Publication record
- Original publication period
- January–June 2020
- Digitized / uploaded online
- August 10, 2026
The digitization/upload date records when this file was added to the website; it is not the article's original publication date.
Abstract
Discussions of community resilience often extract visible practices—seed saving, communal labor, traditional forecasting, or mutual aid—while overlooking the relationships and authority that make those practices meaningful. This critical interpretive review examines Indigenous and local knowledge as a living system of observation, obligation, memory, and governance. It brings disaster-risk scholarship into conversation with rights-based instruments relevant to the Philippines. Four propositions organize the synthesis: knowledge is place-based and dynamic; reciprocity is infrastructure; ecological practice links livelihood and risk; and collaboration is legitimate only when communities share authority over knowledge use. The article rejects both romanticization and dismissal. Local practices cannot replace public investment or scientific services, but formal programs can also weaken resilience when they appropriate knowledge, bypass customary institutions, or standardize away local variation. A CARE framework—Consent, Authority, Reciprocity, and Evidence-in-context—is proposed for respectful documentation and co-production.