**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

<sup>1</sup> 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.

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

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 [50–52]. 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.

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

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.
