Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
This chapter explores the incorporation of traditional Indigenous knowledge into climate change-related natural hazard risk communication. Ample research has been conducted on climate change-related risk communication, and a significant body of literature exists on the role of traditional Indigenous knowledge in reducing climate change impacts. However, even in the face of mounting climate change-related risks, little effort has been made to incorporate traditional Indigenous knowledge into climate change-related natural hazard risk communication. Scientific knowledge and traditional Indigenous knowledge pertain to different knowledge systems; however, in terms of methods and content, many aspects exist where both systems converge or follow similar patterns. Rather than focusing on points of divergence, researchers, policymakers, and decision-makers, and risk-communication experts should focus on common features of both systems. Points of convergence may provide common ground for knowledge integration and co-production, enabling Indigenous and scientific understandings of climate change to be reconciled. This may help improve risk communication processes between disaster risk management practitioners, agencies, and Indigenous Peoples. However, it is also important to recognize that traditional Indigenous knowledge may not fit with every scientific model; therefore, a more in-depth research is needed to learn which forms of traditional Indigenous knowledge can help scientific researchers improve climate change-related natural hazard risk communication processes.
Keywords
- climate change adaptation
- natural hazards
- disaster risk reduction
- risk communication
- scientific knowledge
- traditional Indigenous knowledge
- integration
- co-production
1. Introduction
Climate change is a global phenomenon, which impacts different people unevenly [1]. Scientists, politicians, special interest groups, and members of the general public are engaged in extensive debate on climate change issues, including their potential impacts [2]. Research suggests that public beliefs on climate change vary significantly [3, 4], and different people view the risks associated with climate change differently. Addressing public perceptions of climate-change risk can be challenging, due to the sociocultural construction of risk and its multi-dimensional complexity [5]. Differing perspectives on climate change and associated risks must be understood within specific contexts of climate change—and within interconnected socioeconomic and cultural settings [6]. Because climate change is a complex phenomenon, its risks can be difficult for laypeople to comprehend. Moreover, climate-change awareness and understanding are also influenced by environmental values and political and economic agendas. While climate-change skeptics have accused climate scientists of “alarmism”—of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of climate change—recent evidence suggests that scientists have been conservative in their projections of risk [7]. For example, Brysse et al. [7] found that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimated the expected impacts of climate change; similarly, Rahmstorf et al. [8] found that experts have underestimated expected climatic impacts. Along with opposing perspectives on climate change, problems of “poor (mis)communication,” “misinformation,” and implicit presumptions have complicated climate-change discourses and risk-communication efforts [5].
Many populations have already started to experience the impacts of climate change [9, 10, 11]. As a result of climate change, experts project that populations will experience increasingly extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and flooding and drought events in the future [10]. The intensity of such events is expected to increase over time—and some populations are at greater risk than others. For example, indigenous Peoples across the globe are expected to be among the communities most heavily affected by climate change [1, 12]. In part, this reflects the dependence and close proximity of many indigenous Peoples to their natural environments and resources [1, 12]. In northern Canada, indigenous communities are already experiencing the effects of significant climate changes [13]. For example, members of the Kashechewan First Nation community near the Albany River in the southwestern James Bay region have been evacuated 14 times to 22 different host communities across the Ontario province due to actual flooding or flooding risk because of the potential failure of the dike [14].
The uneven impacts of climate change raise questions of fairness [15]. Given the disproportionate effects of climate change on indigenous communities, it is vital for climate-change risk-communication experts to consider the needs and concerns of indigenous Peoples. It is also important for experts to consider and incorporate tradition into their efforts to address climate change and mitigate its risks. While ample research has been conducted on climate-change risk communication, as well as the role of traditional indigenous knowledge in reducing climate change impacts, little effort has been made to integrate traditional indigenous knowledge into climate-change risk communication—even in the face of mounting climate-change risks. This chapter addresses a gap in the literature by exploring the potential contributions of traditional indigenous and local spatial knowledge systems to climate-change risk communication processes and efforts to understand and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
2. Materials and method
In this chapter, I synthesize information from a range of secondary sources to consider the potential contributions that traditional indigenous knowledge systems can make to risk communication processes. Specifically, I explore how three of the “five convergence areas” developed by Riedlinger and Berkes [16] and “five areas of complementarity” presented by Moller et al. [17] may facilitate the incorporation and co-production of knowledge across scientific and traditional indigenous knowledge systems. Riedlinger and Berkes’ five convergence areas (1) local scale expertise; (2) climate history; (3) research hypothesis; (4) community adaptation; and (5) community-based environmental monitoring; I restrict my analysis to climate history; community adaptation, and community-based environmental monitoring. Moller and colleagues’ give areas of complementarity include: (1) synchronic-diachronic complementarity; (2) complementary foci on averages versus extremes; (3) interplay between quantitative and qualitative information; (4) science for a better test of mechanisms, traditional indigenous knowledge for better hypothesis; and (5) complementing objectivity with subjectivity.
2.1 Traditional Indigenous knowledge recognition
European conquests, colonization, and subsequently forced assimilation of Indigenous Peoples into the dominant Eurocentric Canadian culture have had serious and far-reaching implications. Indigenous communities have been relegated to systematic poverty, isolation, and powerlessness as a result of Eurocentric “cultural imperialism and racism” [18]. During the colonization and modernization eras, traditional indigenous knowledge and values were devalued as an “impediment to development” [19]. Unequal power dynamics between western science and traditional knowledge have undermined the potential role that traditional indigenous knowledge-holders can play as active participants in risk-communication decision-making processes.
Advocates, however, have been arguing that Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge should not be treated as “clients” or “stakeholders” in efforts to mitigate the risks of climate change. Instead, their meaningful participation should be engaged at all levels of decision-making, and traditional indigenous knowledge should be treated as coequal and complementary to western scientific knowledge [20]. Indeed, the value of traditional indigenous knowledge systems is increasingly recognized by many scientists, managers, policy-makers, and lawmakers, and traditional indigenous knowledge has become a subject of national and international law [21]. Presently, international institutional structures—such as TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) and other legal instruments—do not provide patent protection to traditional indigenous knowledge [22]. However, initiatives such as the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples (UNPFIP), Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), and Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) are working toward protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights and traditional knowledge. The IPCC’s 32nd Session [10] also recognized traditional indigenous knowledge as an important guiding principle for the Cancun Adaptation Framework (CAF), which was adopted by its members at the 2010 FCCC Conference in Cancun [23]. This framework highlights the contributions of traditional indigenous knowledge to broader understanding of global climate change—including climate-change observations, impacts, and opportunities for adaptation.
While traditional indigenous knowledge has been historically devalued in many fields of scientific and social science research, traditional indigenous knowledge contributions have also been well documented in many fields—including fields of agro-forestry, traditional medicine, biodiversity conservation, customary resource management, applied anthropology, impact assessment, and risk reduction [24]. For example, traditional indigenous knowledge contributions have been made to biological information and ecological insights, resource management, biodiversity conservation, environmental assessment, and ethics [25]. The IPCC [9] has also recognized the value of traditional indigenous knowledge as a basis for developing adaptation and natural-resource-management strategies while responding to environmental change and other forms of change. However, scientists are often skeptical of its importance. Moreover, they tend to value traditional indigenous knowledge after recasting it in scientific terms to make it more rational, empirical, and objective [26]. It is important that one not lose the essence of traditional indigenous knowledge while recasting indigenous indigenous content into scientific.
2.2 How can traditional Indigenous knowledge be integrated into climatic risk communication?
This section will discuss various methods that can help in the integration of indigenous traditional knowledge systems with scientific knowledge. These methods include “scientization,” co-management, and co-production by scientization indigenous knowledge systems and science. Traditional indigenous and scientific knowledge systems can be integrated to help address issues of climate-change risk communication. These systems have been in “intimate interaction” with each other for at least 50 years and cannot remain “untouched” by each other [27]. Traditional indigenous knowledge systems comprise the process of observing, discussing, and making sense of new information—in other words, Indigenous ways of knowing [28]. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the system of power between Indigenous Peoples and mainstream power in the contemporary risk communication decision-making process.
The process of “scientization” will separate useful traditional indigenous knowledge from other knowledge, practices, context, and cultural beliefs [29]. While filtering traditional indigenous knowledge for climate-change risk communication, only functional content should be selected. Agarwal [29] describes scientization as the process of particularization, validation, and generalization. Particularization involves selecting useful traditional indigenous knowledge that can be tested and validated. After it is validated, that knowledge is generalized through the steps of cataloging, archiving, and circulating it for use in risk-communication decision-making. Scientization can facilitate the integration of scientific and traditional indigenous knowledge systems for the co-production of climate-change risk communication.
Knowledge co-production can be instrumental for decision-making by sharing information. Armitage et al. [30] assert that knowledge co-production is not merely knowledge integration. It can offer more opportunities to improve the risk communication process through joint gathering, sharing, integration, interpretation, production, and application of knowledge. Knowledge co-production may be facilitated through collaborative research projects between Indigenous Peoples and scientists. Such collaboration may help members of the mainstream scientific community recognize that indigenous observations and assessments offer valuable insights into, and provide local verification of, global scientific models; moreover, taking indigenous observations and assessments seriously may help climate-change experts ensure that adaptation measures align with local needs and priorities [31]. Collaboration between scientific and Indigenous communities can promote innovative and effective adaptation action, and relevant traditional knowledge can inform cost-effective and sustainable climate change adaptation measures.
2.2.1 Partnership and governance for knowledge co-production
Collaborative research projects are bringing Indigenous Peoples and scientists closer to knowledge co-production. To facilitate the co-production process, the collaboration between the two parties should be strengthened by focusing on common features and characteristics of scientific knowledge and traditional indigenous knowledge systems. Anderson David [32] has identified several common features (Figure 1): (1) the two systems consider the universe to be unified; (2) their organizing principle is based on a body of knowledge systems that is stable, but subject to modification; (3) both require honesty, inquisitiveness, and perseverance; (4) they record empirical observations in natural settings, with verification through repetition; (5) their inference and prediction are based on skills and procedures; (6) their knowledge base originates from plant and animal behavior, cycles, habitats needs, and interdependence; and (7) both focus on cycles and changes in earth and sky. The following figure explores the similarities and differences between the two systems.
Figure 1.
Traditional Indigenous and scientific knowledge: common ground. (Source:
Collaboration between the two parties can be facilitated through resource management governance approaches, including: (1) co-management; (2) adaptive management; and (3) adaptive co-management [28]. These governance approaches can contribute to the climatic and environmental risk management process by involving Indigenous communities, their local institutions, networks, and knowledge systems.
Berkes [28] argues that co-management—as knowledge production and as social learning—is becoming increasingly important, as demonstrated in the literature over the past two decades. Co-management evolves adaptively as a result of deliberate problem-solving. To compare co-management and adaptive co-management, first I provide Berkes’s definition in this respect. Adaptive co-management, as defined by Berkes & Turner [33], is “a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of learning-by-doing” (2). According to Anderson David [32], generally, co-management’s primary focus remains on making vertical institutional linkage to create connections between both systems. While its temporal scope is short to medium-term, the gap between indigenous (local) and government levels is bridged at the organizational level while building the capacity of Indigenous communities as resource users. Co-management essentially includes power sharing, institutional building, and trust building between parties and social capital, as a process, as problem-solving, and as people-centered governance with shared management and responsibility. In comparison, adaptive management requires collaborative processes to build consensus among the parties. However, co-management and adaptive management can complement one another.
Adaptive management develops links between science and resource management [25], and adaptive management’s multiple cycles of learning and adaptation have medium to long-term temporal scope [32]. Adaptive management essentially focuses on management’s needs and relationships at multi-level—with self-organized networks—and capacity building of resource managers and decision-makers. Berkes [34] notes that learning-based approaches were primarily developed to deal with environmental uncertainty. Therefore, adaptive management relies upon “learning by doing” through interactive practice, evaluation, and activity modification.
Contrary to the first two approaches, Anderson David [32] argues that adaptive co-management targets both horizontal and vertical linkages for joint “learning-by-doing”. In adaptive co-management, cycles of learning and adaptation are multiple and have medium- to long-term temporal scope. The organizational level is generally multi-level with self-organized networks. Adaptive co-management focuses on the needs of and relationships among all partners for capacity building.
According to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), research involving Aboriginal Indigenous Peoples has historically been conducted by “outsiders”—which is a colonial way of researching Indigenous Peoples. However, a participatory research methodology requires Aboriginal Peoples’ participation in research projects. right from conceiving a research project to research methodology to collection of data to analysis of data to sharing and validating results to manuscript/report writing As affected and interested parties, they should be engaged as active partners, not passive recipients. They should be involved at all stages of the research process, right from the start. This will promote the development of partnership within a framework of mutual respect, trust, and cooperation; it will promote collaboration on equal footing through the building of relationships, sharing of power, equitable resourcing, and mutual understanding. Furthermore, this will also enable the conduct of research in a culturally sensitive, relevant, respectful, responsive, equitable, and reciprocal manner—as well as the sharing of benefits between researchers and Aboriginal Indigenous Peoples [35, 36].
During 2009–2010, the CIHR consultative process led to the development of the two-eyed seeing model (Figure 2). This model promotes learning to see from two eyes—with one eye on the strengths of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and ways of knowing, and the other on the strengths of mainstream knowledge and ways of knowing. It suggests the gap between mainstream Canadian society and Aboriginal Indigenous communities can be bridged through partnerships, knowledge exchange, and research on significant challenges facing First Nations and other Indigenous Aboriginal Peoples. This collaborative approach may provide more opportunities to improve climate-change risk communication.
Figure 2.
Two-eyed seeing–a model for knowledge co-production. (Source:
According to Berkes [28], traditional indigenous knowledge is evolving all the time. It involves adaptive management or “learning-by-doing,” experimenting, and knowledge-building; the evolving process depends upon community members’ ability to constantly observe the climate and environmental changes occurring around them. Such observations have been crucial for climate history, community adaptation, and community-based environmental monitoring. These are three of the “five convergence areas” outlined by Reidlinger and Berkes. These areas can provide a starting point for climate-change-related risk mitigation knowledge integration and co-production.
2.2.2 Climate history
Riedlinger and Berkes [16] identify a range of scientific and non-scientific sources of information that can help climate researchers establish a historical record of change. For example, these sources include meteorological data, proxy data (ice-core samples), and historical documentation (fur trade companies and expedition records). In northern Canada, the sequential scope of scientific data is limited, since the process of scientific meteorological data collection only began after 1946. In contrast, Indigenous Peoples have been closely observing changes in weather, sea ice, permafrost, fish and wildlife, and seasons for a long time. In this respect, traditional indigenous knowledge systems can offer insights into past climate fluctuation and variability. For example, research has shown the accuracy, consistency, and precision of Inuit historical recall regarding the Caribou population in the Canadian Arctic [16]. Current and projected climate change conditions may differ from those experienced in the past; however, traditional indigenous knowledge remains the basis for Indigenous Peoples’ local-level responses to climatic and environmental change.
2.2.3 Community adaptation
Community adaptation is fundamental to mitigating climate change impacts. According to IPCC [9], adaptation refers to “the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (6). Adapting to climate essentially includes adaptation to variability [37]. Understanding how Indigenous communities experience and respond to changes will guide the scientific community in articulating possible coping and adaptive options for managing climatic risks. Adaptation and resilience to climate change impacts are intertwined; communities that are able to quickly adapt to changes are more resilient to emerging climatic challenges and threats. Resilience refers to the capacity of a community or system to anticipate and cope with, respond to, and recover from climate change impacts as well as avail the opportunities created due to the change; in other words, a community’s climate resilience is the capacity of a socio-ecological system to absorb stresses, maintain function, and adapt and evolve into a condition that improves the sustainability of the system, thereby preparing it for future climatic risks [38, 39, 40]. I have added the term anticipation to the definition above. In believe the ability of a community to anticipate future hazards’ occurrence caused due to existing and/or expected uncertainties/climate change impacts can also be considered a community’s resilience, as the ability to anticipate allows the community (with the capacity) to anticipate in advance an expected hazardous event in short-, medium-, and/or long-term future.
Berkes [34] argues that “building resilience into human–environment systems is an effective way to cope with change characterized by surprises and unknowable risks” (1). His definition of resilience is based on learning to live with change and uncertainty and promoting various kinds of ecological, social, and political diversity to increase adaptation choices for climatic risk mitigation. Berkes’s analysis brings the community’s shared communal resources for its wellbeing under the spotlight. Indigenous Peoples’ socioeconomic and cultural organization is based on communal natural resources, and their collective wisdom in the shape of traditional indigenous knowledge helps them address emerging climate challenges.
2.2.4 Community-based environmental monitoring
Community-based environmental monitoring is another convergence area, where both scientific and traditional indigenous knowledge systems can complement each other [17]—particularly in managing environmental risks and adapting to climate change. Indigenous communities are natural resource users; therefore, their knowledge originates from close observation of the environment and resources over a long period of time. For example, Indigenous Peoples in northern Canada have been closely observing changes in the natural environment [16]. Their climate-related environmental-change-monitoring knowledge can be useful for natural resource and environmental management as well as mitigating natural hazard risks by focusing on signs and indicators of the changes and information specific to small local areas. This can help bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and traditional indigenous knowledge systems while incorporating synchronic and diachronic information [17]. In addition to the cost-effectiveness of indigenous monitoring, traditional indigenous knowledge can also help identify and differentiate natural variation from “non-natural” or unexpected changes. According to Moller et al. [17], climate change monitoring is politically significant because the causes and implications of environmental risk management issues are defined within a particular set of power relations. Climate change monitoring is also ecologically significant because it requires such issues to be understood and dealt with in the context of environmental complexity and uncertainty. In this respect, Indigenous Peoples are better placed in dealing with ecological complexity and uncertainty. However, such issues are important as power dynamics interplay between politics and environment and resource management decision-making.
2.3 Contributions traditional Indigenous knowledge offers for climate-change risk communication
In this section, I will discuss traditional indigenous knowledge contributions that it can offer to the scientific research community while focusing on five “areas of complementarity” given by Moller et al. [17] to demonstrate traditional indigenous systems’ practicability. Traditional indigenous knowledge systems can contribute to climate-change risk communication in many ways: one is adding value to the risk communicators’ knowledge. Indigenous Peoples’ understanding of changes and variability occurring in their environments guide their responses to environmental changes. This knowledge can help climate-change adaptation policymakers and practitioners in articulating possible coping and adaptive options, priorities, and opportunities to manage climatic risks. In this respect, the following five “areas of complementarity” demonstrate the application of traditional indigenous knowledge that it can offer to science by integrating scientific knowledge and traditional indigenous knowledge systems.
2.3.1 Synchronic-diachronic information
In climate change research, data collection typically relies on a small sample size over a large area, with short temporal scope, which may likely miss vital information due to the small sample size, sampling technique used, and focus on a large area. Moller et al. [17] call this process “synchronic”. In contrast, indigenous observations are based on smaller areas over a longer time period, which provides more opportunities to collect “diachronic” information, thereby minimizing the chances of any change being overlooked. Using synchronic and diachronic approaches together will provide complete information on both temporal and spatial scales [17]. However, developing a mechanism that provides a practical tool to combine both techniques can be challenging. Nevertheless, diachronic information offered by traditional indigenous knowledge will be a valuable resource, particularly when scientists are facing decreasing resources for research projects.
2.3.2 Average-extreme events
Science primarily depends on numerical and quantitative data, and statistical analyses [17]; therefore, scientific knowledge is based on averages, which makes the system vulnerable to overlooking critical information. Conversely, traditional indigenous knowledge, however, captures extreme events in a better way by closely observing both changes and variations. The two techniques can be integrated, which can also help narrow the trust deficit between Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous researchers.
2.3.3 Quantitative-qualitative data
According to Moller et al. [17], science examines quantitative aspects of parts of a system, while relying on numbers or numerical data. Conversely, traditional indigenous knowledge deals with a qualitative understanding of the whole system. As the two perspectives are complementary, their combination will enable scientists to use qualitative measures that are less costly and more rapid; however, this may come at the “cost of precision”. Combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches will require a framework that allows the two data sources to be integrated without compromising the value or integrity of each. Qualitative data for climate and environmental risk management research offers valuable insights, particularly in mixed research methods as qualitative data can be collated with quantitative one for a better understanding of climate-change risk communication issues.
2.3.4 Testing-hypothesis formulation
In testing a hypothesis, scientific statistical methods have an edge over traditional indigenous knowledge: they involve powerful tools for testing “why?”. However, scientific statistical methods may also waste resources, such as time and man-hours, on testing insignificant hypotheses. Traditional indigenous knowledge can contribute to the process of formulating a scientific hypothesis, as another way of identifying, understanding, and assessing climate change risks. Right from setting off a research project, a collaboration between the two systems will expand the scope of inquiry and establish a role for Indigenous communities and their knowledge in research planning. Using both approaches together takes advantage of their relative strengths [17].
2.3.5 Objective-subjective perspectives
Moller and colleagues [17] assert that science does not account for people’s emotions, feelings, and sentiments, as it remotely monitors populations and is essentially objective in nature. Conversely, traditional indigenous knowledge is subjective in essence; therefore, it explicitly includes people, their feelings, and the relationships among various groups. It considers human beings and their relationships with the land, the natural environment, and resources as “sacred”. Instead of making either-or choices, objective and subjective views should be combined by researchers. However, it may be challenging to determine which emotions, feelings, and relationships should be included after recasting them into scientific language.
2.3.6 Collective wisdom
Traditional indigenous knowledge has cultural and local meaning, such as the Inuit way of doing things based on past, present, and future knowledge, experiences and value of the Inuit society, or the collective wisdom of Cree First Nations Communities. The knowledge is contextualized as a system connected with the long-term use of a certain place. It consists of all the experiences and knowledge of a social group (a social and mental construction), which guide, organize, and regulate a community’s way of life and make sense out of it [41].
Traditional indigenous knowledge is diverse and complex, capturing the histories, cultures, and lived realities of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous cultural beliefs position individuals as part of the natural system. Their worldview respects community elders’ collective wisdom, value those living, the dead, and future generation by sharing responsibility, wealth, community resources, and by embracing spiritual values, traditions and practices, and social values connected to their land and natural resources [41]. Such belief in the sacredness of land guides respect for ecology, the natural environment, and resources [42], which can help inform natural resource and environmental protection agencies in formulating risk messages and designing communication in a manner that addresses the Indigenous Peoples’ concerns. In short, the collective wisdom of scientific and indigenous systems together can facilitate the risk communication process between non-Indigenous experts and Indigenous communities, particularly in adapting to the changing climate.
2.3.7 Other areas of mutual interests and benefits
Experts’ understanding of how Indigenous communities experience and react to climate change can guide them in developing coping and adaptive strategies to manage environmental risks. Therefore, scientific and traditional indigenous knowledge-holders can meaningfully collaborate in many areas, including issues related to food, health, fisheries, water, and ecosystems management for risk mitigation.
In the face of climate change, the linkage between wildlife and food security calls for collaborative efforts in monitoring and managing wildlife in northern Canada. Such efforts can contribute to effectively dealing with variability and change by ensuring the supply of traditional food. In some cases, relevant traditional indigenous knowledge has drawn the attention of scientists in long-term efforts to monitor wildlife populations and their status. For example, Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in northern Canada is threatening traditional food sources, including caribou and moose populations. According to Parlee et al. [43], Indigenous Elders’ knowledge, harvester observations, and harvest and consumption data indicate a decline in the availability of the caribou population. While resources for scientific monitoring are becoming scarce, co-management approaches incorporating traditional indigenous knowledge and Indigenous Peoples’ experiences can help experts monitor changes in Arctic ecosystems and caribou populations. Although, recent tests found no CWD cases; however, wildlife disease experts recommend surveillance on a regular basis. Similarly, Indigenous harvesters’ experiences and observations of variability in berry production may prove useful to scientists [44]. An example drawn from African experience also shows that ample opportunity and a growing need for co-production of rain forecasts exists, which can increase crop production capacity to deal with food insecurity. In this connection, “Indigenous meteorological” insights on temperature, wind, and rainfall may help explain meteorology-based forecasts [45].
The role of traditional indigenous knowledge in watershed and fisheries management presents another avenue for collaboration. The “Mackenzie River Basin Board Traditional Knowledge and Strengthening Partnerships Committee” project is a case in point, wherein indigenous traditional knowledge holders demonstrate an understanding of social and ecological change in the river basin and contribute to regional, territorial/provincial, and federal decisions about its continued sustainability. However, in case of Kashechewan First Nation in northern Ontario, their traditional indigenous knowledge has been undervalued in dealing with the spring flooding risk of the Albany River [46]. However, empirical evidence indicates that despite traditional indigenous environmental knowledge coupled with climate data establishes temporal relationships between extreme climate events in 2005 and fish die-offs [47].
Fishers’ interannual, seasonal, lunar, diel, and tide- and habitat-related ecological knowledge can also be valuable sources of information for managing marine fisheries. Johannes et al. [24] argue that older fishers and their traditional indigenous knowledge are often the only source of information when other long-term datasets are not available on historical changes in local marine stocks and marine environmental conditions. Ignoring such information can lead to wrong decision-making. The Canadian government’s ban on hunting codfish on the north east coast during the 1980s is a classic example as experts did not consider and value local spatial knowledge,1 which resulted in losing thousands of jobs by local population in the area. In this respect, community-based co-management between experts and traditional indigenous knowledge-holders can help government agencies to learn more about patterns of change in fish habitat and water resources and their influence over human livelihoods and wellbeing. Understanding health and environmental risks that exist among northern Indigenous communities in Canada demand recognition of communities’ unique place-based circumstances and characteristics for risk mitigation [6].
In northern Canada, as discussed earlier, Indigenous Peoples have been closely observing changes occurring and affecting them, such as extreme weather conditions, melting sea ice and permafrost, rivers’ breakup ice jamming, and threatened fisheries and wildlife resulting in food insecurity. As a result of global warming, access to sparsely populated Indigenous communities in Arctic Canada is becoming restricted as winter ice roads are becoming more dangerous. Climate change is also affecting forestry in Canada. The example of the mountain pine beetle (MPB) problem in in British Columbia and Alberta is a case in point. Global warming is considered to be one of the main causes of the problem. In the past, the insect population was controlled by (1) two weeks of continuous temperatures below −40°C; and (2) traditional burning of trees in the affected areas by Indigenous Peoples. However, in recent years, the use of modern technology to extinguish wildfires has contributed to the increase and expansion of the MPB population. Traditional indigenous climate and environmental change monitoring knowledge can help researchers address such emerging issues. To do so, a paradigm shift requires institutional sociocultural and political change by taking traditional indigenous knowledge into account for understanding and improving the knowledge base for decision-making [46, 48].
3. Discussion
The literature review indicates that climate-change risk communication has not adequately incorporated traditional knowledge. In spite of increasing climate-change risks, no serious effort has been made to incorporate traditional knowledge into relevant risk communication. The two knowledge systems pertain to different domains; while there are many areas of divergence, there are also many areas that exist where the systems converge or follow analogous patterns [45]. Exploring points of convergence may help experts better understand and deal with climate change risks. By reconciling scientific and traditional indigenous knowledge systems, experts can help improve the risk communication process.
Three of the “five convergence areas” given by Riedlinger and Berkes [16] and the “five areas of complementarity” presented by Moller et al. [17] are discussed in detail above. This previous discussion has demonstrated how the “areas of complementarity” can facilitate climate-change risk communication through integration of scientific and traditional indigenous knowledge systems. However, while traditional indigenous knowledge offers value addition potential, there are limitations to integrating it with scientific knowledge. One of the limitations is that there is a lack of research on incorporating traditional indigenous knowledge into climate-change risk communication, which suggests that it is a neglected area.
Until recently, disaster risk reduction researchers and practitioners did not recognize the important role that traditional indigenous knowledge and practices can play in reducing risks and improving preparedness. In spite of more recent recognition, traditional indigenous knowledge and practices are yet to be employed by experts, practitioners, and policymakers. In many cases, strategies to improve risk communication have targeted non-Indigenous people [49]. However, a set of distinct challenges are also experienced by experts while communicating risks to Indigenous communities, due to pre-existing histories of distrust between the two parties.
In Canada, Aboriginal Peoples have been subject to Eurocentric and colonial discriminatory laws and oppressive regimes since the arrival of European settlers. As a result, they have faced a set of unique vulnerabilities and risks, which are not just a function of climate change but rather arise from multiple social conditions—including environmental, socioeconomic, and political factors. Consequentially, Indigenous Peoples are the most vulnerable (in general and due to climatic and environmental change impacts) communities in Canada. However, despite the many serious issues that Indigenous Peoples have faced in Canada, they have demonstrated resiliency, which needs to be capitalized while building mutual trust and respecting their diverse cultures, traditions, and ways of life. This can be achieved by creating opportunities and spaces where the Indigenous languages, cultural beliefs, and social fabric of Indigenous societies not only revive, but also thrive. The unlearning of colonial memories—to heal the social, emotional, and psychological traumas of colonization—and the relearning of Indigenousness will greatly help in curing the wounded soul [18].
The resurgence of dormant traditional adaptive capacities will not only reduce the vulnerabilities and risk exposure of Indigenous communities; it will also contribute to the development of lost trust between Indigenous communities and mainstream Canadian society. Vertical and horizontal communication and coordination are critical to rebuild trust between Indigenous communities and risk management agencies. To achieve this, effective risk communication demands empowering Indigenous communities as active partners and not just passive stakeholders in risk decision-making processes [50, 51, 52]. In this respect, localized and customized (context-based and situation-focused) dialogic strategies should be developed to guide when informed decision-making will be an appropriate goal for risk communication among “at-risk” Indigenous communities. The strategy must be just and fair for all [53].
Non-participatory risk management process often results in poor risk communication, which in turn can cause more harm than good—particularly in the case of Indigenous Peoples [54, 55]. Instead of taking a top-down, unidirectional, or one-way approach to communication, participatory communication involves a two-way dialogue [56] between risk communication experts and Indigenous communities. Moreover, frequent interaction between both parties will legitimatize the risk decision-making process as democratic by addressing the legitimate concerns of Indigenous Peoples.
However, power dynamics between the risk management agencies and Indigenous communities may very likely undermine processes of participation and engagement, as risk communicators may attempt to influence and manipulate the participatory and democratic process [57]. To promote trust between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous agencies and risk communicators, a balanced, democratic, and transparent consultation process is necessary. In the process, the differing perspectives (subjective, experiential, social, and cultural values) of Indigenous Peoples and the technical standpoints (rational, efficiency, and quantitative data) of scientists [53] will congregate on convergence areas—thereby resolving differences in a manner that makes the process workable, just, and fair. Incorporating traditional knowledge for informed decision-making in climate-change risk communication can be made viable only if Indigenous communities are meaningfully engaged and involved in the process right from the start. The integration and co-production process will promote participation, thereby making the process democratic as Indigenous Peoples are actively included as affected and interested parties in the risk communication process.
Trust is central to the risk communication process: as the interplay between risk and trust can either significantly amplify [58] or attenuate risks [59, 60] among Indigenous communities. Trust-destroying events are more evident than trust-building events in the history of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada [61]. In this respect, the risk management guiding principle of “do more good than harm” [62] is crucial for regaining lost trust. A unique approach is needed to communicate risks to Indigenous Peoples, as trust and risk relationship becomes more complex and sensitive when dealing with sociocultural, political, and psychological factors [61]. These factors significantly influence Indigenous Peoples’ trust in government agencies and/or risk communication experts. Similarly, risk encompasses both objective and subjective factors; therefore, the role of indigenous social values in risk perception and risk acceptance is fundamental [63] in accomplishing and maintaining mutual trust [64].
Winning buy-in among Indigenous Peoples is crucial and very difficult to achieve. However, this can be achieved by intensely involving Indigenous community members in the risk decision-making process and conveying both overt and covert messages, while ensuring that the process is participatory and democratic [54]. Perception of Indigenous Peoples that whether or not they have been meaningfully involved in the process will also largely depend upon their satisfaction and trust in the process than in the outcome [54]. However, since satisfaction, trust (antecedents vary across Indigenous communities), and confidence [65] are subjective and heuristic, the dilemma is that winning buy-in among Indigenous community members will depend upon their perceptions—whether or not the process was just and fair, their voices heard, and their concerns addressed. Furthermore, some members of Indigenous communities may challenge the process while others accept it since individual risk perception can differ from the wider community risk perception.
The trust deficit between Indigenous communities and risk management agencies can complicate the process of risk communication, including risk management efforts to change attitudes and behaviors among Indigenous Peoples when dealing with climate risks. Trust between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous experts appears to be already fragile; lost trust can take a long time to rebuild—and among some of the indigenous communities, empirical evidence suggests it may never be regained. Trust building is very challenging, particularly in the context of a long history of distrust between Indigenous Peoples and mainstream Canadian society. As a trust-building strategy, risk managers working with indigenous communities need to engage traditional indigenous knowledge holders and Indigenous Elders to capitalize on their skills and knowledge. This would help them develop trust with community members while demonstrating respect for Indigenous Peoples’ unique cultures, traditions, and way of life. However, the trust-building task is challenging due to: (a) past colonial oppressions and (b) the misconception among scientists that traditional indigenous knowledge does not meet scientific criteria.
The integration and co-production process will bring many opportunities and benefits, not just for the scientists but also for Indigenous communities. Such collaboration between both will create opportunities for funding, information and knowledge sharing, and capacity building among traditional knowledge holders and gatekeepers. Scientific knowledge can be transferred to traditional indigenous knowledge-holders at the local level, particularly among those settled in remote areas. Human resource development of traditional indigenous knowledge holders and gatekeepers will support the documentation of traditional knowledge, which can contribute to efforts to preserve that knowledge while preventing further erosion. Such collaboration efforts will attract more investment for joint research projects on different aspects of traditional knowledge. It will also help to promote the development of skills and capacity of Indigenous communities to promote and disseminate their knowledge for the benefit of the general public.
4. Conclusion
A relevant literature review indicates that climate-change risk communication has not adequately integrated traditional indigenous knowledge, despite the value that it can offer. There appears to be a lack of serious effort in this respect, as demonstrated by a major gap in the literature. For integration and co-production of scientific knowledge and traditional indigenous knowledge systems, methods, and content as well as several aspects exist where both systems converge [57]. Researchers, policy and decision-makers, risk communication experts, and practitioners need to focus on areas and aspects of convergences rather than divergences. By focusing on common ground, both knowledge systems can be reconciled to improve the risk communication process to benefit Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous communities. As a result of deliberate reconciliation between the two, the process will help promote power sharing and trust building between parties. Furthermore, collective wisdom, the sharing of climate-change risk information, and the democratization of the knowledge-production process will help empower Indigenous communities through the valuing and mobilization of traditional indigenous knowledge for risk management. This may also help promote the development of trust between indigenous Peoples and mainstream Canadian society. Traditional indigenous knowledge may not necessarily fit with every scientific model; however, a more in-depth research is warranted to identify points of convergence where traditional indigenous knowledge may help improve the climate-change risk communication process.
References
- 1.
Vinyeta K, Lynn K. Exploring the role of traditional ecological knowledge in climate change initiatives. In: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-879. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 2013 - 2.
Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H. Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and Behavior. 2008; 40 (1):72-95 - 3.
Smith JB, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber M, Mirza MQ , Fankhauser S, Leemans R, Lin Erda L, et al. Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: A synthesis. In: Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2001. pp. 913-967 - 4.
Taylor AL, Dessai S, Bruine W, de Bruin. Public perception of climate risk and adaptation in the UK: A review of the literature. Climate Risk Management. 2014; 4 :1-16 - 5.
Etkin D, Ho E. Climate change: Perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of Risk Research. 2007; 10 (5):623-641 - 6.
Jardine CG, Boyd AD, Furgal CM. Gender and place influences on health risk perspectives in northern Canadian aboriginal communities. Gender, Place and Culture. 2009; 16 (2):201-223 - 7.
Brysse K, Oreskes N, O’Reilly J, Oppenheimer M. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change. 2013; 23 (1):327-337 - 8.
Rahmstorf S, Cazenave A, Church JA, Hansen JE, Keeling RF, Parker DE, et al. Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science. 2007; 316 (5825):709-709 - 9.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report; 2007 - 10.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Impacts on indigenous peoples: Contribution of working group II chapter 16. In: Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic) Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC; 2001 - 11.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern. A Synthesis. 2001; 19 (3):4.2 - 12.
Green D, Raygorodetsky G. Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate. Climatic Change. 2010; 100 (2):239-242 - 13.
Furgal C, Seguin J. Climate change, health, and vulnerability in Canadian northern aboriginal communities. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006; 114 :1964-1970 - 14.
Khalafzai M-AK, McGee TK, Parlee B. Flooding in the James Bay region of Northern Ontario, Canada: Learning from traditional knowledge of Kashechewan First Nation International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2019:36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101100 - 15.
Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ. Toward justice in adaptation to climate change. In: Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change. MIT Press; 2006. pp. 1-19 - 16.
Riedlinger D, Berkes F. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record. 2001; 37 (203):315-328 - 17.
Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver OP, Kislalioglu M. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society. 2004; 9 (3):2 - 18.
Battiste M. Nourishing the learning Spirit: Living our way to new thinking. Education Canada. 2010; 50 (1):14-18 - 19.
Payyappallimana U, Koike O. Traditional Knowledge for Sustainable Development: A Case from the Health Sector in Kerala, India. Biodiversity and Community Health; 2010 - 20.
Mauro F, Hardison PD. Traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities: International debate and policy initiatives. Ecological Applications. 2000; 10 (5):1263-1269 - 21.
Anaya J. Indigenous Peoples in International Law. New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 1996 - 22.
Arewa Olufunmilayo B. TRIPS and Traditional Knowledge: Local Communities, Local Knowledge, and Global Intellectual Property Frameworks. Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection; 2006 - 23.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Approaches to stimulate action. In: Conference of the Parties, Bali, 3-14 December 2007. 2007 - 24.
Johannes RE, Freeman MMR, Hamilton RJ. Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish and Fisheries. 2000a; 1 (3):257-271 - 25.
Berkes F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management Systems. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis; 1999 - 26.
Scott J. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press; 1998 - 27.
Dove MR. Indigenous people and environmental politics. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2006; 35 :191-208 - 28.
Berkes F. Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 2009; 39 (4):151-156 - 29.
Agrawal A. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal. 2002; 54 (173):287-297 - 30.
Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change. 2011; 21 (3):995-1004 - 31.
United Nations University International (UNU). Seeing traditional Technologies in a new Light: Using traditional approaches in water Management in Drylands. In: United Nations University International Network on Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH). A Joint Undertaking of UNESCO and UNV (UNU-INWEH):12-14. 2009 - 32.
Anderson David G. The Mistake of Western Science. Healing and Transformation; 2015 - 33.
Berkes F, Turner NJ. “Knowledge, Learning and the Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems.” Panel “Knowledge for the Development of Adaptive Co-Management”. Vol. 4. Mexico: IACSP; 2004 - 34.
Berkes F. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards. 2007; 41 (2):283-295 - 35.
Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). CIHR Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People. Canada: Government of Canada; 2007 - 36.
Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). Internal Assessment for 2011International Review - CIHR Institute of Aboriginal Peoples’ Health. Canada: Government of Canada; 2009 - 37.
Smit B, Wandel J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 2006; 16 :282-292 - 38.
Folke C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change. 2006; 16 (3):253-267 - 39.
Nelson DR, Neil Adger W, Brown K. Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2007; 32 (1):395 - 40.
Palenchar MJ, Heath RL, Orberton EM. Terrorism and industrial chemical production: A new era of risk communication. Communication Research Reports. 2005; 22 (1):59-67 - 41.
Dei GJS, Hall BL, Rosenberg DG. Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of our World. University of Toronto Press; 2000. Corpus ID: 140510638 - 42.
Audrey WT. A Shining Trail to the Sun’s Lodge: Renewal through Blackfoot Ways of Knowing. Lethbridge, Alta: University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Education; 1997 - 43.
Parlee BL, Goddard E, Łutsël KÉ, Nation DF, Smith M. Tracking change: Traditional knowledge and monitoring of wildlife health in northern Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2014; 19 (1):47-61 - 44.
Parlee Brenda, Fikret Berkes. “Teetl’it Gwich’in Renewable Resources Council. Indigenous knowledge of ecological variability and commons management: A case study on berry harvesting from northern Canada”. Human Ecology. 2006; 34 (4):515-528 - 45.
Roncoli C, Ingram K, Kirshen P. Reading the rains: Local knowledge and rainfall forecasting in Burkina Faso. Society & Natural Resources. 2002; 15 (5):409-427 - 46.
McCarthy D, Crandall D, Whitelaw G, General Z, Tsuji L. A critical systems approach to social learning: Building adaptive capacity in social. Ecology and Society. 2011; 16 (3):18 - 47.
Hori Y, Tam B, Gough WA, Ho-Foong E, Karagatzides JD, Liberda EN, et al. Use of traditional environmental knowledge to assess the impact of climate change on subsistence fishing in the James Bay region of northern Ontario, Canada. Rural and Remote Health. 2012; 12 :1878 - 48.
McCay B, J, Finlayson AC. The political ecology of crisis and institutional change: The case of the northern cod. In: Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. 1995. pp. 15-19 - 49.
Alcántara-Ayala I, López-Mendoza M, Melgarejo-Palafox G, Borja-Baeza RC, Acevo-Zarate R. Natural hazards and risk communication strategies among indigenous communities: Shedding light on accessibility in Mexico's mountains. Mountain Research and Development. 2004; 24 (4):298-302 - 50.
Heath RL, Seshadri S, Lee J. Risk communication: A two-community analysis of proximity, dread, trust, involvement, uncertainty, openness/accessibility, and knowledge on support/opposition toward chemical companies. Journal of Public Relations Research. 1998; 10 (1):35-56 - 51.
Rich RC, Edelstein M, Hallman WK, Wandersman AH. Citizen participation and emprowerment: The case of local environmental hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1995; 23 (5):657-676 - 52.
Rich RC, Edelstein M, Hallman WK, Wandersman AH. Citizen participation and empowerment: The case of local environmental hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1995; 23 (5):657-676 - 53.
Gurabardhi Z, Gutteling JM, Kuttschreuter M. An empirical analysis of communication flow, strategy and stakeholders’ participation in the risk communication literature 1988-2000. Journal of Risk Research. 2005; 8 (6):499-511 - 54.
Bostrom A, Löfstedt RE. Communicating risk: Wireless and hardwired. Risk Analysis. 2003; 23 (2):241-248 - 55.
Fischhoff MB, Granger W, Bostrom A, Lave L, Atman C. ES&T Features. Communicating risk to the public. First, learn what people know and believe. Environmental Science & Technology. 1992; 26 (11):2048-2056 - 56.
Jardine CG. Role of risk communication in a comprehensive risk management approach. In: Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment. Wiley; 2008 - 57.
Santos SL, Chess C. Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications. Risk Analysis. 2003; 23 (2):269-279 - 58.
Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, et al. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis. 1988; 8 (2):177-187 - 59.
Knox JC. Large increases in flood magnitude in response to modest changes in climate. Nature. 1993; 361 (6411):430-432 - 60.
Lewis RE, Tyshenko MG. The impact of social amplification and attenuation of risk and the public reaction to mad cow disease in Canada. Risk Analysis. 2009; 29 (5):714-728 - 61.
Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis. 1999; 19 (4):689-701 - 62.
Jardine CG, Hrudey S, Shortreed J, Craig L, Krewski D, Furgal C, et al. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews. 2010; 6 (6):569-718 - 63.
Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis. 1993; 13 (6):675-682 - 64.
Jardine CG. Considerations in planning for successful risk communication. In: Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment. Wiley; 2008c - 65.
Earle TC. Trust in Risk Management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis. 2010; 30 (4):541-574
Notes
- Importance of local spatial knowledge in South Asia is highlighted by sharing a personal example. During childhood, my parents used "Neem Tree" (or Azadirachta indica, also called Margosa) leaf as a medicine to treat my boils. Today, traditional use of neem for a variety of reasons includes dental and health hygiene by millions of people in the region.