2.3. Framework for Measuring Environmental Change

There is also a sustainable livelihoods framework which talks about the asset framework where it is a different model in 1997. This framework explains how individuals or groups access resources, which are essentially assets, to organize their livelihoods and how their capacities enable them to act, engage, and change the world.

The sustainable livelihoods framework developed in 1997 focuses on how people utilize resources to support their livelihoods. It emphasizes the importance of various assets, such as financial, physical, human, and social capital, that individuals or communities have access to. This framework indicates that by leveraging these assets, people can improve their living conditions and respond to challenges. Furthermore, it highlights how individuals’ capacities—ranging from skills to social connections—play a crucial role in facilitating change in their environments.

Imagine a town that relies heavily on fishing for its main source of income. Residents can access tools (physical assets), like boats and fishing nets (financial assets), trains fishers on sustainable practices (human capital), and has strong family ties and community networks (social capital). By combining these resources, the town can better handle challenges like environmental changes or market shifts, thereby maintaining and enhancing their livelihoods.

However, it is not just for economic necessity that households or groups act. Cultural factors also play a significant role in how people manage their results and make their livelihood choices.

While economic factors often drive decisions regarding livelihoods, cultural elements also influence how communities function. These cultural factors include traditions, beliefs, and social norms that shape individuals' and communities' choices. People may decide to engage in specific occupations or practices not solely based on economic advantages but also due to their historical context, values, and community identity.

Consider a group of farmers who practice traditional farming methods passed down through generations. Even if modern techniques promise higher yields, they may choose to stick to their traditional methods because it aligns with their cultural identity, values, and connection to their ancestors. This illustrates how cultural influences can affect economic choices.

My research question revolves around understanding the role of culture in the post-disaster recovery process and its relation to the vulnerability, specifically concerning the built environment of affected traditional settlements.

In disaster recovery, recognizing cultural aspects is essential, as they greatly influence how communities respond to and recover from such events. The built environment—like houses, public spaces, and infrastructure—is intertwined with cultural elements, shaping how these communities recover. By examining cultural practices, beliefs, and social structures, one can gain insight into the vulnerabilities faced by these communities and develop more effective recovery strategies that respect their cultural context.

After a natural disaster strikes a coastal village, residents prioritize rebuilding their homes in ways that respect traditional styles, instead of opting for modern designs. This decision stems from cultural identity and communal values tied to their heritage. Effective recovery strategies recognize these preferences and provide support that aligns with the community's cultural and social realities, ensuring that recovery efforts are not just efficient but also culturally sensitive.

My methods have been drawn from two subject domains: one focusing on morphology, which examines how spatial character has changed before and after a disaster, and the other looking at cultural dimensions through methods in cultural anthropology.

To analyze the impacts of disasters on communities, a dual approach is employed. First, by studying morphology, one can evaluate how the physical landscape and spatial layout of an area have evolved due to disasters. Second, incorporating cultural anthropology enables a deeper understanding of how cultural practices and beliefs affect recovery and adaptation. Together, these methods provide a comprehensive understanding of both physical changes and cultural dynamics in the context of environmental transformation.

Imagine a town that has been rebuilt after a flood. By studying its layout (morphology), urban planners can observe how new buildings were positioned relative to previous ones and identify patterns of change. Simultaneously, through cultural anthropology, researchers could explore how the community's recovery practices, such as rituals or communal gatherings, have shaped the new environment. This holistic view provides valuable insights into the town's transformation.

We are not just looking at a settlement; we are also examining different layers of the built environment, such as topography, ecological systems, and public linkages.

The analysis of built environments requires a multi-layered approach. Each layer—whether it’s the underlying geology, ecological systems (like water bodies), public spaces, or individual plots—interacts with the others and influences how communities develop over time. By understanding how these layers work together, researchers and planners can better assess vulnerabilities and opportunities for improvement, especially in the wake of a disaster. This nuanced perspective allows for a more comprehensive vision of a community's needs and strengths.

Consider a city built on hilly terrain next to a river. The hilly topography affects building designs and infrastructure, while the river's ecological environment defines how the community interacts with water resources. If a flood occurs, understanding how these layers contribute to the disaster's impact is crucial. Urban planners can then design better flood defenses that consider these logistical challenges, making the city's recovery more effective.

--