1.2. Second Era: International Agenda and Social Dimension

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 second era, starting in the 2000s, the focus of discussions around climate change shifted from purely environmental concerns to include social dimensions. This meant that not only were scientists interested in the environmental impacts but also social scientists and development workers began collaborating more. Their collective efforts aimed to address how climate change affects communities and to create strategies that consider both environmental and social needs.

Imagine a team of doctors focusing only on treating physical symptoms of a disease, like inflammation. In the second era, they realize that they also need nutritionists and social workers on their team to support the overall well-being of the patient. Just as those additional professionals help provide holistic care, social scientists and development workers help create comprehensive solutions to climate change that address both environmental and societal challenges.

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.

Knowledge mismatches occur when different scientists work with differing sets of data and scales, leading to a lack of coherent communication between them. For instance, a local climate researcher may have specific data that doesn’t align with broader, more global datasets held by international organizations. This disparity can hinder effective collaboration, as the researchers may not share their findings or understand each other's work. It emphasizes the need for transparent communication and structured collaborations.

Think of a relay race where each runner has a different map. If they don't communicate effectively about their routes, they might end up going in circles or getting lost during the race. Similarly, without a unified approach to share data and findings in climate science, researchers may struggle to provide accurate assessments of climate risks.

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.

In this chunk, it highlights the challenges surrounding disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Disaster risk reduction focuses on managing short-term events (like hurricanes or floods) while climate adaptation involves long-term strategies to adjust to ongoing changes (like droughts over several years). These differing focuses can create scale mismatches because immediate disaster responses often don’t take long-term climatic changes into account.

Consider a homeowner in a flood-prone area. If they only invest in sandbags for emergency flood responses, they may ignore the fact that increasing rainfall from climate change means they also need to consider long-term flood defenses, such as installing drainage systems. Just like this homeowner needs to prepare for both immediate and long-term challenges, communities must address both disaster response and climate adaptation.

So for this Lei and Wang they actually come up with more explicit frameworks they call about '6w framework'.

The '6W framework' developed by Lei and Wang aims to clarify the complex questions surrounding adaptation to disaster risks. It includes: Why adaptation is needed, what needs to be adapted, who needs to adapt, who should adopt, how to adapt, and what principles can be followed for effective adaptation. This comprehensive approach helps ensure that all aspects of adaptation are thoroughly considered.

It's similar to preparing a menu for a big event. You need to decide why you’re hosting it (purpose), what dishes you need (what to adapt), who your guests are (who needs to adapt), how you’ll cook the food (how to adapt), and what dietary rules to follow (principles for effectiveness). Each component contributes to the overall success of the event, just as every question in the '6W framework' contributes to effective disaster adaptation.

So there is a brief summary of this whole 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 importance of considering the built environment in climate adaptation is crucial. For architects and planners, it’s not enough to focus only on individual buildings; they must also consider the land's natural systems and how these can interact with urban development. This integrated perspective helps ensure that adaptations are more sustainable and effective.

Visualize a puzzle where each piece represents different elements of a city: buildings, parks, rivers, and roads. If you only focus on one piece (like a single building), the puzzle won’t fit together nicely. The best outcomes are achieved when all pieces are considered together, reflecting how the built environment connects with nature and adapts to changing climates.

--