*Climate Change-Related Natural Hazards and Risk Communication: Incorporating Traditional… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108302*

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.

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

#### **Figure 1.**

*Traditional Indigenous and scientific knowledge: common ground. (Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/ healingandtransformation/).*

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-bydoing". 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.

According to Berkes [28], traditional indigenous knowledge is evolving all the time. It involves adaptive management or "learning-by-doing," experimenting, and *Climate Change-Related Natural Hazards and Risk Communication: Incorporating Traditional… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108302*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Two-eyed seeing–a model for knowledge co-production. (Source: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/43686.html).*

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 (icecore 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 [38–40]. 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 environmentalchange-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 *Climate Change-Related Natural Hazards and Risk Communication: Incorporating Traditional… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108302*

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.
