3.1. Overview of 6W 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.

In the context of climate change, the discussion has evolved over three distinct eras. The first era, from the 1980s to 2002, primarily focused on greenhouse gas emissions as an environmental issue, involving mainly scientists. The second era beginning in the 2000s recognized climate change as an international concern, integrating social dimensions and fostering collaboration among social scientists and development workers. The third era emphasizes global justice and introduces legal considerations, marking a shift towards understanding the legal frameworks that guide societal interactions with the environment.

Think of it like the progression of a community's understanding of a health crisis. Initially, they might recognize a virus is spreading (first era), then they realize they need community health workers and social outreach (second era), and finally, laws are enacted for vaccinations and public health safety (third era).

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.

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) face several challenges due to their differing focuses. DRR is often event-focused and considers short-term consequences while CCA takes a long-term view of climate impacts, focusing on gradual changes like droughts that can develop over years. The spatial context also varies; local and regional planning must consider both immediate disaster risks and broader climate trends that can affect areas on a global scale.

Imagine preparing for a home improvement project (CCA) that involves installing an upgraded roof (long-term) versus fixing a leak (short-term). A leak might need immediate attention (DRR) while the roof upgrade prepares for future storms.

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?.

The 6W framework introduced by Lei and Wang outlines critical questions for effectively approaching adaptation to disaster risks. These questions include: Why is adaptation necessary? What specific aspects require adaptation? Who must adapt? Additionally, it seeks to address the methods of adaptation and the principles that could enhance its effectiveness. This comprehensive approach ensures that adaptation strategies are well thought out and inclusive.

Think of the 6W framework as a guide for planning a community event. You need to ask: Why are we organizing this event (purpose)? What activities are suitable (what to adapt)? Who will be involved (who has to adapt)? How will we carry out our plans (how to adapt)? And what standards do we need for success (principles of effectiveness)?

So it is where in my current ongoing study I developed this framework where we have the spatial dimension and which has also the vulnerability in impacting on these, and there is also the adaptation process both pre-disaster in disaster post-disaster and the future risk which has a short-term and medium-term of single and multiple disasters.

In this ongoing study, a framework is proposed that takes into account both spatial dimensions and vulnerabilities when developing adaptation strategies. The goal is to analyze the adaptation processes across different stages: pre-disaster, during a disaster, and post-disaster. This framework also considers the risks associated with both singular and multiple disaster events over short and medium-term time frames.

Think of preparing for a roller coaster (disaster). Before getting on, you check the safety measures (pre-disaster planning). While on the ride, you experience twists and turns (during the disaster), and when done, you reflect on the experience and adjust for the next time (post-disaster adaptation).

--