Defining and valuing local, indigenous, and experiential knowledge

Place-based climate adaptation refers to strategies tailored to a region’s specific social, cultural, ecological, and economic conditions [5], an approach that gives communities a stronger voice in shaping their own climate response and tends to be more durable when grounded in local values and histories [6,15,16]. In Atlantic Canada, federal programs such as the $41-million Climate-Resilient Coastal Communities (CRCC) initiative (2023–2028) reflect a growing institutional commitment to this approach [17].

Local knowledge is commonly distinguished into three overlapping forms. Local knowledge proper refers to the practical, experiential understanding residents develop from living in a place over time - the observations of fishers noticing shifts in species distribution or farmers adjusting to new weather patterns [6,18]. Indigenous knowledge, shared by First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples, offers a longer-term, holistic understanding rooted in the interconnection of land, water, and community; Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in particular reflects generations of observation of seasonal change, animal behaviour, and land management [19]. The concept of “Two-Eyed Seeing,” introduced by Mi'kmaq Elder Albert Marshall, calls for weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing together rather than treating them as competing [20] - an approach reflected in the use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in permafrost monitoring and sea-ice safety in Inuit Nunangat [21]. Experiential knowledge, distinct from either, captures how people understand and cope with climate impacts as they are lived, for instance, the documented link between repeated storm damage and mental health strain in rural Atlantic communities [22,23]. These knowledge forms are increasingly being recognized in national policy, including Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy (2023) and the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (2018), and in comparable international contexts, community-led adaptation in South Africa [24] and knowledge-informed crop and migration decisions in Bangladesh [1] both demonstrate the broader case the [25]. Even though national policies recognize these knowledge forms, this does not mean it is always put into practice. This presents a gap this study sought to directly investigate.

Integration, barriers, and enablers

Even where local and Indigenous knowledge is valued in principle, its integration into formal adaptation planning remains uneven and often informal [26,27]. Rather than being embedded into official risk assessments or infrastructure design, it is normally limited to one-off consultations that rarely translate into durable institutional mechanisms [28]. Meaningful integration requires treating communities as co-producers of knowledge rather than sources of input alone [29,30]. This model is already visible in Nova Scotia, where community-led vulnerability assessments have identified flooding hotspots using local narratives and historical memory that predate official floodplain maps [31], and in Newfoundland, where Indigenous-led land-use planning has combined traditional knowledge with remote sensing to monitor permafrost degradation and shoreline change [22].

The literature identifies a consistent set of barriers to this kind of integration: a structural preference among institutions for quantitative, technical data over experiential or narrative knowledge [29,32]; fragmented governance capacity, particularly in small municipalities without dedicated climate staff [33,34]; short-term, project-based funding that causes momentum and knowledge to be lost once initial grants end [35]; and, for Indigenous communities specifically, a legacy of exclusion and mistrust that makes sharing sensitive knowledge contingent on sustained, respectful relationships rather than one-time consultation [36,37]. Enabling factors run in the opposite direction. Knowledge brokers who connect community perspectives with formal decision-making [18,38], community champions who drive local uptake [4], and multi-sector partnerships, such as those supported by the $75-million Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program (2017–2022), have each been shown to help translate knowledge into action. However, collaboration alone is insufficient: the design of funding and policy instruments determines whether that knowledge is actually used, since standardized reporting requirements and infrastructure-first funding criteria can unintentionally exclude qualitative or relational knowledge [39,40]. Researchers increasingly call for policy models, including Two-Eyed Seeing [20], that let communities define adaptation success in their own terms [23,41].

Conceptual framework: From recognition to use

Building on this literature, this study understands the translation of local knowledge into adaptation action as a three-stage process: recognition, valuing, and use [19,42]. Recognition is the acknowledgment of local knowledge as a valid source of environmental information, whether generated internally by communities or granted externally by institutions [19]. Valuing goes further, giving that knowledge real influence over the priorities and design of adaptation plans, typically through participatory or co-management arrangements that treat community knowledge as equal in standing to technical data [30]. Use is the application of that knowledge, alongside scientific tools, to concrete planning decisions, such as combining elders’ memories of past shoreline positions with geospatial mapping. Table 1 summarizes the key concepts, literature, and Atlantic Canadian evidence underpinning this framework.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Summary of Key Concepts and Evidence from the Literature on Place-Based Climate Adaptation in Atlantic Canada and Beyond.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000291.t001

Conceptual framework for integrating local knowledge into place-based adaptation

Fig 1 illustrates the three-stage process. As detailed below, whether a community moves successfully through all three stages depends on the same barriers and enablers just discussed: institutional capacity, funding structure, and the strength of underlying partnerships.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Submitted as a separate file per journal requirements.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000291.g001

Relevance of the socio-ecological systems (SES) framework

This study is guided by the Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework [44], which understands communities as embedded within interconnected social, institutional, and ecological systems rather than as isolated units of adaptation. The framework is well suited to this study because it foregrounds exactly the relationships this paper investigates: how local knowledge interacts with governance structures, funding systems, and environmental change to shape adaptation outcomes [45,46]. Alternative frameworks were considered; for instance, political ecology offers useful tools for analyzing power and exclusion [47] but attends less to ecological dynamics; adaptive management centres learning-by-doing but says less about institutional barriers [45], but SES was selected for its capacity to hold governance, funding, and ecological context together within a single analytic frame.

Gaps in the literature

Despite growing scholarly attention to climate adaptation in Canada, research on how local knowledge is translated into formal adaptation planning remains fragmented in three specific ways. First, most existing studies treat Indigenous knowledge and municipal/institutional adaptation planning as separate literatures rather than examining their intersection. Dorji et al.’s [48] systematic review of 71 studies on Indigenous knowledge and climate adaptation found that the large majority of this literature documents Indigenous knowledge’s (IK) content - what communities know and how they observe change - while comparatively little examines how that knowledge is, or is not, taken up by formal planning institutions. Ciocco et al. [49] make a related point from the practitioner side: even well-resourced, deliberately designed efforts to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into adaptation planning encounter persistent operational barriers around engagement depth, institutional recognition, and whose knowledge counts as valid evidence. This mismatch between what communities know and what formal planning processes are able to use is well documented conceptually [27,29] but rarely examined empirically in the Atlantic Canadian context specifically.

Second, the evidence base on Indigenous and local knowledge in adaptation is geographically uneven. Petzold et al.’s [13] global evidence map of the academic literature found that research on Indigenous knowledge and adaptation clusters heavily in a small number of regions and knowledge domains, leaving many jurisdictions, including much of Atlantic Canada, comparatively understudied relative to the scale of climate risk communities there face. This is despite the fact that Atlantic Canadian communities, as noted above, are already experiencing measurable climate impacts [2,3]. Third, where the literature does address the process of incorporating local and Indigenous knowledge into adaptation planning, it tends to focus on the conceptual case for co-production rather than the governance conditions that make co-production possible in practice. Latulippe and Klenk [50] argue that meaningful co-production requires redistributing decision-making authority, not simply inviting participation - a distinction with direct implications for how funding structures, policy frameworks, and institutional partnerships either support or undermine local knowledge use. Existing research on adaptation funding and governance [33,40] documents the structural barriers smaller and rural communities face, but rarely connects these funding and governance barriers explicitly back to the fate of local and Indigenous knowledge within the resulting adaptation plans.

These gaps - the limited research on how Indigenous knowledge is included in formal planning, the lack of studies from Atlantic Canada, and the weak connection between research on governance and funding and research on putting knowledge into practice - shape this study. It focuses on how funding, governance, and partnerships influence whether local knowledge is turned into climate adaptation action.

Ethics statement

This study received ethical approval from the Grenfell Campus Research Ethics Board, and the research adhered to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS 2) on ethical conduct for research involving humans [Certificate #: 20241732]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before the interviews, with confidentiality maintained through the use of pseudonyms and the option to withdraw from the study at any point. The research design incorporated flexible participation methods to overcome geographical distances and make participation more inclusive. Participants provided either written or verbal informed consent before participating in the study. Verbal informed consent was obtained for interviews conducted via Zoom or telephone, as approved by the research ethics board.

This study is part of a larger research project that examines the role of multiple actors and collaborative governance in financing climate change adaptation and mitigation in Atlantic Canada. In particular, this study looks at how local knowledge is translated into climate action at the community level. It also examines the role of funding and support from philanthropic organizations and institutions in helping these efforts succeed. The research connects what is happening in local communities to bigger questions about governance, funding, and policy across the region. The study is guided by the Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) Framework, which helps explain how social systems, government structures, and environmental processes interact and influence each other [47]. The research is informed by a constructivist and interpretivist paradigm, recognizing that climate adaptation is understood and enacted through diverse actors’ lived experiences, perspectives, and values. Rather than assuming a single objective reality, this approach prioritizes the co-production of knowledge, valuing scientific expertise and local, Indigenous, and experiential insights [51]. The SES framework complements this paradigm by enabling the examination of feedback loops, cross-scale interactions, and the enabling or constraining conditions that influence how local knowledge is mobilized.

A qualitative case study approach [52] enabled an in-depth, contextually rich examination of these dynamics. The Nova Scotia and Newfoundland provinces were selected as focal cases due to their high exposure to climate-related risks and their diverse composition of rural, coastal, Indigenous, and urban communities. Data were collected using two complementary qualitative methods: semi-structured interviews and participant observation. Semi-structured interviews served as the primary method, offering in-depth insights into how diverse stakeholders define, value, and apply local knowledge in climate adaptation. Participants were recruited using a combination of purposive [53] and snowball sampling strategies [54]. Purposive sampling was employed initially to identify individuals with direct experience in climate adaptation planning, funding, or implementation, ensuring representation from key stakeholder groups, including municipal officials, philanthropic funders, NGO leaders, Indigenous representatives, and community organizers. Snowball sampling was subsequently used to broaden the range of perspectives, particularly from less-visible or marginalized actors. In total, 22 participants were interviewed, with data collection continuing until thematic saturation was reached [55].

Participant observation was conducted at a regional climate adaptation event in Nova Scotia. This provided an opportunity to observe real-time interactions among funders, policymakers, and community members. These observations offered valuable insights into the informal norms, relationship-building practices, and negotiation processes that underpin collaboration and knowledge exchange within social-ecological systems (SES) contexts. Notes were taken during the event, capturing both the content of formal presentations and the dynamics of informal interactions, and were later expanded into detailed observational memos and integrated into the broader thematic analysis.

All interviews were audio-recorded with informed consent, transcribed verbatim, anonymized, and self-coded by the researcher. Data analysis followed an inductive thematic approach [56], allowing themes to emerge from the data rather than being imposed in advance. Initial open coding generated descriptive categories (e.g., “funding access,” “policy support,” “barriers to collaboration”), which were subsequently organized into broader themes aligned with components of the social-ecological systems (SES) framework, such as governance systems, actor networks, and resource systems. The integration of interview data with insights from participant observation supported identifying key patterns, cross-scale linkages, and feedback mechanisms within the adaptation system.

Recognizing, valuing, and integrating local knowledge

Participants consistently described local knowledge, which encompasses oral histories, lived experience, cultural narratives, and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), as central to how communities in Atlantic Canada respond to climate change. This knowledge was not seen as a fixed archive of information but as a dynamic, evolving resource, continually shaped through dialogue, lived practice, and intergenerational exchange. As one participant explained, “It is very much grassroots. It is not us telling communities what they need to be doing; it is communities receiving support and encouragement for what they are already doing and what they want to do.”

Storytelling and oral histories emerged as central vehicles for preserving and transmitting knowledge across generations. One participant from a community-based environmental group observed, “We do a lot of public education... [local producers] teach individuals the skills so they can take that and apply it in their own home or community garden.” Practical experience was also highly valued. A land trust representative reflected, “People have lived here for a long time... focusing on areas like old growth forest or undeveloped coastlines is really valuable.” Cultural traditions and narratives similarly play a significant role in shaping adaptation priorities, with one participant describing funding for “arts communication projects... [and] museums and historical sites experiencing shoreline erosion” to preserve community identity in the face of climate-related challenges. TEK was particularly significant in Indigenous communities, where adaptation practices were deeply rooted in “generations of families” and a “strong sense of being a survivor.” In practice, local knowledge has been integrated into some communities’ adaptation planning through various activities. For instance, in one municipality, “eight community consultation sessions... about climate adaptation” directly informed local plans, ensuring that residents’ lived experiences shaped strategic decisions. Some communities used arts-based initiatives to make adaptation relatable and emotionally resonant. At the same time, project designs, such as living shorelines and regenerative agriculture, drew directly on TEK and longstanding local practices. These examples demonstrate that grassroots efforts support tangible climate actions, strengthen social cohesion, and empower communities to take ownership of adaptation processes.

The findings show that communities in Atlantic Canada understand local knowledge as a mix of practical experience, cultural traditions, and long-term familiarity with local environments. This understanding supports previous research, such as Naess [6], which argues that successful adaptation relies on knowledge that reflects each place's unique social, cultural, and economic context. The SES framework helps to interpret these findings by placing local knowledge within a broader system of relationships and structures. According to Ostrom [44], communities are part of larger social and ecological systems that include different actors, governance arrangements, and resource flows; their capacity to adapt depends on their knowledge and how they connect with other parts of that system, such as municipal governments, funding programs, and provincial or federal agencies [45]. For example, a community may have strong local knowledge about changing weather patterns, but without institutional support or funding, it may struggle to turn that knowledge into action. At the same time, when communities can build strong relationships with government bodies or collaborate with outside organizations, they are often better positioned to use their knowledge in meaningful ways [12].

Storytelling and arts-based engagement in Atlantic Canadian communities reflect global examples of narrative-driven climate adaptation [57] and are consistent with participatory action research, which emphasizes the co-production of knowledge and supports community leadership in adaptation planning [12]. However, the reliance on community-driven initiatives points to a structural gap: without formal institutional frameworks to systematically integrate local knowledge into policy and planning, such practices may remain localized and lack scalability [12]. Furthermore, while TEK was highly valued in specific contexts, its marginalization in others reflects ongoing challenges in achieving equitable inclusion, an issue consistently noted in Canadian and global adaptation literature. The results indicate that when communities have the autonomy, resources, and collaborative relationships to center local knowledge, adaptation strategies become more context-sensitive, culturally resonant, and socially cohesive; without stronger institutional recognition and supportive policy frameworks, integration will likely continue to be uneven, limiting the potential for broad-based, sustainable climate resilience across Atlantic Canada.

Barriers and enablers to translating local knowledge

Participants identified both barriers and enablers that influence how local knowledge is used in climate adaptation. One key theme was the presence of systemic barriers that limit the ability to turn local knowledge into practical actions, including rigid funding structures, short-term project timelines, and heavy bureaucratic requirements - challenges reported as especially difficult for smaller municipalities and non-governmental organizations, which often lack the staff or resources to manage complex funding and reporting demands. One participant from a community NGO criticized federal funding structures, stating, “It is very formulaic...everything is provided to us on how we must report back. It is generally not like a collaboration.” A municipal official explained, “We don’t have the internal resources right now to adequately cover [climate programs].” Short-term funding made it difficult to sustain progress, with one organization noting, “The lack of continuity is very harmful to the progress.” Equity issues also emerged as a significant concern; a community foundation representative pointed out, “Nova Scotia has a sad history of environmental racism, and I am sure it extends to adaptation efforts.” Volunteer burnout was another challenge, particularly for smaller organizations, as one church environmental representative asked, “How can organizations like ours maximize... funding for projects that are on our heart?”

Despite these challenges, participants identified several enablers that support the use of local knowledge (see Table 2). Strong leadership, often from respected community figures or municipal officials, was described as a key driver: “We tap into... leaders in the industry to help us educate people,” one participant explained. Grassroots engagement ensured that adaptation work reflected community priorities: “We did not want to come in and say, ‘This is what you guys should be doing.’... It is communities saying, ‘This is what I would like to do.’” Collaborative governance also played a role in one town where a climate change advisory committee included “five of our 12 councilors,” fostering trust and shared responsibility. Some organizations have flexible funding arrangements that helped communities focus resources where they were most needed: “We want to make our grants very accessible...for grassroots actions.” Multi-year funding was described as transformative; a land trust representative noted that such commitments were a “game changer” for planning and sustaining projects.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Opportunities and Enablers in Translating Local Knowledge into Climate Adaptation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000291.t002

These findings suggest that although many communities in Atlantic Canada are motivated and have valuable ideas for local climate adaptation, they often face structural and institutional barriers that prevent them from implementing those ideas. The SES framework helps explain these challenges: local knowledge is a key part of a community's adaptive capacity [44], but its effectiveness depends on how it interacts with broader institutional systems, governance arrangements, resource flows, and institutional relationships [45]. When formal structures give limited recognition to local or Indigenous knowledge, or when funding processes are overly rigid, communities lose the flexibility needed to respond to climate risks promptly. The findings in the Atlantic Canadian context show that a lack of institutional support and the dominance of top-down approaches often act as barriers [22], reflecting larger patterns noted in global climate adaptation research where power imbalances and resistance to institutional change continue to block more inclusive and responsive forms of adaptation.

Resource shortages and short-term funding cycles align with research on the capacity constraints of smaller and more rural communities [34]. Equity concerns, particularly those related to environmental racism, highlight the importance of embedding climate justice principles in adaptation planning. The enablers identified in this study, including strong leadership, grassroots engagement, collaborative governance, flexible funding, and multi-year financial commitments, reflect what the literature describes as the building blocks of effective, inclusive adaptation [19]: leadership and community networks build trust and mobilize action, collaborative governance creates shared ownership of adaptation decisions [43], and flexible, multi-year funding allows for long-term planning responsive to local priorities rather than externally imposed agendas. Strengthening these enabling factors while removing systemic barriers could significantly improve the translation of local knowledge into effective, place-based climate adaptation strategies.

Role of collaboration, funding, and policy frameworks

Participants emphasized that collaboration, funding, and policy frameworks were key factors in determining whether local knowledge was effectively integrated into climate adaptation efforts. Many highlighted multi-stakeholder platforms as a particular strength, noting that they provided opportunities for meaningful cooperation. As one program coordinator said, “Our partnerships with municipalities, Indigenous groups, and NGOs ensure local knowledge shapes coastal resilience projects.” Partnerships were described as essential for mobilizing and applying local knowledge, such as creating opportunities for shared learning, resource pooling, and building legitimacy for adaptation actions. As one participant put it, “Partnership is probably one of our most valuable things that we seek... It is really important, I think, for this issue [climate action] overall, not to think of it as a turf battle.”

However, other participants pointed to significant challenges, especially related to power dynamics within these partnerships. One community organizer noted, “Our input is sought, but final decisions often ignore our priorities, like protecting cultural sites.” This highlights a critical distinction between being included in consultations and having actual influence over outcomes. Without mechanisms to ensure that local voices genuinely shape final decisions, efforts at collaboration risk becoming performative, undermining trust and, ultimately, the effectiveness of adaptation strategies. This distinction matters because it points to what makes partnerships work: the literature emphasizes that co-production of knowledge depends on equitable relationships where decision-making authority is shared rather than concentrated [30], and that partnerships must be more than symbolic; they must redistribute influence and create durable pathways for knowledge exchange [44]. The clearest cases of effective collaboration in this study were precisely the ones where that redistribution of authority, not just participation, occurred.

Funding was also identified as a decisive factor in successfully integrating local knowledge into climate adaptation efforts. Large programs, such as the Climate Resilient Coastal Communities (CRCC) initiative, provided essential resources. As one municipal representative in Nova Scotia explained, “Funding... allowed us to hire local experts to map erosion risks based on community input.” This kind of support enabled locally grounded, responsive planning. However, many participants stressed that accessing such funding was often out of reach for smaller or rural communities. A community organization representative described bureaucratic grant processes as a barrier for small communities with limited administrative capacity. They noted that larger municipalities are often better positioned to respond quickly to funding opportunities, leaving smaller communities with limited staff or volunteers at a disadvantage. One participant remarked, “Small communities with only one staff member or volunteer must compete against these large municipalities.” This reveals a critical structural inequality: while funding can empower communities to act on local knowledge, the way funding is distributed often reinforces existing disparities.

Policy frameworks like Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) were generally seen as supportive in principle but weak in practice. As one provincial program planner observed, “It encourages local knowledge, but lacks clear guidelines for implementation.” In contrast, municipal-level policies, particularly those that established climate advisory committees, were praised for fostering trust and aligning climate planning with local priorities. One municipal official noted that these structures created “a fair bit of goodwill” by giving community members a formal voice in decision-making, reflecting that adaptive governance is most effective when it is polycentric and participatory [43]. Flexible funding arrangements can support local agencies by allowing communities to allocate resources to their most pressing needs: “When the funding comes in, and the use case scenarios are really rigid... It is really difficult, because we need staff. We need people. We need to pay people.” Locally controlled funding and inclusive municipal policy frameworks were therefore identified as key enablers of meaningful local knowledge integration, echoing earlier research showing that adaptation policy is most effective when governance structures are inclusive, flexible, and nested within existing community institutions [8].

These findings together show how governance, funding structures, and policy frameworks influence the role of local knowledge in adaptation. In the best examples, participants described partnerships as trust-based, long-term, and free from competition, reflecting the literature’s emphasis on reciprocity and co-production [16,30]. However, the persistence of power imbalances, especially the marginalization of smaller communities and Indigenous priorities, echoes concerns raised in Canadian and international research [25,33]. Funding mechanisms emerged as both enablers and barriers: large-scale programs like CRCC and the Climate Change Action Program (CCAP) increased adaptive capacity, but the bureaucratic nature of federal grants limited access for communities without administrative infrastructure to meet rigid requirements, reflecting broader findings that access inequities often disadvantage small municipalities and Indigenous communities [10,58]. Policy frameworks played a mixed role: while the NAS signals federal support for local knowledge, its lack of clear implementation pathways limits its practical impact, whereas municipal policies embedding community voices into formal decision-making demonstrated how governance can be both participatory and responsive, supporting Chouinard et al. [8] and Mena [29].

The results suggest that the integration of local knowledge depends not only on whether collaboration, funding, and policy exist, but on how they are designed, implemented, and, critically, whether they redistribute decision-making authority rather than simply inviting participation. When these systems are flexible, equitable, and aligned with community priorities, they amplify the role of local knowledge in building climate resilience. When they are rigid, competitive, or exclusionary, they can undermine the very goals they are meant to support.

Practices from successful integration of local knowledge

Five interconnected practices were key to successfully integrating local knowledge: community-led project design and implementation, as shown in Table 3 below; inclusive participation and engagement structures; support for local champions and knowledge holders; flexible funding and governance arrangements; and place-based, context-sensitive approaches. While these practices took different forms across settings, they were all characterized by their ability to respond to communities’ priorities.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Best Practices for Integrating Local Knowledge into Climate Adaptation in Atlantic Canada.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000291.t003

Across the interviews, local knowledge was mobilized through four broad categories of adaptation activity, each with a distinct pattern of use. Education and outreach initiatives, including arts communication projects, museum and historical-site preservation efforts responding to shoreline erosion, and storytelling-based programming. These rely heavily on local and cultural knowledge and are effective for building community identity and public engagement, but participants also noted a structural limitation: without formal institutional backing, these initiatives “may remain localized and lack scalability.” Community and skills-building efforts, such as public education sessions and community-garden knowledge-sharing, showed local knowledge being transmitted effectively at a small scale but rarely feeding into formal planning processes beyond the immediate community. Natural infrastructure projects, such as living shorelines and regenerative agriculture initiatives, showed the deepest integration of local and traditional ecological knowledge. These designs “drew directly on TEK and longstanding local practices,” suggesting that technical, place-based adaptation work may be where local knowledge translates most directly into action. Community planning initiatives, particularly climate advisory committees with formal community representation (in one municipality, “five of twelve councillors” held community seats), showed the strongest institutional uptake of local knowledge, generating measurable “goodwill” and sustained influence over decision-making. These patterns suggest that local knowledge is consistently valued across all four categories, but its effectiveness, measured as durable influence over adaptation outcomes, was highest where formal governance structures existed to receive it (community planning, natural infrastructure) and lowest where initiatives remained informal or externally funded on a project basis (education/outreach, some skills-building efforts).

As one funder explained, “What we end up funding are projects that are very, very different from each other... because the communities themselves are identifying what is most important to them.” This highlights the importance of community-driven approaches, which ensure that adaptation efforts are locally relevant and enjoy strong public support. Participatory governance structures, such as advisory committees with both municipal and community representatives, provide formal mechanisms for dialogue and shared decision-making, helping build trust and legitimacy over time. Local champions play a vital role in outreach and education, helping to bridge the gap between institutions and residents. Flexible funding and governance arrangements were significant for enabling responsiveness and innovation, allowing communities to allocate resources according to evolving needs. At the same time, place-based approaches ensure that adaptation strategies are sensitive and contextualized to local conditions. These practices reflect the principles of adaptive co-management [43,59], in which diverse actors collaboratively generate and apply knowledge tailored to specific ecological and social contexts, and align with broader evidence showing that participatory governance, flexible funding mechanisms, and strong local leadership are key drivers of resilience [23].

The success of these approaches in Atlantic Canada suggests that scaling them up will require institutionalizing participatory processes, ensuring equitable access to funding, and embedding local priorities into broader policy frameworks. These practices can be effective when they respond to locally defined priorities, build trust, and allow adaptation strategies to reflect specific social and ecological contexts.

Limitations

This study’s findings are based on 22 semi-structured interviews and participant observation in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland; as a qualitative, place-based case study, its findings offer transferable insight into similar rural and coastal contexts rather than statistically generalizable conclusions. Additionally, this study’s interview data did not surface discussion of the most contentious, high-stakes adaptation decisions, such as managed retreat or community relocation, which are increasingly relevant as climate risks intensify in coastal Atlantic Canada. Future research specifically probing how local and Indigenous knowledge shapes decision-making in these more extreme adaptation scenarios would be a valuable extension of this work.