles or criteria to assist effectiveness of adaptation?.

This chunk introduces a framework developed by Lei and Wang known as the '6W framework,' which focuses on key questions for climate adaptation: why adaptation is necessary, what it involves, who needs to adapt, how to adapt, and what criteria can help assess adaptation effectiveness. This framework helps clarify the requirements for developing effective adaptation strategies.

When planning a trip, you would ask: why do I want to go (the purpose), where should I go (the destination), who is coming with me (the participants), how will I get there (the means), and what criteria will I use to decide if it's a successful trip (measuring satisfaction). Similarly, the 6W framework guides effective planning for 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. The spatial levels data so it is always if you look at the built environment we as planners or architects we only look at the plots buildings and elements.

This chunk reiterates the necessity of integrating natural environments into place making. It highlights a common oversight in the built environment field, where planners and architects often focus solely on construction elements and ignore the underlying natural systems, topography, and public linkages. This lack of consideration can lead to ineffective adaptation strategies and place-making that do not harmonize with the surrounding ecology.

Think of a puzzle. If you only focus on a few pieces (the buildings) without considering the complete picture (the ecosystem), your final image will not make sense. Integrated planning requires looking at the whole puzzle to understand how each piece fits together within the larger environment.

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...

This concluding chunk discusses the holistic framework for analyzing the integration of natural environments with place making. It emphasizes three major aspects: the variety of building practices that cater to different users, how ecosystems contribute to the place-making process during disaster recovery, and how rebuilding methods should connect past and future needs. This multi-faceted approach is essential for effective adaptation and resilience building.

Imagine a community rebuilding after a storm. If they simply replicate what was there before (neglecting lessons from the past) instead of incorporating sustainable practices and community needs (considering future aspirations), they miss out on important opportunities for growth and resilience. A holistic approach in architecture ensures that all elements are considered for future safety and adaptability.

--