4.1. Spatial Mismatches and 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.

This part discusses how the conversation around climate change has evolved over time. Initially, from the 1980s to 2002, the focus was primarily on greenhouse gas emissions and understanding climate change as an environmental issue. This reflects how scientific communities concentrated on quantifying emissions and their impacts. However, in the subsequent era starting from the 2000s, climate change became a broader international agenda, highlighting the importance of social dimensions, where social scientists collaborated with development workers. In the latest era, climate change is viewed through a global justice lens, recognizing its effects on various regions. This evolution indicates a shift from a purely scientific outlook to a more integrated view involving social justice and equity.

Think of climate change discussions like the way you might have evolved your understanding of a complex topic like health. Initially, people might have focused on individual health issues, like heart disease. Over time, as research developed, the discussion expanded to consider social factors, access to healthcare, and lifestyle choices, ultimately acknowledging that health is not just an individual issue, but one affected by socioeconomic conditions and community support.

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 explains the existing knowledge gaps among different groups involved in climate change and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Different scales of data (macro vs. micro) create challenges for effective communication and collaboration among scientists, practitioners, and decision-makers. These mismatches can lead to ineffective strategies, as those at higher levels may not adequately inform actions taken at local levels. The chunk highlights the necessity for a clear roadmap for integrating climate change adaptation (CCA) with disaster risk reduction, aiming for better practices that consider all data scales.

Imagine a community trying to build a new playground. The city planners have large-scale data about the whole neighborhood, while the local parents have specific insights about their children's needs and activities. If city planners don’t communicate or collaborate with the parents, the playground might not serve the community's actual needs as it would lack the input from those who use it most. This illustrates the importance of aligning macro-level and micro-level data for effective planning.

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.

This piece contrasts disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), emphasizing their differing focus and implications. DRR often addresses short-term events, such as a flood or earthquake, leading to immediate responses. In contrast, CCA involves long-term strategies to adapt to ongoing shifts like droughts that develop over years. This highlights the need to consider varying spatial and temporal scales of impacts — some disasters have localized effects, while others, such as climate change, resonate globally or continentally, necessitating different strategic approaches.

Consider a city that experiences both frequent floods and long-term droughts. The local government might implement immediate flood response measures (DRR) like building levees, while also needing to develop long-term water conservation strategies (CCA) for the droughts that occur over years. The school, in this analogy, teaches students about both immediate responses to problems and long-term planning.

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 provides a structured approach to understanding adaptation in the context of natural disaster risks. Each 'W' represents a fundamental question: why, what, who, how, etc. This framework helps clarify the purpose of adaptation efforts, emphasizing that adaptation is not one-size-fits-all but needs to be tailored based on specific risks, affected populations, and appropriate methods. By systematically addressing these questions, practitioners can improve the effectiveness of adaptation measures.

Using the previous playground example, every aspect of the '6W framework' can be applied: 'Why do we need a playground?' (to promote healthy play), 'What features should it have?' (swings, slides), 'Who will use it?' (local children), 'How will it be built?' (fundraising, community effort), etc. This approach ensures that all aspects of the project are thoughtfully considered.

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. We completely ignore the underlying topography and the natural systems ecosystems, and the public linkage systems so they all are interrelated to each other 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.

This chunk emphasizes the necessity of integrating built environments (like buildings and infrastructure) with natural systems (like ecosystems and landscapes). Architects and planners often focus narrowly on individual sites without considering broader ecological contexts or how these various data sets interact. It stresses the importance of understanding how different data types relate, indicating that a holistic view can lead to better design and development that accommodates both human and environmental needs.

Imagine trying to build a bridge without considering the river it crosses. If planners only focus on the bridge's design but ignore the surrounding environment—like flood levels, fish habitats, and erosion—they could create infrastructure that fails in a storm or disrupts local wildlife. Incorporating knowledge of the ecosystem leads to better, more sustainable design.

--