6. References

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.

In this chunk, we discuss the first era of climate change discourse,which spans from the 1980s to 2002. During this time, the emphasis was mainly on greenhouse gas emissions. The scientific community recognized climate change as an environmental issue and focused their research and discussions mainly on understanding and combating emissions that contribute to this global challenge.

Think of it like a family dealing with a persistent problem in their home, such as a leaky roof. In the 80s, the family focused all their efforts on the leak itself, trying to patch it up without addressing the underlying reasons why the roof might be susceptible to leaks in the first place.

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 of climate change discourse started around the 2000s and saw a shift in perspective. Instead of focusing solely on emissions, the conversation began to include social dimensions. Various stakeholders, including social scientists and development workers, began collaborating more to address climate issues from a broader standpoint that included social justice, equity, and the impact on different communities around the world.

Imagine the family from the earlier example now realizes that the leaky roof affects not just their living situation, but also their neighbors and community. They start working with their neighbors, community planners, and local builders to not only fix the roof but also make the house more energy efficient and resilient.

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 addresses the global impacts of climate change, emphasizing global justice and legal frameworks. This era recognizes that climate change is not just an environmental issue but also a matter of equity and justice. It raises questions about how laws and norms can better protect vulnerable communities and ensure that everyone contributes to climate change solutions.

Continuing with the family analogy, imagine they join forces with families from other communities to petition their local government for laws that require stronger building codes. This collaboration ensures that all families have access to safe, resilient homes and that policies reflect equity and justice.

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.

This chunk highlights the issues arising from mismatches in knowledge and data across different scales. Effective communication and collaboration among scientists, practitioners, and institutions are critical for addressing climate challenges. Without joint programming and clear communication, different groups may work on similar problems without realizing the overlap or the potential for shared solutions.

Think of a group project at school where everyone works on a different part without discussing their sections. Each student is putting in effort, but without understanding how their work connects to others, the final project lacks cohesion and effectiveness.

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 presented by Lei and Wang provides a structured approach to thinking about adaptation to natural disaster risks. It addresses fundamental questions such as why adaptation is essential, what form it should take, and who needs to be involved. This framework helps clarify the complex decision-making processes involved in preparing for and responding to climate-related disasters.

Consider a school preparing for a natural disaster like a hurricane. The 6W framework would help the school identify the reasons they need to adapt (for student safety), what specific adaptations they should implement (like securing windows), and who in the community (teachers, parents, emergency services) needs to be involved in the planning.

So one has to see the different sets of data how they can come together, and how can macro-level information can be informed the micro-level information.

In this chunk, the importance of integrating data from different scales is emphasized, specifically in the context of the built environment. Planners and architects must not only consider individual buildings and structures but also how these interact with larger ecosystems and natural systems. By using both macro (large-scale) and micro (small-scale) data, a more comprehensive understanding of climate vulnerability can be developed.

Think of building a new park in a city. Planners need to look at how the park fits into the overall city layout (macro level) while also considering the specific features of the land (micro level), such as local water flow or biodiversity. This collaborative approach ensures the park is not only sustainable but also beneficial to both the local community and the wider environment.

And here we can see that how the nature and culture can come together. And this also talks about how the adaptive built environments open up choices, connect past and future, and how it can reintegrate the humans in nature for which cooperation coordination between various agencies political, technological, ecological, educational and as well as the participation and communication across various segments the global actors in the National.

This chunk discusses the concept of adaptive built environments that harmonize human settlements with natural ecosystems. It emphasizes the need for cooperation among various sectors (like political, ecological, and educational) to facilitate learning and adapt to future risks. By merging nature and culture, we can create environments that are not only resilient to climate change but also promote a sustainable way of living.

Think of a community garden as an adaptive built environment. This garden not only provides fresh produce but also fosters community bonds, educates residents about sustainable practices, and enhances biodiversity by attracting pollinators—all while being a space for cultural gatherings and learning.

--