Knowledge From the Afrikan World, For the World

PMC Articles

‘It's like these scientists own the rains’: indigenous knowledge, disaster warnings, and the politics of legitimacy in Malawi

PMCID: PMC12661919

PMID: 41313014

Abstract

Abstract This study examines the declining use of indigenous knowledge (IK) in early warning systems for climate‐related disasters in Malawi, drawing on qualitative data from four disaster‐prone districts and national‐level institutions. While IK is frequently referenced in policy discourse and programmatic frameworks, its practical integration into disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts remains limited, underlining deeper epistemic tensions that structure disaster governance. The findings reveal that scientific systems are institutionally privileged owing to donor logics, technocratic norms, and standardised metrics, while IK is increasingly marginalised, both by formal structures and shifting community dynamics, including youth disengagement, intergenerational disconnects, and religious beliefs. Adopting a co‐productionist lens, the study argues for a move beyond tokenistic inclusion and towards genuine knowledge pluralism, recognising the distinct value of IK in fostering resilience, particularly in resource‐constrained and culturally diverse settings. The paper contributes to ongoing debates on epistemic justice, legitimacy, and the politics of knowledge in DRR and climate adaptation.

Full Text

In the face of escalating climate change impacts, low‐income countries such as Malawi, a landlocked nation in southeast Africa, are disproportionately vulnerable to climate‐related disasters (Ngongondo et al., 2021; Phalira et al., 2022). In contexts where formal infrastructure and scientific knowhow remain limited, many communities have relied historically on indigenous knowledge (IK) systems to anticipate and respond to environmental hazards. These systems, being locally embedded, orally transmitted, and socially validated, offer place‐based insights into climatic shifts, often through ecological signals such as flowering plants, animal migrations, or wind patterns (Shaw, Sharma, and Takeuchi, 2009; Mercer et al., 2010).
The relevance of IK has been widely acknowledged across fields such as forestry, fishing, and agriculture, including in relation to disaster risk reduction (DRR). For example, the Mamanwa people of the Philippines use bird behaviour to anticipate typhoons (Cuaton and Su, 2020), while in Malawi, communities associate the movement of hippopotamuses, snails, and ants with the onset of flooding (Trogrlić et al., 2019; Phalira et al., 2022). Scholars such as Iticha and Husen (2019) show how Borana pastoralists in Ethiopia read environmental cues to forecast drought. In this framing, IK is seen as a resilient, context‐specific knowledge base that complements scientific forecasts and enhances local preparedness (Trogrlić et al., 2021).
A growing body of literature highlights how the erosion of IK is taking place collectively owing to external pressures—such as modernisation, climate change, and environmental degradation—and deeper structural and epistemic forces. As Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh (2022) note, IK is often excluded from formal disaster management systems because of assumptions of inferiority, a lack of documentation, or perceived superstition. Yet, the diminishing use of IK is not simply the result of modernisation or environmental degradation; rather, it reflects what Fricker (2007, 2012, 2013) calls epistemic injustice: a process in which certain knowledge systems are systematically excluded from institutional decision‐making. Scientific systems, often externally imposed and treated as objective, are privileged within formal disaster governance frameworks, whereas IK is framed as anecdotal, superstitious, or irrational. This tension reflects broader dynamics of epistemic politics, where what counts as legitimate knowledge is shaped not only by evidence but also by institutional power, authority, and globalised development paradigms (Jasanoff, 2003, 2004; Leach, Scoones, and Wynne, 2005).
Despite growing calls for integration (Ziervogel and Opere, 2010; Masinde and Bagula, 2011; Makwara, 2013; Wang et al., 2019; Zulfadrim, Toyoda, and Kanegae, 2019; Pandey and Basnet, 2022), IK remains poorly documented, inconsistently validated, and underestimated in DRR planning. Generational shifts, ridicule, religious beliefs, and intra‐community contradictions all contribute to its fading use (Trogrlić et al., 2019). Simultaneously, scientific early warning systems, which are often under‐resourced and externally funded, struggle with coverage, accessibility, and sustainability. These tensions raise critical questions about whose knowledge counts, how legitimacy is assigned, and what inclusive disaster governance should look like.
IK refers to locally embedded, context‐specific systems of understanding shaped by generations of interaction with the natural environment (Nakashima and Roué, 2002; Mercer et al., 2007). It encompasses beliefs, practices, values, and worldviews that are frequently transmitted orally and grounded in cultural, spiritual, and ecological relationships (Langill, 1999; Mutasa, 2015). Unlike scientific knowledge, which is typically generalised, quantified, and decontextualised, IK is qualitative, holistic, and experiential, based on close observation of environmental cues and social memory (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard, 2012; Iloka, 2016).
IK has been widely used in DRR to anticipate and respond to environmental hazards. Communities have employed IK to interpret early signs of floods, droughts, and storms through indicators such as animal behaviour, plant phenology, or atmospheric change (Iticha and Husen, 2019; Trogrlić et al., 2019; Cuaton and Su, 2020; Phalira et al., 2022; Mwalwimba, Manda, and Ngongondo, 2024).
The adaptive and community‐driven nature of IK has contributed to its continued relevance in DRR, especially in contexts with limited access to scientific infrastructure (Walshe and Nunn, 2012; Nkomwa et al., 2014). It is particularly valuable for localised forecasting and real‐time decision‐making, where scientific systems may be delayed or unavailable (Mercer et al., 2010; Trogrlić et al., 2021). IK is not monolithic, however: its transmission and application are influenced by social hierarchies, gender roles, and intergenerational dynamics (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard, 2012; Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh, 2022). Cuaton and Su (2020) highlight that men and women often hold distinct forms of ecological knowledge, fashioned by their differentiated experiences of resource use and social roles. In Malawi and elsewhere, younger generations may be less familiar with IK practices, leading to concerns about its erosion and loss (Mistry, 2009; Mutasa, 2015).
Despite its practical utility, IK continues to be undervalued in formal disaster governance frameworks. Efforts to integrate IK into scientific DRR systems have frequently sidelined its epistemological distinctiveness, reducing it to anecdotal evidence or folkloric data (Kamwendo and Kamwendo, 2014; Iloka, 2016). This marginalisation reflects broader structural and epistemic hierarchies, which are examined further in subsection 1.3.
The idea of integrating IK into scientific systems in the field of DRR has gained attention in both academic and policy circles. Scholars argue that blending IK's localised, context‐sensitive insights with the predictive power and scalability of scientific forecasts can enhance the effectiveness of early warning, particularly in climate‐vulnerable settings (Mercer et al., 2010; Plotz, Chambers, and Finn, 2017; Pauli et al., 2021). IK systems are typically embedded in community practices and are perceived as more trusted and actionable at the grassroots level (Trogrlić et al., 2021), while scientific systems provide broader temporal and spatial data coverage.
Yet, practical efforts to integrate these knowledge systems often falter owing to fundamental differences in their epistemological foundations, institutional validation processes, and social legitimacy (Sillitoe, 1998; Nakashima and Roué, 2002; Hermans et al., 2022). Scientific forecasts tend to rely on numerical precision and standardised models, whereas IK is interpretive, qualitative, and deeply intertwined with cultural meanings (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard, 2012; Iticha and Husen, 2019). These ontological differences frequently lead to the dismissal of IK as ‘unreliable’, ‘unverifiable’, or ‘superstitious’ within formal disaster management systems (Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh, 2022; Hussein, Tole, and Mwakumanya, 2023).
In Malawi, for example, Phalira et al. (2022) and Ngongondo et al. (2021) have shown that IK is often regarded as inadequate for medium‐ to long‐range forecasting or cross‐boundary risks such as upstream floods. Some indicators, including animal behaviours or flowering patterns, are also becoming less visible due to environmental degradation and species decline (Trogrlić et al., 2019). But the limitations of IK are mirrored by those of scientific systems, which in many rural areas remain inaccessible, poorly localised, and overly dependent on donor funding (Kamwendo and Kamwendo, 2014; Ngongondo et al., 2021).
Moreover, integration efforts often fail to confront the unequal power relations that shape knowledge governance. Government agencies and non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) may selectively engage with IK only when it aligns with scientific data, while ignoring divergent interpretations or contested practices (Mapfumo, Mtambanengwe, and Chikowo, 2016). Institutional scepticism and a lack of political will to validate IK as legitimate knowledge further exacerbate its marginalisation (Dekens, 2007; Iloka, 2016). As Hermans et al. (2022) note, even participatory platforms can reproduce exclusionary dynamics if they do not explicitly address power asymmetries and validation politics.
Documentation of IK is frequently proposed as a solution to these challenges (Langill, 1999; Mutasa, 2015); however, critics contend that documentation can strip IK of its contextual nuance, detaching it from the sociocultural systems that give it meaning (Agrawal, 1995; Mistry, 2009). This risks transforming IK from a living practice into a static artifact, making it easier to control but less effective in action.
Discussions of IK in DRR inevitably intersect with deeper questions of epistemic politics; namely, how certain forms of knowledge are legitimised while others are dismissed, and what this reveals about power and authority in governance systems. The sidelining of IK is not merely a technical or capacity issue, but also part of broader struggles over who gets to define risk, act upon it, and shape policy responses. This dynamic resonates, as noted earlier, with what Fricker (2007) describes as epistemic injustice: the systematic exclusion of alternative knowledge systems from disaster decision‐making. While Fricker does not address IK specifically, her framework highlights how colonial legacies, developmentalist paradigms, and bureaucratic preferences for standardisation frequently undermine context‐specific and culturally grounded knowledge, particularly in low‐income countries like Malawi, where externally validated models often take precedence over locally embedded practices.
The theory of co‐production advanced by Jasanoff (2004) provides a useful lens here, emphasising that knowledge and social order are mutually constituted. What counts as ‘credible’ or ‘scientific’ is shaped not only by evidence, but also by institutional authority, funding structures, and the politics of expertise. Jasanoff (2003) contrasts ‘technologies of hubris’, which claim precision and control, with ‘technologies of humility’, which embrace uncertainty and inclusion. IK, when meaningfully engaged, embodies the latter. Yet, disaster governance systems often favour the former. Similarly, Leach, Scoones, and Wynne (2005) advocate for knowledge pluralism as a framework for engaging diverse knowledge systems in governance, a perspective that has been increasingly applied in DRR to support the inclusion of multiple epistemologies rather than forcing convergence around dominant paradigms.
In practice, however, disaster governance often reinforces hierarchies of knowledge. IK is frequently assessed on the terms of science, which is expected to produce standardised, quantifiable outputs, rather than being recognised for its interpretive, adaptive strengths (Sillitoe, 1998; Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard, 2012). As a result, integration efforts may inadvertently relegate IK to a secondary or symbolic role: consulted but rarely incorporated into decision‐making processes. For instance, in Malawi, Phalira et al. (2022) found that while community members referenced more than 20 flood indicators, only two aligned with scientific data, raising not just concerns about local accuracy, but also deeper questions about whether scientific systems are even equipped to evaluate IK on its own terms.
These asymmetries are further reinforced by donor‐driven interventions and policy frameworks that valorise scientific technologies while overlooking or coopting community‐based systems (Agrawal, 1995; Hussein, Tole, and Mwakumanya, 2023). In some cases, well‐meaning efforts to document IK may inadvertently strip it of context and agency, transforming dynamic practices into static datasets that serve external agendas (Mistry, 2009; Mapfumo, Mtambanengwe, and Chikowo, 2016). This not only weakens the transmission of knowledge but also erodes community trust and ownership.
Critically, the legitimacy of knowledge is also influenced by internal community dynamics. Age, gender, and religious beliefs affect who is seen as a credible knowledge holder and what types of knowledge are retained or discarded (Mistry, 2009; Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard, 2012; Mutasa, 2015; Sithole, Naser, and Guadagno, 2015; Cuaton and Su, 2020; Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh, 2022; Trogrlić et al., 2022). Youth may view traditional indicators as outdated or irrelevant, while religious institutions may discourage engagement with practices deemed ‘un‐Christian’ (Trogrlić et al., 2021). These intra‐community dynamics intersect with national and global trends, producing complex patterns of erosion, adaptation, and resistance.
By foregrounding epistemic politics, this study moves beyond simplistic narratives of knowledge loss or technical integration. Instead, it frames DRR as a site of epistemic governance, where competing claims to legitimacy are shaped by institutional power, donor agendas, and cultural authority. Drawing on Fricker's (2007, 2012, 2013) articulation of epistemic injustice, Jasanoff's (2003, 2004) co‐productionist lens, and Leach, Scoones, and Wynne's (2005) call for knowledge pluralism, the paper argues that meaningful integration of IK requires a fundamental rethink of whose knowledge is heard, how legitimacy is assigned, and what counts as credible evidence in disaster preparedness. The following section outlines the qualitative methodology used to examine how these dynamics unfold in the Malawian context.
This study adopts an interpretivist research paradigm to explore how IK systems are understood, practised, and contested in the realm of DRR and early warning in Malawi. Interpretivism is well‐suited to analysing socially constructed meanings, situated experiences, and the power‐laden nature of knowledge production, especially when working with epistemologies that have been marginalised historically (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2019; Myers, 2020; Creswell and Creswell, 2022). Given the study's focus on the legitimacy, transmission, and integration of IK into disaster governance, a positivist or generalisable approach would have been ill‐equipped to capture the fluid, localised, and often contested realities surrounding it.
This study was conducted in 2020 across four disaster‐prone districts of southern Malawi—Chikwawa, Balaka, Machinga, and Zomba—with additional national‐level interviews held in Blantyre and Lilongwe (see Figure 1). These local and national data collection sites were purposively selected to ensure vertical coherence in the analysis of IK and early warning systems, combining community‐level experiences with national policy dynamics.
The four rural districts were selected based on a combination of ecological diversity, hazard exposure, and sociocultural variation, which are factors that determine how IK is produced, transmitted, and valued in DRR. These districts are among the most affected by floods, droughts, and strong winds in Malawi, and have experienced recurrent disasters, including the devastating 2015 floods and Tropical Cyclone Idai in 2019 (Government of Malawi, 2019). Repeated shocks have disrupted rain‐fed agricultural systems and intensified food insecurity, trends reflected in Figure 2, which shows food insecurity prevalence from 2008–20.
Data collection followed an open‐ended protocol that allowed respondents to describe locally‐known early warning signs without prompts or restriction. To ensure analytical clarity, only those indicators that were (i) described with reasonable consistency, (ii) locally recognised as predictive, and (iii) mentioned by multiple respondents were retained. Vague references, unnamed species, or inconsistently interpreted signs were excluded. This resulted in 241 unique indicators, categorised under animals, plants, hydrometeorological patterns, astrology, and others, as summarised in subsection 3.1.
The study employed a purposive sampling strategy, selecting regions recently affected by climate‐related disasters to capture the lived experiences of those directly engaged in or impacted by early warning systems. This approach aligns with the interpretivist paradigm, which prioritises depth, contextuality, and meaning‐making over generalisability (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2019; Creswell and Creswell, 2022).
Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach aligned with the study's interpretivist paradigm, which seeks to generate insights from lived experience rather than test predefined hypotheses (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Heath and Cowley, 2004; Chametzky, 2016; Creswell and Creswell, 2022). This method was well‐suited to exploring the localised and under‐theorised nature of IK in disaster risk contexts.
Indicators were categorised in five groups: animal behaviour (39 per cent); plant‐based signs (29 per cent); hydrometeorological patterns (17 per cent); astrological signs (12 per cent); and other (3 per cent). Common examples included ant activity, owl hooting, and the toad grasshopper, all believed to signal rainfall patterns. Table 1 presents a district‐wise disaggregation of these 241 unique indicators. Animal‐based signs were consistently dominant across all four disaster‐prone districts, with Balaka recording the highest count (29). Plant‐based indicators were also widely cited, while astrological signs, such as lunar positioning or ancestral messages in dreams, were most commonly reported in Chikwawa and Balaka. Frequent cases cited were, inter alia, ant activity, owl hooting, and the toad grasshopper, all believed to signal rainfall patterns.
The preceding subsections have presented detailed narratives on thematic areas emerging from the field data. To enhance clarity and support comparative analysis, Table 2 summarises the most frequently reported themes, based on frequency across study sites and triangulated participant narratives.
The declining use of IK in early warning systems in Malawi is not merely a reflection of changing environmental conditions or community preferences; rather, it reflects deeper epistemic tensions over how knowledge is legitimised within disaster governance. As Fricker (2007) argues, epistemic injustice arises when certain knowledge systems are systematically excluded from institutional decision‐making processes, not because they are inherently flawed, but because they do not align with dominant notions of credibility, objectivity, or measurability. The privileging of scientific forecasts over IK in Malawi follows this pattern, with formal disaster institutions implicitly framing knowledge legitimacy using a technocratic lens. This dynamic has been widely documented in disaster studies, where the formalisation of risk governance often privileges scientific epistemologies at the expense of local knowledge systems (Shaw, Sharma, and Takeuchi, 2009; Mercer et al., 2009, 2010; Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard, 2012).
Evidence from this study supports the claim. Community members frequently reported that their traditional indicators, such as the behaviour of birds, the flowering of trees, or the direction of wind, were dismissed by younger generations and officials alike as ‘zamakolo’. As one elderly man in Chikwawa put it: ‘Nowadays, if you say the rains will come because the mangoes are flowering, they just laugh at you. They want to hear it on the radio’. This perception reflects not only generational shifts but also a broader discursive devaluation of IK that parallels global patterns of epistemic exclusion (Jasanoff, 2003, 2004; Fricker, 2007).
The erosion of IK legitimacy is further reinforced by the structure of formal early warning systems, which are designed to favour standardised, quantifiable, and externally verifiable indicators. Studies from other African and Asian contexts have similarly found that such systems are poorly suited to capturing the contextual and experiential nature of IK (Iloka, 2016; Mistry and Berardi, 2016; Trogrlić et al., 2019). Scientific systems in Malawi, often donor‐funded and based on rainfall thresholds, satellite data, or probabilistic forecasting, are considered more reliable by institutions precisely because they conform to these global metrics of validity. Yet, these systems are not infallible: they often face sustainability challenges, delays in dissemination, and limited community uptake. Despite these weaknesses, the institutional bias towards science as authority persists, crowding out other epistemologies that may be more context‐specific, accessible, and socially resonant.
The study findings thus reveal an epistemic paradox: IK is devalued even as its potential contributions, particularly in areas where scientific coverage is limited, are most needed. Similar conclusions have been drawn in recent comparative research that documents how IK can fill spatial and institutional gaps in early warning coverage, especially in marginalised or remote communities (Iticha and Husen, 2019; Cuaton and Su, 2020). This aligns with Jasanoff's (2003) concept of ‘technologies of hubris’, in which formal science is assumed to be superior and self‐sufficient, despite empirical evidence of its limitations in uncertain and resource‐constrained settings. A co‐productionist lens offers an alternative: instead of treating scientific and indigenous systems as competing or hierarchically ordered, it recognises that both are socially constructed and shaped by institutional values, power relations, and histories of knowledge production.
While IK continues to be referenced in national disaster policy frameworks and NGO programming in Malawi, its institutional inclusion remains largely symbolic. As the study findings reveal, references to IK in disaster preparedness strategies are frequently superficial, and invoked rhetorically to signal community participation or cultural sensitivity, but rarely accompanied by operational mechanisms for validation, funding, or integration. This pattern reflects Fricker's (2007) concept of epistemic injustice: situations in which individuals or groups are wronged in their capacity as knowers. In the case of IK, this often occurs not through overt exclusion but through superficial inclusion that fails to alter dominant institutional logics.
Interviewees noted that government and NGO‐led interventions regularly acknowledged traditional indicators during project inception or consultation phases but failed to follow up on this during implementation. As one district officer underscored: ‘We talk about IK during community entry, but when it comes to planning, we focus on the scientific data from the Department of Climate Change and Meteorological Services’. This mirrors findings from Chikwawa District, where IK is routinely referenced in consultations but rarely integrated into formal DRR activities or early warning systems (Mwalwimba, Manda, and Ngongondo, 2024). This reveals a dual knowledge hierarchy: IK is consulted but not trusted, documented but not acted upon.
These dynamics are closely linked to the donor‐driven architecture of DRR in Malawi. Most scientific early warning systems, such as river gauges or rainfall thresholds, are externally financed, often tied to specific reporting templates, logframes, and quantitative metrics. These instruments favour standardised data that can demonstrate impact to donors and align with global indicators. IK, by contrast, is relational, contextual, and not easily captured by quantitative benchmarks (Agrawal, 1995; Mistry, 2009). As a result, institutions often overlook it, not because it lacks value, but because it resists institutional logics of audit, attribution, and scalability (Leach, Scoones, and Wynne, 2005).
This marginalisation is further entrenched by the institutional silos between traditional authorities and formal governance structures. In the districts studied, traditional leaders were identified as key custodians of IK, yet their involvement in DRR decision‐making was limited to ceremonial or reactive roles. The broader governance architecture, which is structured around ministerial mandates, climate science inputs, and donor‐financed tools, provides few entry points for sustained use of community‐generated knowledge. As Jasanoff (2004) emphasises in her co‐production framework, knowledge systems are embedded in, and constitutive of, institutional practices. Without institutional transformation, the inclusion of IK is likely to remain tokenistic.
Moreover, when IK is documented, typically in NGO field reports or policy annexes, it is often stripped of its sociocultural context. As several respondents pointed out: ‘You can write about these things, but they will not mean anything unless you see how they work in practice’. This detachment reflects a deeper ontological tension: IK is performative, embodied, and experiential, while institutions seek to render it legible through static documentation (Agrawal, 1995; Mistry, 2009). Such documentation, while useful, risks transforming dynamic knowledge into inert data, which is easily dismissed or instrumentalised.
One of the most striking observations from the field was the hesitancy among elders—once the primary custodians of IK—to pass on their knowledge. Respondents frequently mentioned that youth perceive IK as ‘zamakolo’ (ancestral or outdated) or even laughable. This shift is not merely a generational gap, but also an epistemic fracture. As Fricker (2012, 2013) argues, knowledge legitimacy is not just a matter of content but also of authority: who is seen as a credible knowledge‐holder and under what conditions. In this case, age and tradition no longer guarantee epistemic authority. Instead, knowledge linked to technology, formal education, or external sources increasingly holds sway.
The reasons for youth disengagement are complex. Rising literacy, digital access, and exposure to global media have reshaped what is seen as ‘valid’ or ‘modern’ knowledge. Scientific forecasts delivered via radio, WhatsApp, or SMS (Short Message Service) are perceived as more accurate and trustworthy, even when such systems are patchy or unreliable. This mirrors the knowledge hierarchies described by Jasanoff (2003), wherein ‘technologies of hubris’—those claiming precision and scientific certainty—displace ‘technologies of humility’—those embedded in local context and social memory. Similar generational shifts are documented by Trogrlić et al. (2019) and Phalira et al. (2022), who observe that younger Malawians increasingly associate credibility with digital or institutional sources rather than ancestral knowledge.
Religion also emerged as a powerful epistemic force. Christianisation in many rural areas has redefined traditional rituals, with some religious leaders actively discouraging the use or even discussion of IK, labelling it as pagan or spiritually dangerous. Practices such as rainmaking ceremonies or interpretations of animal behaviour have been delegitimised within the moral and theological frameworks of modern Christianity. Leach, Scoones, and Wynne (2005) highlight the contested nature of knowledge in governance, where multiple systems vie for authority within shared decision‐making spaces. In the context of disaster knowledge, such epistemic contestation extends beyond science versus IK to include tensions between IK and emergent religious or cultural epistemologies. Importantly, this is not merely a conflict between science and IK, but also between IK and newer forms of cultural power. Dekens (2007) and Mutasa (2015) similarly trace the erosion of traditional ecological knowledge to Christian moral reform and the enduring influence of colonial legacies in DRR.
Even within communities, knowledge systems are contested. Participants cited conflicting interpretations of the same environmental indicators, such as whether a particular type of wind signifies early or late rains. These contradictions weaken the perceived reliability of IK and further reduce its traction, especially among younger or more formally educated community members. In epistemological terms, such intra‐community variation undermines the social cohesion needed for knowledge validation and transmission (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard, 2012; Cuaton and Su, 2020).
These findings complicate the notion of ‘community‐based knowledge’ as a homogenous or stable category. Instead, they point to what Jasanoff (2003, 2004) might call fragmented co‐production: a condition where different forms of knowledge co‐exist, conflict, and evolve within overlapping fields of social, cultural, and institutional influence. IK is not disappearing solely because of external suppression; it is also being selectively devalued or displaced from within, through shifting cultural aspirations and everyday epistemic choices.
Knowledge pluralism, as articulated by Jasanoff (2004) and Leach, Scoones, and Wynne (2005), is not about blending knowledge systems into a single coherent framework; instead, it requires recognising the distinct ontologies, values, and institutional contexts within which different knowledge systems operate. In other words, IK and scientific forecasting are not interchangeable or reducible to a common metric of accuracy. They are produced, legitimised, and deployed in fundamentally different ways, with different assumptions about risk, causality, and appropriate response.
In Malawi, attempts at ‘integration’ often manifest as symbolic inclusion: IK is mentioned in strategy documents or workshops but sidelined in operational plans and funding flows. This resonates with what Jasanoff (2005) refers to as civic epistemologies: the culturally‐specific ways in which societies validate and institutionalise knowledge. In Malawi's disaster governance, civic epistemologies continue to favour scientific over indigenous systems, especially under donor influence, creating hierarchies that are difficult to dismantle. As one development partner remarked: ‘No donor will give you funds because people are seeing ants in this area’. Such views reveal how dominant funding architectures create structural incentives that reinforce epistemic exclusion. This pattern is echoed by Mwalwimba, Manda, and Ngongondo (2024), who observe that although communities in Chikwawa actively apply IK to anticipate seasonal and flood‐related hazards, district‐level DRR actors rarely provide institutional recognition, resources, or formal mechanisms to support its integration.
This also entails recognising the risks of epistemic extractivism, where IK is appropriated for its instrumental value, such as to improve forecasts, without respecting the cultural, relational, or spiritual systems that sustain it (Alcoff, 2022). Such practices reflect Fricker's (2007) epistemic injustice, where individuals or groups are wronged in their capacity as knowers, often through credibility deficits or testimonial exclusion—dynamics that parallel the marginalisation of IK within disaster governance. These concerns resonate with earlier critiques by Agrawal (1995) and Mistry (2009), who caution against isolating knowledge from its sociocultural foundations. Protecting IK, therefore, means protecting the contexts and communities in which it is embedded.
Crucially, this study suggests that IK's value may lie not only in its predictive function but also in its capacity to foster localised forms of resilience, through practices, rituals, and narratives that sustain social cohesion and memory. These are qualities that scientific systems often lack, especially in settings where infrastructure is weak and trust in institutions is fragile. Recognising this broader role of IK requires a paradigm shift: from integrating knowledge systems to enabling dialogue between them, with mutual respect for their distinct logics and limitations. Such perspectives are echoed in the work of Mutasa (2015) and Cuaton and Su (2020), who highlight how rituals and practices linked to IK sustain cohesion and memory during crises.

Sections

"[{\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0037\", \"disa70028-bib-0041\", \"disa70028-bib-0044\", \"disa70028-bib-0029\"], \"section\": \"INTRODUCTION\", \"text\": \"In the face of escalating climate change impacts, low\\u2010income countries such as Malawi, a landlocked nation in southeast Africa, are disproportionately vulnerable to climate\\u2010related disasters (Ngongondo et al.,\\u00a02021; Phalira et al.,\\u00a02022). In contexts where formal infrastructure and scientific knowhow remain limited, many communities have relied historically on indigenous knowledge (IK) systems to anticipate and respond to environmental hazards. These systems, being locally embedded, orally transmitted, and socially validated, offer place\\u2010based insights into climatic shifts, often through ecological signals such as flowering plants, animal migrations, or wind patterns (Shaw, Sharma, and Takeuchi,\\u00a02009; Mercer et al.,\\u00a02010).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0005\", \"disa70028-bib-0047\", \"disa70028-bib-0041\", \"disa70028-bib-0017\", \"disa70028-bib-0048\"], \"section\": \"INTRODUCTION\", \"text\": \"The relevance of IK has been widely acknowledged across fields such as forestry, fishing, and agriculture, including in relation to disaster risk reduction (DRR). For example, the Mamanwa people of the Philippines use bird behaviour to anticipate typhoons (Cuaton and Su,\\u00a02020), while in Malawi, communities associate the movement of hippopotamuses, snails, and ants with the onset of flooding (Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02019; Phalira et al.,\\u00a02022). Scholars such as Iticha and Husen (2019) show how Borana pastoralists in Ethiopia read environmental cues to forecast drought. In this framing, IK is seen as a resilient, context\\u2010specific knowledge base that complements scientific forecasts and enhances local preparedness (Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0012\", \"disa70028-bib-0007\", \"disa70028-bib-0008\", \"disa70028-bib-0009\", \"disa70028-bib-0018\", \"disa70028-bib-0019\", \"disa70028-bib-0024\"], \"section\": \"INTRODUCTION\", \"text\": \"A growing body of literature highlights how the erosion of IK is taking place collectively owing to external pressures\\u2014such as modernisation, climate change, and environmental degradation\\u2014and deeper structural and epistemic forces. As Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh (2022) note, IK is often excluded from formal disaster management systems because of assumptions of inferiority, a lack of documentation, or perceived superstition. Yet, the diminishing use of IK is not simply the result of modernisation or environmental degradation; rather, it reflects what Fricker\\u00a0(2007, 2012, 2013) calls epistemic injustice: a process in which certain knowledge systems are systematically excluded from institutional decision\\u2010making. Scientific systems, often externally imposed and treated as objective, are privileged within formal disaster governance frameworks, whereas IK is framed as anecdotal, superstitious, or irrational. This tension reflects broader dynamics of epistemic politics, where what counts as legitimate knowledge is shaped not only by evidence but also by institutional power, authority, and globalised development paradigms (Jasanoff,\\u00a02003, 2004; Leach, Scoones, and Wynne,\\u00a02005).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0052\", \"disa70028-bib-0027\", \"disa70028-bib-0025\", \"disa70028-bib-0051\", \"disa70028-bib-0053\", \"disa70028-bib-0039\", \"disa70028-bib-0047\"], \"section\": \"INTRODUCTION\", \"text\": \"Despite growing calls for integration (Ziervogel and Opere,\\u00a02010; Masinde and Bagula,\\u00a02011; Makwara,\\u00a02013; Wang et al.,\\u00a02019; Zulfadrim, Toyoda, and Kanegae,\\u00a02019; Pandey and Basnet,\\u00a02022), IK remains poorly documented, inconsistently validated, and underestimated in DRR planning. Generational shifts, ridicule, religious beliefs, and intra\\u2010community contradictions all contribute to its fading use (Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02019). Simultaneously, scientific early warning systems, which are often under\\u2010resourced and externally funded, struggle with coverage, accessibility, and sustainability. These tensions raise critical questions about whose knowledge counts, how legitimacy is assigned, and what inclusive disaster governance should look like.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0036\", \"disa70028-bib-0028\", \"disa70028-bib-0023\", \"disa70028-bib-0033\", \"disa70028-bib-0022\", \"disa70028-bib-0016\"], \"section\": \"Conceptualising IK and its role in DRR\", \"text\": \"IK refers to locally embedded, context\\u2010specific systems of understanding shaped by generations of interaction with the natural environment (Nakashima and Rou\\u00e9,\\u00a02002; Mercer et al.,\\u00a02007). It encompasses beliefs, practices, values, and worldviews that are frequently transmitted orally and grounded in cultural, spiritual, and ecological relationships (Langill,\\u00a01999; Mutasa,\\u00a02015). Unlike scientific knowledge, which is typically generalised, quantified, and decontextualised, IK is qualitative, holistic, and experiential, based on close observation of environmental cues and social memory (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard,\\u00a02012; Iloka,\\u00a02016).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0017\", \"disa70028-bib-0047\", \"disa70028-bib-0005\", \"disa70028-bib-0041\", \"disa70028-bib-0034\"], \"section\": \"Conceptualising IK and its role in DRR\", \"text\": \"IK has been widely used in DRR to anticipate and respond to environmental hazards. Communities have employed IK to interpret early signs of floods, droughts, and storms through indicators such as animal behaviour, plant phenology, or atmospheric change (Iticha and Husen,\\u00a02019; Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02019; Cuaton and Su,\\u00a02020; Phalira et al.,\\u00a02022; Mwalwimba, Manda, and Ngongondo,\\u00a02024).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0050\", \"disa70028-bib-0038\", \"disa70028-bib-0029\", \"disa70028-bib-0048\", \"disa70028-bib-0022\", \"disa70028-bib-0012\", \"disa70028-bib-0005\", \"disa70028-bib-0031\", \"disa70028-bib-0033\"], \"section\": \"Conceptualising IK and its role in DRR\", \"text\": \"The adaptive and community\\u2010driven nature of IK has contributed to its continued relevance in DRR, especially in contexts with limited access to scientific infrastructure (Walshe and Nunn,\\u00a02012; Nkomwa et al.,\\u00a02014). It is particularly valuable for localised forecasting and real\\u2010time decision\\u2010making, where scientific systems may be delayed or unavailable (Mercer et al.,\\u00a02010; Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02021). IK is not monolithic, however: its transmission and application are influenced by social hierarchies, gender roles, and intergenerational dynamics (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard,\\u00a02012; Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh,\\u00a02022). Cuaton and Su (2020) highlight that men and women often hold distinct forms of ecological knowledge, fashioned by their differentiated experiences of resource use and social roles. In Malawi and elsewhere, younger generations may be less familiar with IK practices, leading to concerns about its erosion and loss (Mistry,\\u00a02009; Mutasa,\\u00a02015).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0021\", \"disa70028-bib-0016\", \"disa70028-sec-0004\"], \"section\": \"Conceptualising IK and its role in DRR\", \"text\": \"Despite its practical utility, IK continues to be undervalued in formal disaster governance frameworks. Efforts to integrate IK into scientific DRR systems have frequently sidelined its epistemological distinctiveness, reducing it to anecdotal evidence or folkloric data (Kamwendo and Kamwendo,\\u00a02014; Iloka,\\u00a02016). This marginalisation reflects broader structural and epistemic hierarchies, which are examined further in subsection\\u00a01.3.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0029\", \"disa70028-bib-0042\", \"disa70028-bib-0040\", \"disa70028-bib-0048\"], \"section\": \"Integration and its discontents: tensions in bridging knowledge systems\", \"text\": \"The idea of integrating IK into scientific systems in the field of DRR has gained attention in both academic and policy circles. Scholars argue that blending IK's localised, context\\u2010sensitive insights with the predictive power and scalability of scientific forecasts can enhance the effectiveness of early warning, particularly in climate\\u2010vulnerable settings (Mercer et al.,\\u00a02010; Plotz, Chambers, and Finn,\\u00a02017; Pauli et al.,\\u00a02021). IK systems are typically embedded in community practices and are perceived as more trusted and actionable at the grassroots level (Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02021), while scientific systems provide broader temporal and spatial data coverage.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0045\", \"disa70028-bib-0036\", \"disa70028-bib-0014\", \"disa70028-bib-0022\", \"disa70028-bib-0017\", \"disa70028-bib-0012\", \"disa70028-bib-0015\"], \"section\": \"Integration and its discontents: tensions in bridging knowledge systems\", \"text\": \"Yet, practical efforts to integrate these knowledge systems often falter owing to fundamental differences in their epistemological foundations, institutional validation processes, and social legitimacy (Sillitoe,\\u00a01998; Nakashima and Rou\\u00e9,\\u00a02002; Hermans et al.,\\u00a02022). Scientific forecasts tend to rely on numerical precision and standardised models, whereas IK is interpretive, qualitative, and deeply intertwined with cultural meanings (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard,\\u00a02012; Iticha and Husen,\\u00a02019). These ontological differences frequently lead to the dismissal of IK as \\u2018unreliable\\u2019, \\u2018unverifiable\\u2019, or \\u2018superstitious\\u2019 within formal disaster management systems (Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh,\\u00a02022; Hussein, Tole, and Mwakumanya,\\u00a02023).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0041\", \"disa70028-bib-0037\", \"disa70028-bib-0047\", \"disa70028-bib-0021\", \"disa70028-bib-0037\"], \"section\": \"Integration and its discontents: tensions in bridging knowledge systems\", \"text\": \"In Malawi, for example, Phalira et al. (2022) and Ngongondo et al. (2021) have shown that IK is often regarded as inadequate for medium\\u2010 to long\\u2010range forecasting or cross\\u2010boundary risks such as upstream floods. Some indicators, including animal behaviours or flowering patterns, are also becoming less visible due to environmental degradation and species decline (Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02019). But the limitations of IK are mirrored by those of scientific systems, which in many rural areas remain inaccessible, poorly localised, and overly dependent on donor funding (Kamwendo and Kamwendo,\\u00a02014; Ngongondo et al.,\\u00a02021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0026\", \"disa70028-bib-0006\", \"disa70028-bib-0016\", \"disa70028-bib-0014\"], \"section\": \"Integration and its discontents: tensions in bridging knowledge systems\", \"text\": \"Moreover, integration efforts often fail to confront the unequal power relations that shape knowledge governance. Government agencies and non\\u2010governmental organisations (NGOs) may selectively engage with IK only when it aligns with scientific data, while ignoring divergent interpretations or contested practices (Mapfumo, Mtambanengwe, and Chikowo,\\u00a02016). Institutional scepticism and a lack of political will to validate IK as legitimate knowledge further exacerbate its marginalisation (Dekens,\\u00a02007; Iloka,\\u00a02016). As Hermans et al. (2022) note, even participatory platforms can reproduce exclusionary dynamics if they do not explicitly address power asymmetries and validation politics.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0023\", \"disa70028-bib-0033\", \"disa70028-bib-0001\", \"disa70028-bib-0031\"], \"section\": \"Integration and its discontents: tensions in bridging knowledge systems\", \"text\": \"Documentation of IK is frequently proposed as a solution to these challenges (Langill,\\u00a01999; Mutasa,\\u00a02015); however, critics contend that documentation can strip IK of its contextual nuance, detaching it from the sociocultural systems that give it meaning (Agrawal,\\u00a01995; Mistry,\\u00a02009). This risks transforming IK from a living practice into a static artifact, making it easier to control but less effective in action.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0007\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic politics and the legitimacy of knowledge\", \"text\": \"Discussions of IK in DRR inevitably intersect with deeper questions of epistemic politics; namely, how certain forms of knowledge are legitimised while others are dismissed, and what this reveals about power and authority in governance systems. The sidelining of IK is not merely a technical or capacity issue, but also part of broader struggles over who gets to define risk, act upon it, and shape policy responses. This dynamic resonates, as noted earlier, with what Fricker (2007) describes as epistemic injustice: the systematic exclusion of alternative knowledge systems from disaster decision\\u2010making. While Fricker does not address IK specifically, her framework highlights how colonial legacies, developmentalist paradigms, and bureaucratic preferences for standardisation frequently undermine context\\u2010specific and culturally grounded knowledge, particularly in low\\u2010income countries like Malawi, where externally validated models often take precedence over locally embedded practices.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0019\", \"disa70028-bib-0018\", \"disa70028-bib-0024\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic politics and the legitimacy of knowledge\", \"text\": \"The theory of co\\u2010production advanced by Jasanoff (2004) provides a useful lens here, emphasising that knowledge and social order are mutually constituted. What counts as \\u2018credible\\u2019 or \\u2018scientific\\u2019 is shaped not only by evidence, but also by institutional authority, funding structures, and the politics of expertise. Jasanoff (2003) contrasts \\u2018technologies of hubris\\u2019, which claim precision and control, with \\u2018technologies of humility\\u2019, which embrace uncertainty and inclusion. IK, when meaningfully engaged, embodies the latter. Yet, disaster governance systems often favour the former. Similarly, Leach, Scoones, and Wynne (2005) advocate for knowledge pluralism as a framework for engaging diverse knowledge systems in governance, a perspective that has been increasingly applied in DRR to support the inclusion of multiple epistemologies rather than forcing convergence around dominant paradigms.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0045\", \"disa70028-bib-0022\", \"disa70028-bib-0041\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic politics and the legitimacy of knowledge\", \"text\": \"In practice, however, disaster governance often reinforces hierarchies of knowledge. IK is frequently assessed on the terms of science, which is expected to produce standardised, quantifiable outputs, rather than being recognised for its interpretive, adaptive strengths (Sillitoe,\\u00a01998; Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard,\\u00a02012). As a result, integration efforts may inadvertently relegate IK to a secondary or symbolic role: consulted but rarely incorporated into decision\\u2010making processes. For instance, in Malawi, Phalira et al. (2022) found that while community members referenced more than 20 flood indicators, only two aligned with scientific data, raising not just concerns about local accuracy, but also deeper questions about whether scientific systems are even equipped to evaluate IK on its own terms.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0001\", \"disa70028-bib-0015\", \"disa70028-bib-0031\", \"disa70028-bib-0026\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic politics and the legitimacy of knowledge\", \"text\": \"These asymmetries are further reinforced by donor\\u2010driven interventions and policy frameworks that valorise scientific technologies while overlooking or coopting community\\u2010based systems (Agrawal,\\u00a01995; Hussein, Tole, and Mwakumanya,\\u00a02023). In some cases, well\\u2010meaning efforts to document IK may inadvertently strip it of context and agency, transforming dynamic practices into static datasets that serve external agendas (Mistry,\\u00a02009; Mapfumo, Mtambanengwe, and Chikowo,\\u00a02016). This not only weakens the transmission of knowledge but also erodes community trust and ownership.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0031\", \"disa70028-bib-0022\", \"disa70028-bib-0033\", \"disa70028-bib-0046\", \"disa70028-bib-0005\", \"disa70028-bib-0012\", \"disa70028-bib-0049\", \"disa70028-bib-0048\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic politics and the legitimacy of knowledge\", \"text\": \"Critically, the legitimacy of knowledge is also influenced by internal community dynamics. Age, gender, and religious beliefs affect who is seen as a credible knowledge holder and what types of knowledge are retained or discarded (Mistry,\\u00a02009; Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard,\\u00a02012; Mutasa,\\u00a02015; Sithole, Naser, and Guadagno,\\u00a02015; Cuaton and Su,\\u00a02020; Hadlos, Opdyke, and Hadigheh,\\u00a02022; Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02022). Youth may view traditional indicators as outdated or irrelevant, while religious institutions may discourage engagement with practices deemed \\u2018un\\u2010Christian\\u2019 (Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02021). These intra\\u2010community dynamics intersect with national and global trends, producing complex patterns of erosion, adaptation, and resistance.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0007\", \"disa70028-bib-0008\", \"disa70028-bib-0009\", \"disa70028-bib-0018\", \"disa70028-bib-0019\", \"disa70028-bib-0024\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic politics and the legitimacy of knowledge\", \"text\": \"By foregrounding epistemic politics, this study moves beyond simplistic narratives of knowledge loss or technical integration. Instead, it frames DRR as a site of epistemic governance, where competing claims to legitimacy are shaped by institutional power, donor agendas, and cultural authority. Drawing on Fricker's\\u00a0(2007, 2012, 2013) articulation of epistemic injustice, Jasanoff's\\u00a0(2003, 2004) co\\u2010productionist lens, and Leach, Scoones, and Wynne's (2005) call for knowledge pluralism, the paper argues that meaningful integration of IK requires a fundamental rethink of whose knowledge is heard, how legitimacy is assigned, and what counts as credible evidence in disaster preparedness. The following section outlines the qualitative methodology used to examine how these dynamics unfold in the Malawian context.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0043\", \"disa70028-bib-0035\", \"disa70028-bib-0004\"], \"section\": \"APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY\", \"text\": \"This study adopts an interpretivist research paradigm to explore how IK systems are understood, practised, and contested in the realm of DRR and early warning in Malawi. Interpretivism is well\\u2010suited to analysing socially constructed meanings, situated experiences, and the power\\u2010laden nature of knowledge production, especially when working with epistemologies that have been marginalised historically (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill,\\u00a02019; Myers,\\u00a02020; Creswell and Creswell,\\u00a02022). Given the study's focus on the legitimacy, transmission, and integration of IK into disaster governance, a positivist or generalisable approach would have been ill\\u2010equipped to capture the fluid, localised, and often contested realities surrounding it.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-fig-0001\"], \"section\": \"Study location\", \"text\": \"This study was conducted in 2020 across four disaster\\u2010prone districts of southern Malawi\\u2014Chikwawa, Balaka, Machinga, and Zomba\\u2014with additional national\\u2010level interviews held in Blantyre and Lilongwe (see Figure\\u00a01). These local and national data collection sites were purposively selected to ensure vertical coherence in the analysis of IK and early warning systems, combining community\\u2010level experiences with national policy dynamics.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0011\", \"disa70028-fig-0002\"], \"section\": \"Study location\", \"text\": \"The four rural districts were selected based on a combination of ecological diversity, hazard exposure, and sociocultural variation, which are factors that determine how IK is produced, transmitted, and valued in DRR. These districts are among the most affected by floods, droughts, and strong winds in Malawi, and have experienced recurrent disasters, including the devastating 2015 floods and Tropical Cyclone Idai in 2019 (Government of Malawi,\\u00a02019). Repeated shocks have disrupted rain\\u2010fed agricultural systems and intensified food insecurity, trends reflected in Figure\\u00a02, which shows food insecurity prevalence from 2008\\u201320.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-sec-0012\"], \"section\": \"Primary data collection\", \"text\": \"Data collection followed an open\\u2010ended protocol that allowed respondents to describe locally\\u2010known early warning signs without prompts or restriction. To ensure analytical clarity, only those indicators that were (i) described with reasonable consistency, (ii) locally recognised as predictive, and (iii) mentioned by multiple respondents were retained. Vague references, unnamed species, or inconsistently interpreted signs were excluded. This resulted in 241 unique indicators, categorised under animals, plants, hydrometeorological patterns, astrology, and others, as summarised in subsection\\u00a03.1.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0043\", \"disa70028-bib-0004\"], \"section\": \"Sampling and sample sizes\", \"text\": \"The study employed a purposive sampling strategy, selecting regions recently affected by climate\\u2010related disasters to capture the lived experiences of those directly engaged in or impacted by early warning systems. This approach aligns with the interpretivist paradigm, which prioritises depth, contextuality, and meaning\\u2010making over generalisability (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill,\\u00a02019; Creswell and Creswell,\\u00a02022).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0010\", \"disa70028-bib-0013\", \"disa70028-bib-0003\", \"disa70028-bib-0004\"], \"section\": \"Data analysis\", \"text\": \"Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach aligned with the study's interpretivist paradigm, which seeks to generate insights from lived experience rather than test predefined hypotheses (Glaser and Strauss,\\u00a01967; Heath and Cowley,\\u00a02004; Chametzky,\\u00a02016; Creswell and Creswell,\\u00a02022). This method was well\\u2010suited to exploring the localised and under\\u2010theorised nature of IK in disaster risk contexts.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-tbl-0001\"], \"section\": \"Mapping the IK system: patterns, practices, and variability\", \"text\": \"Indicators were categorised in five groups: animal behaviour (39 per cent); plant\\u2010based signs (29 per cent); hydrometeorological patterns (17 per cent); astrological signs (12 per cent); and other (3 per cent). Common examples included ant activity, owl hooting, and the toad grasshopper, all believed to signal rainfall patterns. Table\\u00a01 presents a district\\u2010wise disaggregation of these 241 unique indicators. Animal\\u2010based signs were consistently dominant across all four disaster\\u2010prone districts, with Balaka recording the highest count (29). Plant\\u2010based indicators were also widely cited, while astrological signs, such as lunar positioning or ancestral messages in dreams, were most commonly reported in Chikwawa and Balaka. Frequent cases cited were, inter alia, ant activity, owl hooting, and the toad grasshopper, all believed to signal rainfall patterns.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-tbl-0002\"], \"section\": \"Summary of emergent themes across study sites\", \"text\": \"The preceding subsections have presented detailed narratives on thematic areas emerging from the field data. To enhance clarity and support comparative analysis, Table\\u00a02 summarises the most frequently reported themes, based on frequency across study sites and triangulated participant narratives.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0007\", \"disa70028-bib-0044\", \"disa70028-bib-0030\", \"disa70028-bib-0029\", \"disa70028-bib-0022\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic tensions in legitimising disaster knowledge\", \"text\": \"The declining use of IK in early warning systems in Malawi is not merely a reflection of changing environmental conditions or community preferences; rather, it reflects deeper epistemic tensions over how knowledge is legitimised within disaster governance. As Fricker (2007) argues, epistemic injustice arises when certain knowledge systems are systematically excluded from institutional decision\\u2010making processes, not because they are inherently flawed, but because they do not align with dominant notions of credibility, objectivity, or measurability. The privileging of scientific forecasts over IK in Malawi follows this pattern, with formal disaster institutions implicitly framing knowledge legitimacy using a technocratic lens. This dynamic has been widely documented in disaster studies, where the formalisation of risk governance often privileges scientific epistemologies at the expense of local knowledge systems (Shaw, Sharma, and Takeuchi,\\u00a02009; Mercer et al.,\\u00a02009, 2010; Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard,\\u00a02012).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0018\", \"disa70028-bib-0019\", \"disa70028-bib-0007\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic tensions in legitimising disaster knowledge\", \"text\": \"Evidence from this study supports the claim. Community members frequently reported that their traditional indicators, such as the behaviour of birds, the flowering of trees, or the direction of wind, were dismissed by younger generations and officials alike as \\u2018zamakolo\\u2019. As one elderly man in Chikwawa put it: \\u2018Nowadays, if you say the rains will come because the mangoes are flowering, they just laugh at you. They want to hear it on the radio\\u2019. This perception reflects not only generational shifts but also a broader discursive devaluation of IK that parallels global patterns of epistemic exclusion (Jasanoff,\\u00a02003, 2004; Fricker,\\u00a02007).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0016\", \"disa70028-bib-0032\", \"disa70028-bib-0047\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic tensions in legitimising disaster knowledge\", \"text\": \"The erosion of IK legitimacy is further reinforced by the structure of formal early warning systems, which are designed to favour standardised, quantifiable, and externally verifiable indicators. Studies from other African and Asian contexts have similarly found that such systems are poorly suited to capturing the contextual and experiential nature of IK (Iloka,\\u00a02016; Mistry and Berardi,\\u00a02016; Trogrli\\u0107 et al.,\\u00a02019). Scientific systems in Malawi, often donor\\u2010funded and based on rainfall thresholds, satellite data, or probabilistic forecasting, are considered more reliable by institutions precisely because they conform to these global metrics of validity. Yet, these systems are not infallible: they often face sustainability challenges, delays in dissemination, and limited community uptake. Despite these weaknesses, the institutional bias towards science as authority persists, crowding out other epistemologies that may be more context\\u2010specific, accessible, and socially resonant.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0017\", \"disa70028-bib-0005\", \"disa70028-bib-0018\"], \"section\": \"Epistemic tensions in legitimising disaster knowledge\", \"text\": \"The study findings thus reveal an epistemic paradox: IK is devalued even as its potential contributions, particularly in areas where scientific coverage is limited, are most needed. Similar conclusions have been drawn in recent comparative research that documents how IK can fill spatial and institutional gaps in early warning coverage, especially in marginalised or remote communities (Iticha and Husen,\\u00a02019; Cuaton and Su,\\u00a02020). This aligns with Jasanoff's (2003) concept of \\u2018technologies of hubris\\u2019, in which formal science is assumed to be superior and self\\u2010sufficient, despite empirical evidence of its limitations in uncertain and resource\\u2010constrained settings. A co\\u2010productionist lens offers an alternative: instead of treating scientific and indigenous systems as competing or hierarchically ordered, it recognises that both are socially constructed and shaped by institutional values, power relations, and histories of knowledge production.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0007\"], \"section\": \"Institutional pathways of marginalisation and symbolic inclusion\", \"text\": \"While IK continues to be referenced in national disaster policy frameworks and NGO programming in Malawi, its institutional inclusion remains largely symbolic. As the study findings reveal, references to IK in disaster preparedness strategies are frequently superficial, and invoked rhetorically to signal community participation or cultural sensitivity, but rarely accompanied by operational mechanisms for validation, funding, or integration. This pattern reflects Fricker's (2007) concept of epistemic injustice: situations in which individuals or groups are wronged in their capacity as knowers. In the case of IK, this often occurs not through overt exclusion but through superficial inclusion that fails to alter dominant institutional logics.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0034\"], \"section\": \"Institutional pathways of marginalisation and symbolic inclusion\", \"text\": \"Interviewees noted that government and NGO\\u2010led interventions regularly acknowledged traditional indicators during project inception or consultation phases but failed to follow up on this during implementation. As one district officer underscored: \\u2018We talk about IK during community entry, but when it comes to planning, we focus on the scientific data from the Department of Climate Change and Meteorological Services\\u2019. This mirrors findings from Chikwawa District, where IK is routinely referenced in consultations but rarely integrated into formal DRR activities or early warning systems (Mwalwimba, Manda, and Ngongondo,\\u00a02024). This reveals a dual knowledge hierarchy: IK is consulted but not trusted, documented but not acted upon.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0001\", \"disa70028-bib-0031\", \"disa70028-bib-0024\"], \"section\": \"Institutional pathways of marginalisation and symbolic inclusion\", \"text\": \"These dynamics are closely linked to the donor\\u2010driven architecture of DRR in Malawi. Most scientific early warning systems, such as river gauges or rainfall thresholds, are externally financed, often tied to specific reporting templates, logframes, and quantitative metrics. These instruments favour standardised data that can demonstrate impact to donors and align with global indicators. IK, by contrast, is relational, contextual, and not easily captured by quantitative benchmarks (Agrawal,\\u00a01995; Mistry,\\u00a02009). As a result, institutions often overlook it, not because it lacks value, but because it resists institutional logics of audit, attribution, and scalability (Leach, Scoones, and Wynne,\\u00a02005).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0019\"], \"section\": \"Institutional pathways of marginalisation and symbolic inclusion\", \"text\": \"This marginalisation is further entrenched by the institutional silos between traditional authorities and formal governance structures. In the districts studied, traditional leaders were identified as key custodians of IK, yet their involvement in DRR decision\\u2010making was limited to ceremonial or reactive roles. The broader governance architecture, which is structured around ministerial mandates, climate science inputs, and donor\\u2010financed tools, provides few entry points for sustained use of community\\u2010generated knowledge. As Jasanoff (2004) emphasises in her co\\u2010production framework, knowledge systems are embedded in, and constitutive of, institutional practices. Without institutional transformation, the inclusion of IK is likely to remain tokenistic.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0001\", \"disa70028-bib-0031\"], \"section\": \"Institutional pathways of marginalisation and symbolic inclusion\", \"text\": \"Moreover, when IK is documented, typically in NGO field reports or policy annexes, it is often stripped of its sociocultural context. As several respondents pointed out: \\u2018You can write about these things, but they will not mean anything unless you see how they work in practice\\u2019. This detachment reflects a deeper ontological tension: IK is performative, embodied, and experiential, while institutions seek to render it legible through static documentation (Agrawal,\\u00a01995; Mistry,\\u00a02009). Such documentation, while useful, risks transforming dynamic knowledge into inert data, which is easily dismissed or instrumentalised.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0008\", \"disa70028-bib-0009\"], \"section\": \"Community disengagement, youth, and religious norms as epistemic forces\", \"text\": \"One of the most striking observations from the field was the hesitancy among elders\\u2014once the primary custodians of IK\\u2014to pass on their knowledge. Respondents frequently mentioned that youth perceive IK as \\u2018zamakolo\\u2019 (ancestral or outdated) or even laughable. This shift is not merely a generational gap, but also an epistemic fracture. As Fricker\\u00a0(2012, 2013) argues, knowledge legitimacy is not just a matter of content but also of authority: who is seen as a credible knowledge\\u2010holder and under what conditions. In this case, age and tradition no longer guarantee epistemic authority. Instead, knowledge linked to technology, formal education, or external sources increasingly holds sway.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0018\", \"disa70028-bib-0047\", \"disa70028-bib-0041\"], \"section\": \"Community disengagement, youth, and religious norms as epistemic forces\", \"text\": \"The reasons for youth disengagement are complex. Rising literacy, digital access, and exposure to global media have reshaped what is seen as \\u2018valid\\u2019 or \\u2018modern\\u2019 knowledge. Scientific forecasts delivered via radio, WhatsApp, or SMS (Short Message Service) are perceived as more accurate and trustworthy, even when such systems are patchy or unreliable. This mirrors the knowledge hierarchies described by Jasanoff (2003), wherein \\u2018technologies of hubris\\u2019\\u2014those claiming precision and scientific certainty\\u2014displace \\u2018technologies of humility\\u2019\\u2014those embedded in local context and social memory. Similar generational shifts are documented by Trogrli\\u0107 et al. (2019) and Phalira et al. (2022), who observe that younger Malawians increasingly associate credibility with digital or institutional sources rather than ancestral knowledge.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0024\", \"disa70028-bib-0006\", \"disa70028-bib-0033\"], \"section\": \"Community disengagement, youth, and religious norms as epistemic forces\", \"text\": \"Religion also emerged as a powerful epistemic force. Christianisation in many rural areas has redefined traditional rituals, with some religious leaders actively discouraging the use or even discussion of IK, labelling it as pagan or spiritually dangerous. Practices such as rainmaking ceremonies or interpretations of animal behaviour have been delegitimised within the moral and theological frameworks of modern Christianity. Leach, Scoones, and Wynne (2005) highlight the contested nature of knowledge in governance, where multiple systems vie for authority within shared decision\\u2010making spaces. In the context of disaster knowledge, such epistemic contestation extends beyond science versus IK to include tensions between IK and emergent religious or cultural epistemologies. Importantly, this is not merely a conflict between science and IK, but also between IK and newer forms of cultural power. Dekens (2007) and Mutasa (2015) similarly trace the erosion of traditional ecological knowledge to Christian moral reform and the enduring influence of colonial legacies in DRR.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0022\", \"disa70028-bib-0005\"], \"section\": \"Community disengagement, youth, and religious norms as epistemic forces\", \"text\": \"Even within communities, knowledge systems are contested. Participants cited conflicting interpretations of the same environmental indicators, such as whether a particular type of wind signifies early or late rains. These contradictions weaken the perceived reliability of IK and further reduce its traction, especially among younger or more formally educated community members. In epistemological terms, such intra\\u2010community variation undermines the social cohesion needed for knowledge validation and transmission (Kelman, Mercer, and Gaillard,\\u00a02012; Cuaton and Su,\\u00a02020).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0018\", \"disa70028-bib-0019\"], \"section\": \"Community disengagement, youth, and religious norms as epistemic forces\", \"text\": \"These findings complicate the notion of \\u2018community\\u2010based knowledge\\u2019 as a homogenous or stable category. Instead, they point to what Jasanoff\\u00a0(2003, 2004) might call fragmented co\\u2010production: a condition where different forms of knowledge co\\u2010exist, conflict, and evolve within overlapping fields of social, cultural, and institutional influence. IK is not disappearing solely because of external suppression; it is also being selectively devalued or displaced from within, through shifting cultural aspirations and everyday epistemic choices.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0019\", \"disa70028-bib-0024\"], \"section\": \"Beyond integration: toward knowledge pluralism in DRR\", \"text\": \"Knowledge pluralism, as articulated by Jasanoff (2004) and Leach, Scoones, and Wynne (2005), is not about blending knowledge systems into a single coherent framework; instead, it requires recognising the distinct ontologies, values, and institutional contexts within which different knowledge systems operate. In other words, IK and scientific forecasting are not interchangeable or reducible to a common metric of accuracy. They are produced, legitimised, and deployed in fundamentally different ways, with different assumptions about risk, causality, and appropriate response.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0020\", \"disa70028-bib-0034\"], \"section\": \"Beyond integration: toward knowledge pluralism in DRR\", \"text\": \"In Malawi, attempts at \\u2018integration\\u2019 often manifest as symbolic inclusion: IK is mentioned in strategy documents or workshops but sidelined in operational plans and funding flows. This resonates with what Jasanoff (2005) refers to as civic epistemologies: the culturally\\u2010specific ways in which societies validate and institutionalise knowledge. In Malawi's disaster governance, civic epistemologies continue to favour scientific over indigenous systems, especially under donor influence, creating hierarchies that are difficult to dismantle. As one development partner remarked: \\u2018No donor will give you funds because people are seeing ants in this area\\u2019. Such views reveal how dominant funding architectures create structural incentives that reinforce epistemic exclusion. This pattern is echoed by Mwalwimba, Manda, and Ngongondo (2024), who observe that although communities in Chikwawa actively apply IK to anticipate seasonal and flood\\u2010related hazards, district\\u2010level DRR actors rarely provide institutional recognition, resources, or formal mechanisms to support its integration.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0002\", \"disa70028-bib-0007\", \"disa70028-bib-0001\", \"disa70028-bib-0031\"], \"section\": \"Beyond integration: toward knowledge pluralism in DRR\", \"text\": \"This also entails recognising the risks of epistemic extractivism, where IK is appropriated for its instrumental value, such as to improve forecasts, without respecting the cultural, relational, or spiritual systems that sustain it (Alcoff,\\u00a02022). Such practices reflect Fricker's (2007) epistemic injustice, where individuals or groups are wronged in their capacity as knowers, often through credibility deficits or testimonial exclusion\\u2014dynamics that parallel the marginalisation of IK within disaster governance. These concerns resonate with earlier critiques by Agrawal (1995) and Mistry (2009), who caution against isolating knowledge from its sociocultural foundations. Protecting IK, therefore, means protecting the contexts and communities in which it is embedded.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12661919\", \"pmid\": \"41313014\", \"reference_ids\": [\"disa70028-bib-0033\", \"disa70028-bib-0005\"], \"section\": \"Beyond integration: toward knowledge pluralism in DRR\", \"text\": \"Crucially, this study suggests that IK's value may lie not only in its predictive function but also in its capacity to foster localised forms of resilience, through practices, rituals, and narratives that sustain social cohesion and memory. These are qualities that scientific systems often lack, especially in settings where infrastructure is weak and trust in institutions is fragile. Recognising this broader role of IK requires a paradigm shift: from integrating knowledge systems to enabling dialogue between them, with mutual respect for their distinct logics and limitations. Such perspectives are echoed in the work of Mutasa (2015) and Cuaton and Su (2020), who highlight how rituals and practices linked to IK sustain cohesion and memory during crises.\"}]"

Metadata

"{}"