Why plural knowledge(s) matters for climate-related decision-making

Addressing the climate crisis while ensuring just processes and outcomes in decision-making requires an integrative approach recognizing ecological and social processes as highly complex and dynamic. This approach needs to transcend a single dominant view with its underlying values and paradigms, e.g., by eliciting, recognizing and integrating diverse actors’ kinds of knowledge(s) [1]. This should be driven, inter alia, by the aspiration of pluralising the way we think and, ultimately, make decisions.

We are writing this opinion piece as researchers drawing on participatory methods to bring together different institutional and community actors for informed climate decision-making in diverse socio-ecological systems. The goal of those participatory processes is the creation of plural and intersectional knowledge(s) much more attentive to structural injustices that should build the base for decision-making.

Here, we follow an intuitive understanding of knowledge as applied in most cultures and traditions, namely as what is considered “truth”. As there is no one single truth, knowledge pluralism in decision making matters. That is, we need to recognize diverse ways of knowing and epistemologies as equally able to generate valid claims about reality and understandings of well-being [2]. However, when trying to integrate different knowledge types, such as technical knowledge - as mostly used for territorial climate planning - and practice-based knowledge - originated among community traditions and practices - in decision-making, we often face an epistemic imbalance that limits the scope of actionable and just climate solutions. This risks biased decisions and an increasing marginalization of especially those communities most vulnerable to climate change impacts [3].

For plural knowledge(s) to inform decision-making processes, they need to be perceived as credible, salient and legitimate by relevant actors. Knowledge(s) can then be called (i) credible, when technical arguments and evidence are perceived as aligned or coherent, or else said, believable and trustable; (ii) salient, when actors see knowledge as relevant and timely for decision-making; (iii) legitimate, when their creation has been perceived as “fair” and built upon commonly accepted values, paradigms and the plural perspectives of different actors [4].

We see our role as transdisciplinary researchers in facilitating spaces for the co-creation of plural knowledge(s) that are perceived credible, salient, and legitimate by a broad range of actor groups, including both institutional actors and communities. Yet, in practice, we encounter limiting institutional structures that hinder the flexibility, creativity, and time needed for meaningful knowledge co-generation, and that consequently challenge the engagement and integration of diverse knowledge(s) into decision-making. We argue that recognizing and addressing these institutional barriers is critical for fostering epistemic justice to overcome structural inequities that determine whose knowledge is valued and who holds power over and within climate decision-making processes.

Technocratic institutional structures determine knowledge prioritization

Institutional structures are often seen by both institutional and non-institutional actors as highly bureaucratic and technocratic. That is, they tend to prioritise standardised indicators and efficiency metrics over process-oriented participatory engagement [5]. This can result in complex multi-level funding structures and reporting requirements, which ultimately favor a predominance of technical or expert knowledge, aiming for quick, pragmatic and solution-oriented policies and climate action while leaving only few resources for a meaningful actor engagement [6]. Consequently, other forms of knowledge, such as traditional (created and preserved across generations), local (developed individually or by communities through prolonged interactions with the local environment) or experiential (derived by personal or collective experience outside a structured learning process) [7], can be disregarded due to perceptions of low salience.

Unequal power dynamics and co-optation practices on actor trust

As a consequence of these rigid technocratic institutional structures, we observe a tendency of institutionally-designed participatory processes that can convert into procedural checkboxes rather than platforms for meaningful engagement – intentionally or unintentionally [8]. This tendency poses an enormous risk towards a long-term meaningful creation and integration of plural knowledge(s) into decision making, as it may undermine deliberation and reinforce power imbalances, leading to de-contextualised decisions. When engaging community actors in decision processes, we can encounter increasing perceptions of tokenist participatory processes in institutionally controlled spaces seemingly used to legitimize predetermined decisions [6]. Even when including diverse or confrontational actors, these processes may co-opt their time and energy—diverting opposition rather than enabling meaningful participation [9].

Despite the appearance of inclusion, these dynamics frequently reproduce injustices, as decisions are not transparently co-shaped, but framed and ultimately decided by dominant actors. In the long run, diverging expectations around “true” participation—where actors actively shape decisions—can lead to frustration and mistrust, both for community and institutional actors. Communities may feel unheard, while institutional actors may perceive participatory spaces as arenas of complaint and confrontation [10]. These dynamics erode trust in participatory mechanisms, undermining legitimacy and reducing motivation to include diverse knowledge(s). This challenges the legitimacy of the decision-making process and reinforces distrust in institutional participatory mechanisms, reducing in turn the willingness and motivation of institutional actors to include diverse knowledge.

Moving beyond these challenges

Rather than proposing definitive solutions, we advocate for deliberative, context-sensitive approaches to consider diverse knowledge(s) in decision processes. Transdisciplinary science can help foster long-term, trust-based relationships between institutional and community actors to enhance the legitimacy and impact of climate governance [11]. However, we as researchers are urged to set clear expectations, acknowledge the limited time and capacities of the diverse actor groups we engage with, and be honest about the challenges of transdisciplinary collaboration [12].

Given the increasing number of calls for transdisciplinary research, institutions are often expected to engage in multiple participatory processes simultaneously. This can lead to overstretched capacities and participation fatigue [13]. To support meaningful collaboration and genuine engagement, researchers need to communicate transparently, coordinate efforts, build on existing participatory spaces where possible, and limit invitations to well-planned processes [14]. In addition, ensuring that participants receive feedback and remain actively engaged in the outcomes of plural knowledge creation is essential to maintaining trust and legitimacy [15].

As a step toward overcoming these persistent barriers, we summarize a non-exhaustive set of questions that may support reflection and more meaningful and just plural knowledge(s) in practice (Fig 1). These are not definitive prescriptions, but reflections drawn from transdisciplinary collaboration intent to inform future participatory and inclusive efforts in climate-related decision-making. Ultimately, advancing just and inclusive climate decision-making processes and spaces demands a fundamental shift in how knowledge is valued, negotiated, and embedded in policy frameworks—supported by sustained dialogue and reflexive practice.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Structural challenges and suggested questions for tackling them and supporting the meaningful creation and integration of plural knowledge(s) into climate decision-making.

The challenges and questions presented are intended to be illustrative and do not constitute an exhaustive list.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000658.g001

Acknowledgments

This opinion piece has been co-authored equally. Authors are listed in alphabetical order. We thank the multiple actors engaged in our participatory and transdisciplinary research for insightful discussion and learning.