*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

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

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 knowledgeholders 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].
