Integrating local and indigenous knowledge related to hydro-meteorological hazards and climate change with science

Local and indigenous knowledge and practices Inventory, Validation, and Establishing Scientific Knowledge” (LIVE Scientific Knowledge)

The phases in the process are preparation, data gathering, analysis and validation, science integration, and popularization and utilization of local and indigenous knowledge. The process is community-led, with initial support from outside resource organizations such as research agencies or development organizations. These organizations provide the community with an orientation and training so that they can identify, document, assess, and validate their own knowledge. By undertaking this process, communities can categorize local and indigenous knowledge and choose which knowledge to integrate with science, for further research and other activities such as the development of information, education, and communication (IEC) materials, as well as disaster risk and management plans. (Hiwasaki et al., 2014a, p.19).
Climate Adaptation Effectiveness

Integration of local and indigenous knowledge with science is an important process that enables practitioners and scientists to implement activities and research to increase resilience in coastal and small island communities. This integration also makes it possible for decision-makers to put into practice policies that support such activities. Such actions promote the use of local and indigenous knowledge and empower communities to use their knowledge supplemented with outside knowledge, to continue to make informed decisions about managing their adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies. At the same time, through this process, local and indigenous knowledge that helps communities build their resilience but cannot be explained by or integrated with science are categorized separately. Such knowledge would continue to be practiced by communities, away from scrutiny by scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. (Hiwasaki et al., 2014a, p.25). According to Ghorbani et al. (2020), integrating community social structure, indigenous knowledge, technologies, and practices enhances the adaptive capacity of the community. In their ethnographic study of the water management practices in Iran, the cultural conventions established hierarchies of water ownership and an equitable system of role-sharing and social benefit distribution. The combination of land ownership-based water distribution and bilateral compensatory mutual assistance will provide a model for resource management bolstering community resilience from climate change impacts.

Climate Hazards

  • Broad Climate Change Impact

Locations

  • Rapu-Rapu, Albay, Region V (Bicol Region)
  • Alabat, Quezon, Region IV-A (CALABARZON)
  • Angono, Rizal, Region IV-A (CALABARZON)

Adaptation Sectors

  • Coastal Areas
  • Disaster Risk Reduction

CCET Instuments

  • Policy Governance

Target Group based on Vulnerability

Basic Sectors:
  • Individuals residing in urban areas

Evaluations

Economic / Financial Effectiveness
Mid

It is implied that the process would need financial resources to train local communities to become researchers, conduct data collection and analysis, organize focus group discussions. It is also recommended that the process be repeated when the disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation plan will be revised. The costs associated with this would be rather high, thus an abbreviated process could be adopted for such purpose (Hiwasaki et al., 2014a, p.25).

Technical Feasibility
Mid

Developers of the tool claim that the process can be easily adapted and implemented by other communities in island Southeast Asia or elsewhere (Hiwasaki et al., 2014a, p.22). There is a need for external support to capacitate the locals to become researchers, and train them on the process, methodology, and key scientific terms (Hiwasaki et al., 2014a, p.19). Among the skills and knowledge they need to learn is the identification of informants and facilitating group discussions, observation of identified local indigenious knowledge, and documentation of these observations. They would then need to process and analyze these information, and then present these findings to scientists and practitioners (natural and social sciences). Assessment of the scientists are presented back to the community for validation. Local and indigenous knowledge are then categorized according to the following: local and indigenous knowledge (LINK)which can be scientifically explained/validated, and related to DRR and/or CCA; LINK which cannot be scientifically explained/validated, and related to DRR and/or CCA; LINK which can be scientifically explained/validated, but not related to DRR and/or CCA; and LINK which cannot be scientifically explained/validated, and not related or relevant to DRR and/or CCA. The tool was used in a community with an average size between 3500 and 5000 people, with the largest population size of 100,000. Using this tool in a much larger setting would entail some adjustments. It is also most likely be limited to research on hydro-meteorological hazards. Most importantly, the tool will only be effective if all stakeholders (both locals and external scientists and researchers) are committed to the process.

Social Acceptability
Mid

It was reported that the community, particularly the traditional leaders were receptive of the activities such as focus group discussions, workshops, key informant interviewes and consultations. (Hiwasaki et al., 2014b).

Environmental Impact
N/A

Implementing this climate change solution does not have direct environmental impacts.

Mitigation co-benefit

No mitigation co-benefits identified

Keywords

local/indigenous knowledge, science, integration, resilience

References

Back to List