**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.
