The urgency of transformative change of the current socio-ecological-technological systems does not justify hasty decision-making based on narrow understanding. This article explores how scientific and other forms of knowledge can complement one another in environmental policy and decision-making. The authors summarize their reflections on the topic into four messages.

E nvironmental social science researchers discussed the importance of diverse forms of knowledge and their utilization in YHYS Colloquium 2025 in Oulu (the annual colloquium of the Finnish Society for Environmental Social Science). Through eight presentations and vivid discussion, the focus was on epistemic as well as more practical questions regarding environmental knowledge and decision-making. Issues relating to different epistemological beliefs and their influence on resource use sustainability, the role of different forms of knowledge in environmental policy and decision-making, as well as developing participatory processes, were addressed through the two-day session.

In this era marked by a decline in academic freedom, AI-driven falsification, fake news, and widespread disinformation, the need to recognize and embrace diverse forms of knowledge has never been more urgent. While interaction with other ways of knowing is ethical and inclusive, it also teaches critical thinking. Based on our reflections, we now offer four key messages to decision-makers and practitioners whose work, in various ways, relates to environmental impacts and influences on nature and who need reliable knowledge to inform their decisions.

The four key messages are the following:

1) Diverse forms of knowledge should be recognized and utilized to enable sustainability transformation.

2) Policy integration and legislation should take both scientific and diverse forms of knowledge into account for improved climate and environmental action.

3) Re-thinking the world beyond anthropocentrism is needed for just decision-making.

4) Policymaking and the science supporting it should be closer to the people it affects. 

1 Diverse forms of knowledge

Comprehensive and transparent knowledge is the basis of just environmental decision-making. However, this is often limited to scientific knowledge. The privileged status of scientific knowledge—often rooted in the natural sciences—should be challenged by multiple ways of knowing. These alternative forms of knowledge, such as Indigenous, local, traditional, or experimental knowledge, can enrich scientific research by helping to develop more comprehensive sustainable policies and practices. Ultimately, considering alternative forms of knowledge can make decision-making more sustainable overall.

The lived experiences and expertise of individual people and local communities can be acquired through participatory processes. For example, citizen science enables volunteer citizen scientists (i.e., non-professional experts) to participate in research and knowledge-making. In addition to strengthening science, citizen science can also help challenge and reframe existing science and policy narratives. In fact, research that is initiated by civil society or local communities has an important role in identifying new environmental problems and clarifying the scope of the already known ones. Importantly, citizen science seeks accountability and pushes for environmental compliance for fairer solutions.

We recognize that some level of uncertainty always remains in decision-making due to the complexity of the issues at hand. Uncertainty can appear in different phases of knowledge recognition, production, and utilization. For instance, the acceleration of climate change and cumulative environmental impacts increase uncertainty even further. As decisions are made under changing circumstances with persistent uncertainty, a variety of knowledge is often needed to support the process. We argue that local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge can complement and strengthen scientific knowledge amid uncertainties.

Ultimately, a key question is how diverse forms of knowledge are practically recognized and implemented throughout decision-making processes. A further question is how decision-makers, practitioners, and researchers interpret that knowledge, its positionality, linkages, meanings and power relations. Examples of how Indigenous knowledge has been institutionalized in policymaking in Arctic contexts include the Saami Council, the Saami Parliaments (whose structures differ in Sweden, Norway and Finland), as well as the Arctic Council and the Saami Climate Council.

Local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge can complement and strengthen scientific knowledge amid uncertainties.

2 Cumulative impacts and breaking silos

Environmental administration and governance are tackling the intertwined challenges and cumulative impacts of intensive land and resource use. Both sectoral and siloed knowledge as well as administrative and legislative frameworks hinder comprehensive understanding of interconnected environmental impacts. They also undermine the ability to respond to these impacts effectively. Integrating policy, scientific knowledge, and diverse forms of knowledge, along with cross-sectoral legislation, are essential first steps in overcoming environmental challenges.

The implementation of binding environmental targets, legislative changes, and effective policy instruments require strong local acceptability more than voluntary or market-based measures. Green transition initiatives and the drive for procedural streamlining increase the need for contextual sensitivity and local nuance. Questions of policy acceptability vary at different levels: who defines acceptability and its boundaries? How frequently is it assessed?

While land and resource use pressures are growing rapidly, their cumulative impacts are slow and difficult to monitor. This, yet again, underlines the importance of local knowledge. Public participation is usually defined based on applicable laws or the specific process in question, which can limit inclusivity.

3 Knowledge beyond anthropocentrism

Multispecies justice challenges the human-centered worldview and knowledge systems. Who are considered in the frame of justice, and who verbalize the needs of non-human? “How could we imagine a different human species in a multispecies world?” pondered researcher Corinna Casi in her presentation.

How does the non-human world see us and how the binary structures (human/non-human, nature/culture, etc.) could be dismantled? Imagining the non-human from our own perspective can reveal anthropocentric dystopias: do we see the non-human world demanding revenge and living space on planet Earth or mourning the fate of humankind? Re-thinking the world beyond anthropocentrism is needed to overcome the binary knowledge structures and oppression. In addition to developing more sustainable policies to help overcome these binary structures, we call attention to the language we use; with the aid of more respectful discourses, we can create a better world for all, both human and non-human.

Multispecies justice challenges the human-centered worldview and knowledge systems.

4 Reconstruction

Finally, when, where, and by whom is valid knowledge defined? What are the epistemic realities of environmental decision-making, and how can they be challenged? Scientific knowledge increasingly faces intentional contestation and strategic blurring. Thus, researchers working in academia should be better prepared for this and strengthen the quality of knowledge generated by robust research. This is done together by creating and fostering stronger linkages between scientific research and civil society via collaborative actions.

A paradigm shift that includes reconstruction is needed. Research calls for “actionable practices which all involved social groups can call their own”, as researcher Olli Haanpää suggests. The solutions could include recognition, respectful acceptance, and institutionalization of diverse forms of knowledge through legislative and administrative reforms. Without diverse and strong knowledge built on inclusive decision-making, cross-sectoral environmental policy will not be acceptable, just, nor sustainable.

ANNA MUSTONEN, TIMO HAAPASALO, CORINNA CASI, OLLI HAANPÄÄ, TUULA HONKONEN, MARIA OJANEN, MARJA HELENA SIVONEN & TIIA WESTERBERG

Banner photo: Raul Kozenevski / Pexels