Climate change and biodiversity loss require us to base our decisions on the best possible knowledge. Yet a new study conducted by Dr. Roxana Roos at the University of Bergen shows that valuable knowledge about local nature and climate conditions often does not become part of the decision-making basis.
The study is based on interviews with residents and planners in Northern Norway and examines how local, professional and scientific knowledge meet in municipal planning processes. The problem is not necessarily that local knowledge is lacking. The challenge is that society does not always manage to recognize, value and combine different forms of knowledge.

Knowledge that does not get through
Imagine a municipality planning a new development area. Experts and other professionals provide climate data, nature maps and other relevant knowledge. At the same time, local residents know where the stream overflows its banks after heavy rain, which areas dry out in summer, and where important nature values have changed over time.
The example illustrates a fundamental challenge: when municipalities plan new residential areas, cabin areas or other land-use interventions, it is not enough to base decisions on maps, models, expert reports and public databases. People who have used the area over a long period may have knowledge about flood paths, erosion, vegetation changes or natural values that is not found in existing documentation.
Such observations are often held by those who use nature in their work or leisure time – fishermen, farmers, mountain guides, berry pickers, hunters and reindeer-herding Sami. Yet this knowledge often does not become part of the decision-making basis.
When important knowledge does not come to light, decisions on land use, climate adaptation and nature management can become less accurate and robust than they could have been.

An unexpected finding
Through 75 interviews in Northern Norway, the study documents that local people hold knowledge that can be directly relevant to municipal planning and environmentally sustainable development. This is knowledge about local conditions over time, but it rarely finds a place in municipal land-use planning processes.
This is not only about institutions keeping local knowledge out. The study shows a form of what Roos calls «internalized epistemic marginalization»; that people underestimate their own knowledge and experience because they perceive scientific expertise as the only knowledge that truly counts. Many assume that local knowledge is overlooked because institutions do not ask for it. The study shows that the picture is more complex.
"I expected to find that local knowledge was primarily kept out by institutions. What surprised me was that many of the participants also underestimated the value of their own knowledge and observations related to local climate, environment and biodiversity. They often perceived their own knowledge as less relevant than scientific documentation», says Roxana Roos.
To explain why this happens, the study introduces the concept of «epistemic literacy for sustainable development». The concept describes a competence that both individuals and institutions need: the ability to recognize, assess, and combine different forms of knowledge when solving complex challenges related to nature, climate, and sustainability. It is not about acquiring more knowledge, but about becoming better at mobilizing and using the knowledge that already exists among residents, including those without an academic background.

A practical tool for municipalities
The study does more than simply explain the problem. To make «epistemic literacy» applicable in practice, the study develops a four-step approach. The aim is to give municipalities and other decision-makers a practical tool for systematically identifying, assessing and using both local and scientific knowledge.
This practical tool is built around four simple questions:
-What knowledge do the decisions already rest on?
-Who might hold other relevant knowledge, and what (often less well-known) forms of knowledge could they contribute?
-How can different forms of knowledge complement each other to find more sustainable solutions?
-How can these types of knowledge actually become part of the decision?
The approach emphasizes that knowledge must enter the planning process itself, not merely be collected along the way. The four-step approach can help planners identify these types of knowledge, assess them alongside other types of knowledge, such as scientific or discipline-specific knowledge, and use them systematically in the decision-making process.
Although the study takes municipal planning in Northern Norway as its starting point, the findings point to a broader societal challenge. When society has to deal with complex climate and environmental challenges, the question is not only how much knowledge we have, but which knowledge we are able to see, value and use.

About the study:
Roos, Roxana (2026) Mobilization of indigenous and local knowledge in science for policy requires epistemic literacy: The case of sustainable municipal development in the Norwegian Arctic.
Environmental Science & Policy. Volume 183: 104460 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104460

-Published in the journal Environmental Science & Policy
-Part of the international research project CLIMArcTIC (From regional to global impacts of climate change in the Arctic: an interdisciplinary perspective)
-Method and scope: 75 semi-structured interviews with residents in three counties in Northern Norway – Nordland, Troms and Finnmark.
-Sample: interviewees were between 26 and 85 years old, with a wide range of occupations and backgrounds.
-Funding: The study is funded by the French research council ANR through «France 2030» (project number ANR-22-POCE-0005)