A Systematic Overview of Institutional Pathways and Constraints in the Integration of Local and Indigenous Knowledge into Water Resource Policy: An African Perspective

Abstract

Local and Indigenous knowledge (LIK) systems are recognised as a pertinent component of effective and equitable water governance, especially for building resilient, sustainable, and climate-resilient water management systems; however, their incorporation into water governance systems and processes remains limited, symbolic, and hindered by technocratic, legal, and power barriers. This study, through a systematic overview of existing work from Africa, aims to explore critically the role and contribution of LIK systems in water governance and climate adaptation, with the goal of establishing that LIK systems should be understood and operationalised as a water governance system, not as a supplementary knowledge system. Through systematic thematic analysis, four recurring themes are identified: (i) rhetorical recognition of LIK without substantive institutionalisation; (ii) evidence of contributions to local-scale climate adaptation, ecosystem management, and water resource allocation; (iii) inherent challenges of legal marginalisation, epistemic dominance, and power asymmetry; and (iv) transformative limitations of participatory or co-management frameworks that maintain state-led authority. SWOT analysis reveals LIK’s strengths in adaptive innovation, knowledge coproduction, and governance legitimacy, with potential threats of marginalisation, institutional fragmentation, and dominance by technocratic discourses. The results show that the failure of integration is governance-driven rather than knowledge-driven, emphasising the importance of institutional recognition, legal pluralism, vertical integration, and the sharing of power. Partnership with LIK as an equal in governance helps create policy environments that are inclusive, flexible, and socially legitimate. This approach to integration directly contributes to the achievement of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). This review establishes a conceptual, empirical, and practical basis for incorporating LIK into water governance, promoting adaptive, equitable, and resilient water resource management in a climate of uncertainty and complexity. Additionally, the review argues that climate-resilient water governance requires institutional recognition of legal pluralism, vertically integrated decision-making structures, and explicit power-sharing arrangements that treat LIK as coequal governance rather than consultative input. By reframing LIK integration as a question of authority and institutional design, this review contributes to debates on epistemic justice and adaptive water governance under climate change. While grounded in African case studies, the findings contribute to broader global debates on epistemic pluralism and inclusive water governance.

1. Introduction

Climate change is worsening hydrological extremes, leading to frequent droughts, floods, and water quality degradation, which further puts pressure on already weak water governance systems [1,2,3]. Although institutional water governance systems focus on scientific modelling, infrastructure, and legal instruments, they often lack Local and Indigenous Knowledge (LIK) systems, which have traditionally guided water use, management, and adaptation in different socioecological contexts [4,5]. Water resource systems across the globe face increasing challenges from climate change, population pressures, environmental degradation, and sectoral demands [6,7]. These challenges have also led to the identification of the limitations of traditional water resource policy frameworks, which remain technocratic, centralised, and narrow in their epistemological approach [6,8]. Moreover, there has been a growing acknowledgement of the value of the knowledge systems of Indigenous and local societies, which possess advanced knowledge systems of water and environmental dynamics and adaptive water and environmental resource management [4,9]. However, the actual incorporation of these knowledge systems into formal water resource policy remains limited and contested and is theoretically unexplored [4,10,11]. The global policy environment is slowly recognising the relevance of epistemic pluralism, and multilateral policies and national water policies often include the mention of community engagement, co-management, and Indigenous engagement [12,13,14]. However, the mere inclusion of these words in policy documents does not necessarily mean that there is institutional power, decision-making authority, or a redistribution of water rights [15,16]. Thus, a critical point of distinction is made between symbolic recognition and structural integration [10,16]. While a growing body of literature provides case studies of Indigenous water stewardship around the world, the mechanisms by which this knowledge does or does not shape policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation are scattered across disciplines and regions [17,18].

While much of the LIK has focused on its relationship with climate adaptation, resilience or participatory governance, less attention has been given to how such knowledge cuts across these boundaries to shape formal policy architectures [11,19,20]. Issues of epistemic legitimacy, legal pluralism, bureaucratic design, and the political economy are often assumed implicitly rather than interrogated explicitly [11,14]. As such, integration is seen to be normatively desirable without adequate consideration of issues of power asymmetry, institutional path dependency, or the conditions necessary to achieve equitable co-governance arrangements [14,20]. LIK has emerged as an important resource for water governance and climate-resilient adaptation and can support several of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) directly [21,22]. The contribution of LIK to water governance through culturally embedded strategies for water management can support SDG 6, Clean Water and Sanitation, by enhancing access to water, the sustainability of water, and water ecosystem services [21,23]. The contribution of LIK to climate-resilient water management, such as Indigenous drought management, water harvesting, and ecosystem-based adaptation, can support SDG 13, Climate Action, by enhancing adaptive capacity in water governance at local and regional scales [22]. The LIK attention to representation, social differentiation, and participatory decision-making also echoes SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) [24], whereas the acknowledgement of Indigenous governance structures, co-management, and legal pluralism advances SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) [23]. In addition, the integration of LIK with scientific knowledge and policy instruments itself illustrates SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), underscoring the value of intersectoral partnerships in improving resilience, legitimacy, and sustainability in water governance [25]. The positioning of LIK within the SDG framework, therefore, draws attention to its strategic importance in the pursuit of equitable, adaptive, and integrated water management in the face of climate uncertainty and sociopolitical complexity [22,23,25].

Water governance is far from being a depoliticised administrative sphere; instead, it is intricately entwined with the history of colonial resource governance, state-led hydraulic planning, and technical knowledge [26,27]. In most cases, formalised water legislation coexists in a tense relationship with traditional frameworks that govern access to, allocation of, and spiritual associations with water bodies [14,28]. The relationship between these frameworks determines the extent to which Indigenous and local knowledge is relegated to the margins, harnessed, or institutionalised [14,29]. Thus, a grasp of this relationship necessitates a shift from description to analysis. Therefore, this review provides a systematic synthesis of the literature on LIK in water resource policy, but one that shifts the focus from the question of recognition to the question of how such knowledge influences water resource policy and under what institutional conditions it becomes authoritative. Thus, this review makes three contributions. First, it integrates scattered regional knowledge into a comparative framework that reveals underlying patterns and structural issues. Second, it connects normative discourses about epistemic justice with empirical research about policy mechanisms, thus relating demands for inclusion to real-world institutional contexts. Third, it develops a conceptual framework that specifies mediating pathways between LIK and policy power, providing policymakers with practical knowledge about how to implement epistemic pluralism in water governance reforms. Because, in today’s context of unprecedented uncertainty for water systems, the broadening of the epistemic basis of policy is no longer a question of recognition but of resilience, equity, and legitimacy. In this study, resilience refers to the ability of water systems and communities to adapt to hydrological fluctuations and climate change. Equity refers to the fair distribution of water resources and decision-making authority, whereas legitimacy refers to the general approval and recognition of governance systems and institutions.

A critical assessment of the role of LIK in shaping water resource policy in Africa is thus essential for understanding the future of sustainable and just water governance.

2. Theoretical Framework

The role and influence of LIK within water resource policy can be conceptualised by drawing upon the theoretical frameworks of the policy process, adaptive and polycentric governance, and epistemic justice [8,30,31]. Policy process theory, as a conceptual framework, has provided significant insights into the role and influence of knowledge within the water resource policy domain by drawing attention to the distinction between symbolic, consultative, and co-governance forms of engagement [32,33]. The adaptive and polycentric governance method, as a conceptual framework, has provided significant insights into the role and effect of Indigenous and local knowledge within the water resource policy domain by drawing attention to the distinction between nested, multilevel, and adaptive forms of governance [8,34,35]. Epistemic justice and knowledge pluralism offer a normative framework to examine whose knowledge is valued and whose authority is being institutionalised in policy-making and how the dynamics of power and history shape policy-making [30,36]. Drawing on these conceptualisations of knowledge and policy-making, it is argued that the influence of LIK is mediated through three interdependent domains: epistemic recognition, institutional architecture, and political agency [30,32]. Epistemic recognition refers to the legitimacy and validation of LIK in policy discourse; institutional architecture refers to legal recognition and governance structures through which knowledge can be integrated; and political agency refers to the ability of Indigenous and local peoples to strategically mobilise knowledge to negotiate authority [8,30]. Collectively, these domains help determine the degree to which LIK shifts from peripheral reference to policy-relevant influence, with effects ranging from acknowledgement to co-governance and implications for water allocation, sustainability, and equity [37,38]. This holistic theoretical framework offers a basis from which to develop an understanding of the mechanisms of influence, assess barriers and facilitators, and establish a typology of LIK–policy interactions [37,39].

3. Methodology

The current research uses a critical thematic literature review as a methodological approach to analyse the conceptualisation and operationalisation of LIK within water governance and climate adaptation policies. While most reviews of the literature focus on the role of LIK as an epistemological input, the current approach considers LIK as a system of governance, which, when excluded, points to deeper structural power relations associated with legality, power, and decision-making. This review, which brings together the fields of political ecology and decolonial theory, places greater emphasis on the role of knowledge systems as a mechanism for water governance. While the review follows systematic principles of transparency and structured selection, it does not use a formal PRISMA methodology because the purpose is interpretive synthesis and conceptual development rather than quantitative meta-analysis.

A focused literature search was carried out via Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, supplemented by backwards citation searching of key review and governance literature. This search focused on literature published between 2006 and 2025. The search terms included combinations of keywords such as “local knowledge,” “Indigenous knowledge,” “water governance,” “water policy,” “climate change adaptation,” “co-management,” and “Africa.” The inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed journal literature, systematic and scoping reviews, and qualitative or mixed-methods research studies that specifically explored LIK in relation to water governance or policy. Studies that merely mentioned LIK in passing or did not address governance or policy in any way were excluded.

The search was undertaken between September and November 2025 and initially yielded 128 studies (82 from Scopus and 46 from Web of Science), as shown in Figure 1. The results were then cleaned of any duplicates, with the remaining titles and abstracts being screened for their relevance to ‘governance,’ ‘institutional design,’ or ‘policy processes’ in the context of water management. Only those studies that showed substantial engagement with LIK through empirical examination, policy-oriented evaluation, or governance theory were included. After screening the full-text articles, a total of 30 studies were included in the final sample. In cases where articles could not be accessed via institutional subscriptions, the authors were directly contacted for the purpose of acquiring the full text.

The literature was examined via a topic synthesis approach guided by three integrative questions: how LIK fits into water governance frameworks; what impact it has on sustainable and climate-resilient water management; and which institutional, legal, and political elements influence integration outcomes. Themes were developed through a combination of deductive coding, informed by governance and policy theory, and inductive coding, which allowed recurring patterns to emerge from the literature. The analysis foregrounds African case studies due to the richness of Indigenous systems of governance on the continent, as well as its vulnerability to climate change-related water risks. The African case studies constitute 68% of the sample, with South Africa accounting for 20% of the sample, followed by Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Botswana, Namibia, Cameroon, Ethiopia, and Ghana. To provide comparative and conceptual depth, we incorporated chosen studies from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand worldwide.

Although research on LIK in environmental governance has received increasing attention in recent years, a bibliometric synthesis of its integration into water resource policy in Africa has remained an understudied phenomenon. The literature has been fragmented and scattered across various areas of research, including climate change adaptation, sustainable development, groundwater management, and participatory approaches in water governance. The intellectual structure of this literature, its thematic evolution, and focus have remained understudied phenomena. The bibliometric approach offers a quantitative perspective for understanding the major research clusters and document types. Additionally, strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was performed to help reveal the inherent strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of LIK, as well as its positioning within larger institutional, sociopolitical, and climatic settings. Iterative thematic coding of the examined literature was used to perform the SWOT analysis. An organised assessment of LIK integration in water governance systems was provided by identifying recurring factors and classifying them into opportunities and threats (external dimensions) and strengths and weaknesses (internal dimensions). This review aims to identify the centrality of LIK in climate–water discourse, its focus on governance and participation, and its relative neglect in areas of vulnerability assessment and policy integration frameworks.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Keyword Co-Occurrences

The keyword co-occurrence analysis offers valuable insights into the intellectual structure and theme focus of LIK research in water governance and climate change adaptation in Africa, with a minimum co-occurrence threshold set at five.

Table 1. Most searched keywords.

S/N	Keyword	Occ.	TLS	S/N	Keyword	Occ.	TLS
1	Indigenous knowledge	28	140	21	Conservation of natural resources	6	40
2	Climate change	23	134	22	Governance approach	6	39
3	Water management	20	122	23	Groundwater	6	38
4	Traditional knowledge	13	104	24	Indigenous people	6	35
5	Water resource	12	98	25	Drought	5	32
6	Decision making	10	92	26	Ecosystem	5	27
7	Environmental protection	10	90	27	Knowledge management	5	24
8	Sustainable development	10	83	28	Resource management	5	21
9	Indigenous population	9	79	29	Stakeholder	5	19
10	Human	8	72	30	Aquifers	4	19
11	Local participation	8	69	31	Environmental policy	4	18
12	Sustainability	8	66	32	Groundwater resources	4	15
13	Water conservation	8	62	33	Humans	4	13
14	Water supply	8	59	34	Hydrogeology	4	12
15	Agriculture	7	53	35	Integrated approach	4	10
16	Knowledge	7	51	36	Local knowledge	4	9
17	Water planning	7	49	37	Perception	4	7
18	Water quality	7	46	38	Vulnerability	4	6
19	Adaptation	6	44	39	Water	4	4
20	Biodiversity	6	41	40	Water use	4	3

Occ. = Occurrences and TLS = Total link strength.

shows the most searched keywords, and Figure 2a depicts the co-occurrence analysis results, with “Indigenous knowledge” clearly standing out as the central theme with a co-occurrence count of 28 and a total link strength (TLS) of 140. Strong links with “climate change,” “water management,” and “traditional knowledge,” with co-occurrence counts of 23, 20, and 13, respectively, confirm that the main theme focuses on LIK-based climate change adaptation strategies. There are clear thematic groups: an environmental sustainability group, with the keywords “conservation of natural resources,” “ecosystem,” and “sustainable development,” representing the integration of LIK with resource management and water planning; a governance and participation group, with the keywords “decision making,” “stakeholder,” and “local participation,” emphasising water governance and local community engagement; and a technical water group, with the keywords “groundwater,” “water quality,” and “aquifers,” emphasising the use of LIK in water resource management. The network also shows areas of emerging knowledge gaps, with reduced co-occurrence of keywords such as “vulnerability,” “local knowledge,” and “water use,” indicating areas of unexplored knowledge in vulnerability studies, water use, and the integration of LIK with water planning. In summary, the keyword structure shows a multiscalar and interdisciplinary approach that connects sociocultural, ecological, and technical aspects of LIK.

Nevertheless, keywords with lower co-occurrence, such as “vulnerability,” “local knowledge,” and “water use,” present research gaps in quantitative vulnerability analysis and the incorporation of LIK into overall water use strategies, especially in the less represented African regions. Figure 2b shows the density visualisation of the co-occurrence of keywords via the VOSviewer (version 1.6.19) tool, which highlights the emphasis and dominance of the themes related to LIK in the governance of water and climate change in Africa. The brighter the color is, the higher the density of the region and occurrences of the keyword. Low-density regions, which are darker, point to a lower occurrence of keywords and topics, which are future research avenues for the integration of LIK in broader water management and policy.

4.2. Bibliometric Analysis of Document Types

A bibliometric analysis of the publications in this review highlights the type of scholarly literature that has explored the concept of LIK in water resource management and climate change adaptation in African settings. Figure 3 depicts the document type, and the analysis revealed that journal articles make up the largest number of documents, with 19 of the 30 publications (63%) cited in this review. These articles are largely empirical in nature, with case studies, assessments, and quantitative analyses of community water governance and climate change adaptation strategies. Review papers, including systematic and structured reviews, constitute 6 publications (20%). These review papers synthesise the literature, reveal patterns, and offer critical insights into the integration of LIK with formal adaptation frameworks. The value of review papers is significant in outlining thematic and methodological trends, as well as knowledge gaps between traditional practices and formalised water governance structures. Book chapters make up 5 documents (17%), which offer qualitative insights into Indigenous practices, cultural values, and community innovations. Book chapters are significant in offering insights into the sociocultural aspects of water governance, including the historical context of LIK in specific African societies. There is a clear opportunity to further include gray literature sources in the body of knowledge that describes LIK in Africa, including government reports and local reports, that might bridge the gap between research, policy implementation, and innovations in practice. This is indicative of the academic rigor that is associated with the subject while also illustrating the need for the inclusion of broader sources of information that might describe the policy implications and implementation of LIK in Africa as it pertains to water resource management.

5. Synthesis of the Influence of Local and Indigenous Knowledge on Water Resource Policies

This section aims to synthesise evidence from across Africa to critically analyse the impact of LIK systems on the management of water resources, including adaptation measures for climate change. It draws from evidence from studies conducted in some African countries to analyse the impact of LIK systems on social cohesion, economic gains, and their inclusion in the management of water resources. The analysis is based on three thematic areas, namely, the social advantages of LIK systems in enhancing participatory approaches to management, the economic advantages of LIK systems in managing water resources, and the inclusion of LIK systems in the management of water resources or their exclusion from such management systems. Although LIK systems have been shown to have a significant effect on community resilience, their inclusion in national and subnational policy frameworks has been lacking. Table 2 shows a synopsis of the literature on LIK-related water resource policies.

In a recent study, Ebhuoma and Leonard [40] explored the interconnections between Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), climate change adaptation, and governance in sub-Saharan Africa. In his view, Indigenous knowledge (IK) represents a dynamic governance framework rather than a supplementary cultural component. In this book, the author draws from political ecology and participatory approaches in presenting case studies from Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and other African countries to demonstrate how Indigenous peoples harness customary land management practices, conflict resolution strategies, and collaborative knowledge systems in adapting to climatic risks. In his work, the author critically examines the structural challenges facing IKS in the institutionalisation of climate change adaptation in Africa. In his view, issues of governance are central in addressing the challenges facing Indigenous peoples in adapting to climatic risks in Africa. The study also reveals that understanding of Indigenous knowledge systems is a component of addressing issues of governance in the adaptation to climatic risks in Africa. The study shows that addressing issues related to climate change in Africa will require institutionalising Indigenous knowledge systems as partners in addressing issues related to climate change.

Additionally, Nyadzi et al. [41] undertake a systematic literature review of the characterisation, application, and conservation of IK in the adaptation to climate change in Africa. The author sought to address the common perceptions of Indigenous people as victims of climate change by presenting them as active participants in adaptation. The research findings have established contradictions in the concept of IK. However, there are common factors that enhance its applicability in different contexts. Research has shown that IK significantly contributes to adaptation practices. It has also demonstrated immense potential in coproducing knowledge with scientific knowledge, particularly in weather and climate prediction. In contrast, modernisation, migration, and sociocultural changes have been identified as factors that threaten the conservation of IK. The research has emphasised the need for improved documentation and supportive frameworks that acknowledge the epistemological foundations of IK. A similar study conducted by Theodory [42] on IK systems among smallholder farmers in Tanzania focused on the development of IK through experience and adaptation to sociocultural environments. This study highlights sociocultural adaptation practices among the Haya community in Tanzania in dealing with the impacts of climate change. The chapter highlights the significance of African knowledge systems in the context of Western knowledge systems, which are considered to have developed later. This is an important contribution in terms of Indigenous knowledge systems in dealing with climate adaptation.

Research conducted by Hooli [43] aimed to examine flood vulnerability and socioecological resilience in northern Namibia. Researchers have aimed to explore how IK influences local coping mechanisms in the face of increasingly unpredictable flood events. The researcher applied a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches in the study. The researcher used a comparative approach in urban-rural settings in the study. Researchers have reported that flood impacts are not necessarily influenced by climatic changes. Instead, flood impacts are influenced by rapid urbanisation, poor spatial planning, and socioeconomic challenges. In the past, IK has been an important tool for enhancing community resilience through learning from experience. However, rapid socioenvironmental changes have undermined local coping mechanisms. The study suggests a shift from a resilience discourse that overemphasises community self-organisation. Additionally, Sowman and Rebelo [44] discussed the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of small-scale fishing communities in South Africa. The study also focuses on the misalignment of national climate, disaster, and development policies with realities at the local level. The research argues that there is potential for improving policy coherence, support, and implementation by incorporating Indigenous knowledge in sectoral and development planning. There have been challenges in vertically and horizontally integrating Indigenous knowledge into formal governance and decision-making.

Furthermore, Mugambiwa [38] examined climate change adaptation by means of IKS in the Mutoko rural district of Zimbabwe, with a focus on the preservation of Indigenous practices. By using a qualitative exploratory approach and conducting 30 in-depth interviews, the author highlights community-based adaptation practices such as crop diversification (from maize to millet and sorghum), mulching, water storage in riverbanks, and the construction of storage facilities. These practices increase the resilience of communities to climate variability while preserving and promoting Indigenous practices. The study stresses that IKS allows communities to preserve culturally embedded livelihoods and provides lessons for the integration of Indigenous practices into climate change adaptation strategies. Similarly, Behailu et al. [45] explored the concept of integrating traditional water management systems in modern water governance. This study presents a case study based on the Borana (Ella Wells) and Konso (Harta Ponds) Indigenous communities in southern Ethiopia. The article reveals through discussions and observations that Indigenous water management systems have been in place for centuries. The systems are based on Indigenous principles such as cost recovery, equity, enforcement, ownership, and collective responsibility. These principles are often stressed in contemporary water management systems. In development interventions, however, there has been a tendency to neglect Indigenous practices in implementing standardised water management systems. The study stressed that Indigenous practices in water management should form the basis of contemporary water governance.

In a study performed by Leal Filho et al. [46], the challenges in the implementation of LIK in addressing climate change adaptation in Africa were discussed. LIK practices, crop types, and land use practices have developed over time to adapt to local climates. However, despite the success of using LIK in building resilience to climate change, its use with scientific methods is constrained by institutional, legal, epistemic, and sociopolitical barriers. The study findings emphasise the importance of considering these barriers in the coproduction of strategies for addressing climate change with local knowledge and formalised climate change policies and science. Additionally, Mugambiwa and Makhubele [47] investigated the role of IKS-informed climate governance in water and land resource management among smallholder farmers in resource-poor rural areas in Zimbabwe. The author employs a qualitative multiple case study approach and establishes that IKS has a significant positive impact on adaptive capacity and resilience to climate variability. The article makes a case for the need to mainstream IKS in development approaches and ensure complementarity between IKS and scientific knowledge systems in local-level climate governance. Furthermore, Tantoh et al. [48] investigated the effectiveness of Community-Based Water Supply Management (CBWSM) in rural Northwest Cameroon. The author uses participatory research and case studies to compare the effectiveness of the CBWSM. The author concludes that centralisation, poverty, lack of stakeholder participation, and power dynamics are factors that affect the effectiveness of water supply management. The author also concluded that devolution, traditional leadership, and community participation are essential for effective water supply management. The study suggests that best practices from effective community-based natural resource management projects can help create a people-centered water management system. Similarly, Rankoana [49] discussed how small-scale farmers in Limpopo Province, South Africa, employ Indigenous and innovative knowledge in adapting to climate change. The author has discussed various activities, such as rainfall forecasting, seasonal crop adjustment, garden preparation, crop diversification, fertiliser application, and guidance from extension officers in adapting to climate change and ensuring the sustainability of Indigenous crops and food security. The study discussed how Indigenous knowledge can be integrated with modern technologies to adapt to climate change. The impact of demographic and socioeconomic variables on water governance in rural Botswana, particularly in Shakawe, Tubu, and Shorobe villages, was evaluated by Gondo et al. [50], and on the basis of 455 household surveys and nine key informant interviews, the author concluded that gender role, household size, income, distance to water sources, and planned water use significantly affect water access and consumption. Women are primarily responsible for water collection, and smaller households consume more water per capita. The study reveals the conflict between traditional and formal water institutions and proposes an integrated water governance framework that considers socioeconomic differences, gender relations, and resource distribution.

Kom et al. [51] examine the significance of IK in influencing rain-fed agricultural practices and climate change adaptation among farmers in Levubu and Nwanedi, South Africa. Through the use of questionnaires, interviews, and focus group discussions, the author identified traditional weather predictors such as the movement of stars and the moon, the behavior of ants, and mountain mist as essential in predicting weather. The findings of this research indicate that IK has played an important role in influencing the decision-making process among rural farmers who are vulnerable to climate change. Additionally, Nare et al. [52] proposed a framework for building community participation in water quality monitoring and management in the Luvuvhu Catchment in South Africa. Notwithstanding the progressive legal and institutional arrangements in water quality management in South Africa, such as water management areas, Catchment management agencies, and water user associations, the level of community participation in water quality management in the Luvuvhu Catchment is still desirable because of poor institutional linkages and information flows from national water quality frameworks to community-based development structures. A multitiered governance structure is proposed in this study, which links subcatchment fora, water user associations, municipalities, Catchment Management Agencies, and the Directorate of Water Quality Monitoring in vertical and horizontal modes for enhanced water quality management in the Luvuvhu Catchment in South Africa. In a different study, Kwoyiga and Stefan [53] explored the contribution of local knowledge in maintaining dry-season groundwater irrigation in the Atankwidi Catchment in northern Ghana. The author used qualitative research methods to reveal how farmers use Indigenous hydroecological knowledge to locate groundwater resources, forecast recharge periods, identify optimal well construction periods, and practice conjunctive water resource use. The Indigenous knowledge system helps ensure food security and livelihoods in the region despite a lack of government support and rising climate change. The author highlights the significant contribution of incorporating groundwater knowledge in formal water resource governance. Additionally, Zvobgo [3] evaluated the role played by IK and LK in informing water sector climate adaptation in Africa. From the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI) and country iNDCs, 18 water sector adaptation responses were identified. In Southern, West, and East Africa, high levels of IK and LK influence are noted in Zimbabwe (77.8%), Ghana (53.6%), Kenya (46.2%), and South Africa (31.3%). The identified water sector adaptation responses include irrigation, rainwater harvesting, water conservation, and ecosystem-based approaches, which are mostly carried out at the household and community levels. The identified water sector adaptation responses that are IK- and LK-informed show greater risk reduction than those carried out through conventional approaches. However, only 10.4% of African governments have IK and LK integrated into their water sector adaptation planning. The study calls for integrated approaches that encompass multiple knowledge sources to improve the sustainability of water sector adaptation interventions in Africa. Leal Filho et al. [54] noted that LIK is an integral part of African biocultural systems and is important in climate adaptation, especially in areas where access to modern climate services is limited. The study proves that LIK makes a valuable contribution to local resilience, risk reduction strategies, and the ownership of adaptation interventions. Despite the importance of LIK in adaptation, it has not been fully utilised in adaptation processes; hence, there is a need to integrate it with scientific knowledge to ensure optimal adaptation outcomes.

In an interesting study by Filho et al. [55], the role of LIK in building resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change in communities was discussed. This study uses a literature review and case studies of African countries to discuss the historical legacy and effectiveness of LIK in building resilience in adaptation practices such as land tenure, water management, and traditional weather forecasting. However, despite its contribution to building resilience in communities to adapt to climate change, there is still inadequate inclusion of LIK in national adaptation policies and its incorporation into the legal and institutional framework of the country. The author of this article is advocating for the bridging of LIK with contemporary climate change strategies by adopting a collaborative approach in building resilience in communities and government agencies in the adaptation of climate change measures in communities. Additionally, Afuye et al. [1] examine drought vulnerability, preparedness, and response in South Africa with a specific emphasis on water governance and policy frameworks. Using a documentary research design with content analysis of peer-reviewed journals and government policy documents, the research concluded that drought conditions in South Africa result not only from climate change but also from institutional challenges, political inattention, and the lack of coordination in drought response programs. There is an underutilisation of Indigenous adaptation practices. A model for drought management with a specific emphasis on adaptive water governance and policy transformation in the management of water resources in alignment with the SDGs was proposed. Similarly, Mapfumo et al. [56] studied the perception of climate change and the contribution of IK to the adaptation of smallholder farmers in the Makoni and Hwedza districts in eastern Zimbabwe and noted that there has been an increase in climate change, with rainfall seasons being cut short by as much as four weeks. This has significant effects on food security and ecosystems, as well as on issues of gender and climate change. The farmers in the region rely on Indigenous biological and geographical indicators when making strategic and operational decisions concerning crops. Although IK is still the cornerstone of adaptation in the region, some of the indicators are compromised as a result of climate change. The study recommends that adaptation strategies fit into existing decision-making processes and uses IK as an entry point for building capacity for adaptation.

Research conducted by Rwiza et al. [57] has examined the erosion of African IKSs and the consequent marginalisation of Indigenous knowledge, with a special focus on the traditional water management systems of the Maasai community in Nduruma Village, Arusha District, Tanzania. The research uses participatory approaches such as village meetings, interviews, group discussions, observations, and multimedia approaches to explore the link between traditional water management systems and modern knowledge systems. The research findings indicate that the current education system in Africa has contributed to the erosion of Indigenous knowledge, which is still relevant in community-based water management systems. The study highlights the value of coproduced knowledge and the role of partnerships between experts and the community in the legitimisation of Indigenous water management systems. Similarly, Nkomwa et al. [58] examined the contribution of IKS to climate change adaptation for subsistence farming in Chikhwawa District, southern Malawi, via a mixed-methods research design. This research reveals perceptions of delayed onset of rainfall, reduced rainfall amounts, increased temperatures, and longer dry spells, which are also supported by empirical evidence. Communities are using specific IKS to adapt to climate change, which is partially mitigating its effects. However, the National Adaptation Programme of Action for Malawi does not adequately recognise IKS in its adaptation strategies. There is a need for IKS to be included in formal adaptation strategies for a sustainable and spatially responsive approach to climate change adaptation.

Additionally, a study conducted by Nyong et al. [59] investigated the symbiotic relationship between climate change mitigation and adaptation in the African Sahel region, with a focus on the role of IKS in addressing climate change. The author’s work clearly highlights that the author has relied on the historical experiences of the Sahel region in addressing the issue of drought, which has resulted in the development of effective mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change. Despite the effectiveness of Indigenous knowledge in addressing the effects of climate change, it has never been taken into consideration in the modern approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation. It is the author’s view that IKS should be taken into consideration in modern climate change mitigation and adaptation to enhance the sustainability of the approach. Similarly, Mavhura et al. [60] examined the role played by IKS in promoting flood resiliency in two flood-vulnerable communities in Muzarabani District, Zimbabwe. Through interviews and focus group discussions, it is evident that the IKS has a significant role in mitigating the effects of floods through survival strategies. However, it is important to understand that the resiliency effects differ depending on geophysical vulnerability and socioeconomic capacity; communities with relatively high education levels and economic statuses have the capacity to withstand floods. This study has established the significance of IKS in disaster resiliency; it is transferable, adaptable, empowered to communities, and applicable.

A study conducted by Theodory [61] examined the role of IK in climate change adaptation among mixed farming communities in the Missenyi and Muleba Districts, which are located in the Ngono River Basin, Tanzania. Using focus group discussions, key informant interviews, observations, and desk work, the author shows that communities have a sophisticated social knowledge system for adapting to long droughts, pests and diseases, and strong winds. Adaptations include wetland farming, drought-resistant crop cultivation, the use of locally produced pesticides, and grain storage. While IK is beneficial, institutionally supporting and integrating it into formal adaptation strategies to improve effectiveness and enhance adaptive capacity is recommended. Similarly, a study conducted by Zvobgo et al. [62] assessed the contributions of IK and LK to water sector climate adaptation in Africa on the basis of findings from the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative. In addition, it has been analysed on the basis of the intended Nationally Determined Contributions (iNDCs). In this study, 18 types of adaptation responses were identified. The four best types are irrigation systems, rainwater harvesting systems, water conservation practices, and agroforestry. Southern, West, and East African countries have been identified as having a stronger influence from IK and LK. In particular, Zimbabwe has the strongest influence on IK and LK. In addition, the adaptation response influenced by IK and LK is associated with greater climate risk reduction. Only 10.4% of African governments have incorporated IK and LK in their adaptation response. Additionally, Ziervogel et al. [2] discuss the role that vertical integration plays in the development of climate change adaptation through lessons learned from experiences in natural resource governance systems in semiarid regions in Africa and India. The study is based on the experiences learned from four comparative case studies in the area of participation in institutional flexibility in systems of water governance. The study concludes that for successful adaptation to take place, there is a need for equal representation for marginalised groups, as well as the development of hybrid systems that are inclusive in nature. Furthermore, Sahani et al. [63] undertook a systematic review of Indigenous water conservation practices in South Africa, using the PRISMA approach to systematically review evidence from more than 50 high-quality studies. The evidence shows that IK substantially contributes to the mitigation of water scarcity through rainwater harvesting, terracing, wetland management, adaptive agriculture, and Indigenous weather forecasting. These approaches are cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and socially inclusive, enhancing drought and flood resilience. Despite their efficacy, IK is still not adequately mainstreamed into formal water governance structures. This paper argues for institutional mainstreaming, improved data infrastructure, and economic incentives to promote hybrid approaches to water governance that combine Indigenous and modern approaches to achieve national water security goals.

In the global scoping review of Indigenous water governance, Kehinde et al. [37] discuss the principles, values, and models of water governance practiced by Indigenous nations around the world. Some of the significant frameworks discussed in this review include the “Living Water, First Law” and “Kistihtamahwin” models of water governance, which focus on the value of water as life and its interconnectedness with community well-being. The review also highlights the impact of colonialism, which has resulted in the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from current systems of water governance, leading to a lack of recognition of their systems of water management. Additionally, in the study by Falae [64], the integration of IK in flood risk assessment and management in Nigeria was well addressed. This study shows that the knowledge generated over the years through the generational IK helps researchers understand flood dynamics as well as coping mechanisms in the community. Additionally, the use of traditional materials in flood management is not only cost-effective but also environmentally friendly. For example, flood management through the use of traditional water management systems has been successful in some cases. This study is also important because it highlights the economic and social benefits associated with the integration of IK in flood management. For example, the study shows that the integration of IK in flood management is important in the economic sense, as it reduces the need for other forms of intervention.

Table 2. Synopsis of the literature on LIK-related water resource policies.

Ref.	Country/ Region	Study Type	Climate Change Focus	LIK Domain	Water Governance Context	Policy/Legal Link	Main Findings	Integration with Modern Water Management?	Research Gap
[58]	Malawi	Mixed-methods empirical research using secondary data, household surveys, informant interviews, and focus groups	Impacts of variation in the climate on rain-fed subsistence farming	Local climate indicators, agricultural modifications, and adaptive cropping	Rain-fed systems for subsistence farming	Program of Action for National Adaptation with a limited focus on IKS	Communities are aware of warming, decreasing rainfall, and delayed rainfall onset; empirical data support these perceptions; and IKS facilitates locally appropriate adaptation options.	Poor formal integration; IKS is not fully utilised in structured adaptation planning by the NAPA framework	Systematic policy integration of IKS is necessary; localised adaptation planning frameworks are necessary due to the regional diversity of IKS.
[62]	Various African countries	Synthesis at the continental scale (GAMI database & iNDC study)	Efficiency of adaptation measures in the water sector	Water conservation, irrigation, rainwater collection, and agroforestry are examples of IK and LK.	National adaptation planning; water management at the household and community levels	Limited formal inclusion of IK and LK (10.4%) in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (iNDCs)	Stronger evidence of reducing climate risk is seen in IK/LK-influenced responses; the strongest evidence is found in Southern, West, and East Africa, with Zimbabwe having the highest percentage (77.8%).	Uneven and partial integration; academic practice surpasses official policy acknowledgement.	The need to integrate LIK into frameworks for water adaptation policies and carry out an in-depth evaluation of its effectiveness at larger scales
[56]	Zimbabwe	Empirical research conducted in the field	The effects of climate variability on smallholder agricultural systems	Social safety nets, food stock management, and seasonal forecasting utilising geographic and biological indicators	Decision-making at the community level and rain-fed smallholder agriculture	Formal incorporation into adaptation planning is limited.	IK is crucial to strategic and operational agricultural decisions; gender roles are changing under climate stress; rainfall seasons are shortened by up to four weeks, increasing susceptibility.	Few formal integrations; adaptation initiatives should use IK as a starting point and be in line with regional decision-making frameworks	Climate variability is having an increasing impact on biological indicators; dependability limits must be evaluated, and hybrid climate services strengthened.
[40]	Ghana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Cameroon, and West, Central, East, and Southern Africa	Political ecology and participative approaches in qualitative case studies	Climate governance, land-use disputes, livelihood resilience, and climate adaptation	IKS in ecological stewardship, traditional conflict resolution, seasonal forecasting, and land management	Traditional governance structures coexist with state-led organisations for land and climate governance	Criticises the lack of legal acknowledgement of Indigenous systems and the marginalisation of policies and epistemic hierarchy.	IKS serve as governance frameworks that improve climate resilience, but they are limited by technical bias, power imbalances, and legal marginalisation.	Partially and unevenly, institutional power is still state-centric despite collaboration with scientific knowledge.	Institutionalised co-governance approaches and vertical integration into national climate and water policy structures have received little empirical evaluation.
[2]	Africa and India’s semiarid areas	A comparative analysis of case studies	Vertical integration and governance of climate adaptation	Community resource governance, informal institutions, and local participatory mechanisms	Decentralised systems for governing water and natural resources	Vertical integration in adaptation planning and decentralisation strategies	Equitable representation, enhanced local capability, and hybrid governance models are necessary for effective adaptation; decentralisation provides insights for flexible and participative water governance.	Partial integration; although there are vertical links, they frequently lack institutional coherence, inclusivity, and capacity.	Implementing hybrid governance structures that integrate local knowledge and engagement with national and subnational adaptation planning is necessary.
[53]	Ghana	Qualitative methods include informal and key informant interviews and group discussions.	Water security in the face of climate variability and dry season irrigation	Local expertise in conjunctive water use, well design, recharge timing, and groundwater identification	Informal groundwater management based on customary authority and local customs	Inadequate formal government assistance and poor incorporation into national frameworks for groundwater management	Farmers utilise conjunctive usage tactics to increase resilience and maintain dry-season irrigation; local knowledge makes it possible to identify groundwater sources, recharge timing, and well construction times.	Weak to moderate; most activities take place outside of established groundwater governance frameworks	Community-based irrigation methods must be recognised by policy, shallow aquifer use must be assessed for sustainability, and formal water resource planning must incorporate local groundwater expertise.
[49]	South Africa	Qualitative; 72 small-scale farmers participated in focus groups	Variability in the climate; resistance to extremes in temperature and rainfall	Crop supervision, seasonal adjustment, and rainfall forecasting using Indigenous and creative adaptation techniques	Adaptation within the community in smallholder farming	Limited official recognition of Indigenous traditions; partial conformity with the South African National Climate Change Strategy	Farmers use both traditional and modern methods to maintain crops, increase yields, and promote food security; these methods include crop diversity, seasonal adaptation, garden planning, fertiliser use, and extension officer advice.	Moderate; the national climate plan aligns with adaptation methods, but there is still little integration of Indigenous knowledge.	Policy frameworks that effectively combine extension services, climate resilience initiatives, and Indigenous adaptation expertise are needed.
[60]	Zimbabwe	qualitative empirical research using focus groups and interviews	Risk of flooding and preparedness for disasters	Local coping skills and Indigenous flood survival techniques	Rural areas at risk of flooding; community-based disaster assistance	Inadequate formal institutional integration in frameworks for the risk of disaster	IKS greatly lessened the effects of floods; resilience was impacted by socioeconomic capacity and geophysical exposure; a stronger socioeconomic foundation enhanced coping ability.	Low level of official integration; mostly informal and community-driven	IKS must be incorporated into organised systems for water governance and catastrophe risk reduction; scalability across high-risk areas has not been fully evaluated.
[3]	Multi-African national: South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, and Zimbabwe; regional: South, West, and East Africa	Qualitative Comprehensive evaluation and iNDC analysis	Adaptation of the water industry to climate change	LIK in agroforestry, irrigation, rainwater collection, and water use	Local governance, community, and household contexts	Compliance with iNDCs; restricted IK and LK participation (10.4% of governments)	When compared to non-IK and LK techniques, IK and LK strategies have a greater impact on the adoption of 18 adaptation measures; the strongest evidence is found in Southern, West, and East Africa.	IK and LK are rarely included in official government adaptation plans; it is partially integrated at the home and community level.	Low IK and LK involvement in national adaptation planning; frameworks for many knowledge sources are necessary for sustainability and coherence of policy.
[42]	Tanzania	Mixed	Climate adaptation and environmental stressor resistance for smallholder farmers	IK in environmental stewardship, sociocultural traditions, and agricultural adaptation	Haya people’s local adaptation in smallholder farming groups	Limited official acknowledgement of IK in national policy related to water governance or adaptation	African knowledge systems are independent of Western epistemologies, and IK is firmly rooted in local environmental knowledge and sociocultural context, offering practical climate adaptation options.	Weak; Community-based adaptation strategies are weak, and they are not well integrated into larger water or agricultural governance.	Systematic recording, policy integration, and assessment of IK’s potential to support official adaptation plans are needed.
[52]	South Africa	Qualitative frameworks and institutional review	Governance and participative management of water quality under challenging environmental conditions	Monitoring water quality with the community and incorporating local knowledge	Governance of water resources based on Catchment and subCatchment fora	Strong legal and constitutional backing for involvement; execution is hampered by institutional inconsistency	The suggested multitiered linkage system improves vertical and horizontal integration, whereas inadequate information flow between national water quality organisations and community-based structures impedes effective participation.	There are formal institutions in place, but they are not functionally integrated with community organisations.	Operational methods that integrate community monitoring into national water quality systems, improve municipal-Catchment coordination, and institutionalise information exchange are needed.
[54]	Various African countries	Qualitative Bibliometric evaluation combined with case studies	Adaptation to climate change	LIK in rainfall and climate adaptation	Rainfall adaptation, agroforestry, and water management at the community level	National adaptation plans have limited explicit inclusion.	LIK promotes resilience-building, ecosystem-based adaptation strategies, and local forecasting while enhancing biocultural heritage.	Partial; Limited national policy integration, primarily at the household and community level	Systematic frameworks are required to combine LIK with scientific climate services and cross-scale policy planning.
[46]	Various African countries	Qualitative	Resilience building and adaptation to climate change	Using LIK in land management, crop types, and traditional practices	Water and climate governance mechanisms at the national and local levels	There are institutional and legal obstacles, and LIK is not widely acknowledged in official policy frameworks.	LIK offers helpful adaptation techniques, but institutional inflexibility, legal hierarchy, epistemic bias, and sociopolitical obstacles make it difficult to apply.	Weak; there is still little interaction with scientific and policy frameworks.	Strategies are required to go beyond governance, legal, and epistemic obstacles to successfully incorporate LIK into official frameworks for water management and climate adaptation.
[1]	South Africa	Documentary evaluation and content analysis of government policies and peer-reviewed publications	Vulnerability, severity, readiness, and reaction to drought	Insufficient focus on ecosystem-based and Indigenous adaptation techniques	National and subnational water governance in the face of institutional complexity, inequity, and climate stress	Examines strategic governance papers, drought policies, and water law; finds implementation and structural gaps	Climate change and governance shortcomings are observed to be the main causes of water scarcity; SWOT analysis identifies systemic readiness deficiencies.	Partially; There are policies in place, but they are not well coordinated among institutions and are implemented in a fragmented, reactive manner.	Indigenous methods and ecosystem-based adaptation are not sufficiently integrated, and there are few proactive models for drought governance and inadequate coordination systems.
[38]	Zimbabwe	qualitative exploratory research with 30 in-depth interviews	Adaptation to climate change and resilience to hydrological fluctuations	The role of IKS in sustainable livelihoods, water management, and agricultural diversification	Adaptation within the community with a focus on maintaining local customs	IKS has received little official acknowledgement in national water or agriculture programs.	Communities establish water storage systems, mulch, erect temporary riverbank walls, and switch crops; these actions preserve customs and improve resilience.	Weak; community-level adaptation tactics are implemented with little incorporation into official frameworks for water or climate governance.	The necessity of incorporating IKS into climate adaptation policy frameworks and conducting a thorough assessment of its efficacy at greater scales
[47]	Zimbabwe	Thematic analysis, individual interviews, and qualitative multiple case studies	Adaptation in land and water resource management and climate governance	Water management, land stewardship, and agricultural productivity using IKS	Climate governance at the community level in smallholder agricultural systems	IKS is only partially formally institutionalised in resource and climate governance policy.	IKS improves adaptability and resilience in land and water management; IKS and scientific knowledge must complement each other for effective climate governance.	Partial: IKS primarily functions locally and has little organised connection with official governance frameworks.	Formal frameworks are required to operationalise knowledge coproduction and incorporate IKS into policies about land, water, and climate governance.
[44]	South Africa	Qualitative; coastal community case studies	Socioeconomic vulnerability, disaster risk, and climate change	Indigenous and local knowledge for community adaptation and fisheries management	Management of coastal resources and control of small-scale fisheries	National strategies and policies for catastrophe risk reduction, sustainable development, and climate change	Local knowledge can improve the coherence and implementation of policies; yet, integration into formal government is still restricted. Policies are not in line with local realities.	Limited; LIK is recognised but not consistently included in project execution or policy planning.	There is still a lack of developed mechanisms for both vertical and horizontal integration of LIK into formal governance; implementation results must be evaluated.
[41]	Various African countries	Qualitative and peer-reviewed publications	Early warning systems, catastrophe risk reduction, and climate adaptation	IK in climate interpretation, risk management, seasonal forecasting, and resource management	Formal water governance receives little direct attention; it is pertinent to local adaptation planning and climate services.	IK’s poor formal integration into adaptation policy frameworks and lack of institutional recognition are highlighted.	IK is essential to early warning systems, adaptation tactics, and the coproduction of information with scientific knowledge, but it lacks a consensual definition and is being undermined by modernisation and sociocultural change.	Strongest integration was shown in meteorological and climate services through IK–scientific knowledge collaboration, which is still in its infancy.	Inadequate documentation and organised incorporation of IK into formal governance and water policy institutions; little empirical assessment of institutionalised coproduction models.
[43]	Northern Namibia	mixed-approaches empirical research (qualitative, quantitative, and urban-rural comparison)	Climate variability, socioecological resilience, and flood dynamics	IK in adaptive practices, coping mechanisms, and hazard education	Local flood control in the context of growing urbanisation, poor spatial planning, and socioeconomic susceptibility	Limited integration of explicit policies; emphasises planning and governance shortcomings that increase the danger of flooding	Flood vulnerability is caused by intricate socioecological shifts, poverty, and poor spatial planning; IK has traditionally improved coping mechanisms, but the quick changes in the socioenvironment have reduced their efficacy.	Weak; Resilience is mostly framed at the community level and has little structural integration into official institutions for water or flood governance.	Governance reforms addressing structural reasons of risk are necessary; political and spatial governance drivers of vulnerability are not given enough attention; and IK is not institutionally sufficiently included in flood planning.
[50]	Botswana	mixed-methods; key informant interviews (9) and a household survey (455)	Access to and management of water under socioenvironmental challenges	Local resource management, gendered responsibilities, and Indigenous and traditional methods of water governance	Association between statutory and customary entities in rural water governance	There are institutional contradictions and little official recognition of traditional water governance.	Access to water is influenced by gendered duties; household size, wealth, distance to sources, and water use determine consumption; and traditional institutions endure but frequently conflict with legal frameworks.	Partial: local governance structures are not fully integrated, but there is some conformity with statutory policies.	To enhance fair access and local water management, an integrated water governance model that takes socioeconomic and gender factors into consideration is needed.
[48]	Cameroon	mixed approaches, literature review, and participatory research	Sustainability of rural water supplies in the face of socioenvironmental conflict	Traditional leadership, community-based natural resource management, and local governance methods	Community-Based Water Supply Management (CBWSM): the relationship between local institutions and centralised management	Despite decentralisation frameworks, there is little effective devolution; participatory governance concepts are not well implemented.	Because of centralised control, poverty, little stakeholder participation, and power disparities, CBWSM has failed to provide a sustainable water supply; success depends on strong traditional leadership and true devolution.	Formal water management methods do not fully incorporate grassroots governance institutions.	For community-driven, sustainable water governance to be achieved, real decentralisation, rural community empowerment, and the adoption of best practices are needed.
[45]	Ethiopia	Qualitative case study: observations, conversations, and interviews	Sustainable water supply in the face of environmental change	Indigenous water management techniques (Harta ponds, Ella wells); traditional governance	Traditional community-run water systems are collaborating with official water supply initiatives	Standardised management paradigms are promoted by development initiatives, with little regard for Indigenous systems.	Contemporary interventions frequently marginalise local customs, whereas traditional systems incorporate governance ideals like equity, cost recovery, enforcement, ownership, and collective responsibility.	Weak to partial; Indigenous governing processes are usually replaced by modern systems rather than integrated.	The need for flexible, situation-specific governance models that incorporate Indigenous institutional values into official frameworks for water supply planning and policy.
[55]	Selected African countries	Qualitative Review of literature and case studies	Resilience and vulnerability of the community	Water management, weather forecasting, and land tenure	Water management at the local or community level	Insufficient incorporation into national adaptation strategies	LIK reduces vulnerability and improves adaptive capability; historical heritage shows usefulness.	Partial; emphasised the necessity of combining formal techniques with LIK for successful adaptation.	Limited legal integration and formal recognition; little collaboration with contemporary climate adaptation techniques.
[51]	South Africa	Field research: focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires	Rain-fed agriculture and climate adaptation	Using local indications to forecast the weather (stars, moon, ants, mist)	Decision-making in agriculture is influenced by rainfall	LIK’s formal policy recognition is limited.	Indigenous knowledge improves resilience to climatic shocks and successfully directs farmers’ adaptation options.	Potential to supplement contemporary climate services, but not explicitly integrated	Farmers’ perspectives and practices are not adequately recorded or included in policy; LIK has to be effectively evaluated and given credit in adaptation plans.
[61]	Tanzania	Empirical field research (key informant interviews, focus groups, desk research, and observation)	Effects of climate change on mixed farming systems, freshwater, and food security	Wetland farming, drought-tolerant crops, local insecticides, food storage, and drought adaptation	Systems of mixed agricultural and cattle-centred around river basins	Insufficient official institutional backing; LIK is primarily community-driven	Communities deploy complex, socioculturally entrenched IK during protracted droughts, disease outbreaks, and severe winds; crop diversification and wetland farming are essential components of adaptation.	Locally integrated to some extent; not consistently connected to official frameworks for climate management.	To improve long-term resilience, IK must be hybridised with scientific adaptation techniques and receive organised support.
[59]	African Sahel	Review of concepts and analysis	Combining adaptation and mitigation in the face of ongoing drought	Indigenous coping mechanisms for drought: a combination of mitigation and adaptation techniques	Semiarid, drought-prone agro-pastoral systems; resource management based in the community	IKS is not fully included in formal frameworks for adaptation and mitigation.	Historically, Indigenous methods have decreased susceptibility to extreme climate fluctuation; mitigation and adaptation have been typically sought as complementary methods.	Indigenous mitigation–adaptation synergies are rarely included in modern frameworks due to poor formal integration.	There is insufficient evidence of operational paths, and institutional mechanisms are required to integrate IKS into integrated climate policy.
[57]	Tanzania	case study that involves participation (meetings, interviews, group discussions, observation, multimedia documentation)	Preservation of knowledge and adaptability in water management	IKS and traditional water management techniques used by the Maasai	Water resource management by the community in semiarid environments	Limited official recognition; the colonial schooling legacy marginalises knowledge	Maasai water technologies show practical, context-specific management techniques; collaborative research creates expert-community collaborations; African traditional knowledge is underdocumented and endangered.	Coproduction of knowledge leads to emerging integration, which is not yet fully institutionalised.	Structured frameworks, policy recognition, and methodical recording are required to connect mainstream and Indigenous knowledge systems in water governance.
[63]	South Africa	Qualitative systematic review	Water scarcity, resistance to drought and floods	Indigenous methods of conserving water, such as rainwater collection, terracing, managing wetlands, forecasting the weather, and adaptive farming	The national water security agenda includes community-based water management.	Conformity to the national water security objectives of 2030; restricted institutional integration of IK	IK practices support inclusion and intergenerational knowledge transmission; they are inexpensive, culturally ingrained, environmentally sustainable, and improve climate resilience.	High integration potential but underutilisation at the moment; little official institutional support	Financial incentives, organised data collecting, policy mainstreaming, and hybrid frameworks connecting IK with contemporary water technologies are all necessary.
[37]	Global nations	Qualitative scoping review	Water resource fairness and access, as well as Indigenous water governance	Indigenous water systems’ guiding principles, beliefs, and methods of governance (such as “water is life,” Living Water First Law, and Kistihtamahwin)	Water governance that is culturally ingrained and community-based, a comprehensive ecosystem, and community health.	Water governance systems from colonial and mainstream cultures; little acknowledgement of Indigenous frameworks	Effective implementation of Indigenous water governance is hampered by colonial legacies and exclusion, which highlight the connection between water and life and community.	Limited integration: Indigenous governance structures and ideals are rarely incorporated into mainstream systems.	Indigenous worldviews must be included in water governance systems through structural change, and Indigenous governance models must be scaled up and modified for use in practice and policy.
[64]	Nigeria	Participatory research and case studies	Water management and flood risk	Land-use planning, conventional water management, and flood risk assessment	Urban and riverine management of water	Minimal participation in official water and flood policies	IK improves community involvement and resilience while lessening the effects of flooding.	Minimal; requires incorporation into official flood risk management	IK is not formally recognised by policy frameworks; there are few hybrid approaches.

Table 2. Synopsis of the literature on LIK-related water resource policies.

Ref.	Country/ Region	Study Type	Climate Change Focus	LIK Domain	Water Governance Context	Policy/Legal Link	Main Findings	Integration with Modern Water Management?	Research Gap
[58]	Malawi	Mixed-methods empirical research using secondary data, household surveys, informant interviews, and focus groups	Impacts of variation in the climate on rain-fed subsistence farming	Local climate indicators, agricultural modifications, and adaptive cropping	Rain-fed systems for subsistence farming	Program of Action for National Adaptation with a limited focus on IKS	Communities are aware of warming, decreasing rainfall, and delayed rainfall onset; empirical data support these perceptions; and IKS facilitates locally appropriate adaptation options.	Poor formal integration; IKS is not fully utilised in structured adaptation planning by the NAPA framework	Systematic policy integration of IKS is necessary; localised adaptation planning frameworks are necessary due to the regional diversity of IKS.
[62]	Various African countries	Synthesis at the continental scale (GAMI database & iNDC study)	Efficiency of adaptation measures in the water sector	Water conservation, irrigation, rainwater collection, and agroforestry are examples of IK and LK.	National adaptation planning; water management at the household and community levels	Limited formal inclusion of IK and LK (10.4%) in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (iNDCs)	Stronger evidence of reducing climate risk is seen in IK/LK-influenced responses; the strongest evidence is found in Southern, West, and East Africa, with Zimbabwe having the highest percentage (77.8%).	Uneven and partial integration; academic practice surpasses official policy acknowledgement.	The need to integrate LIK into frameworks for water adaptation policies and carry out an in-depth evaluation of its effectiveness at larger scales
[56]	Zimbabwe	Empirical research conducted in the field	The effects of climate variability on smallholder agricultural systems	Social safety nets, food stock management, and seasonal forecasting utilising geographic and biological indicators	Decision-making at the community level and rain-fed smallholder agriculture	Formal incorporation into adaptation planning is limited.	IK is crucial to strategic and operational agricultural decisions; gender roles are changing under climate stress; rainfall seasons are shortened by up to four weeks, increasing susceptibility.	Few formal integrations; adaptation initiatives should use IK as a starting point and be in line with regional decision-making frameworks	Climate variability is having an increasing impact on biological indicators; dependability limits must be evaluated, and hybrid climate services strengthened.
[40]	Ghana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Cameroon, and West, Central, East, and Southern Africa	Political ecology and participative approaches in qualitative case studies	Climate governance, land-use disputes, livelihood resilience, and climate adaptation	IKS in ecological stewardship, traditional conflict resolution, seasonal forecasting, and land management	Traditional governance structures coexist with state-led organisations for land and climate governance	Criticises the lack of legal acknowledgement of Indigenous systems and the marginalisation of policies and epistemic hierarchy.	IKS serve as governance frameworks that improve climate resilience, but they are limited by technical bias, power imbalances, and legal marginalisation.	Partially and unevenly, institutional power is still state-centric despite collaboration with scientific knowledge.	Institutionalised co-governance approaches and vertical integration into national climate and water policy structures have received little empirical evaluation.
[2]	Africa and India’s semiarid areas	A comparative analysis of case studies	Vertical integration and governance of climate adaptation	Community resource governance, informal institutions, and local participatory mechanisms	Decentralised systems for governing water and natural resources	Vertical integration in adaptation planning and decentralisation strategies	Equitable representation, enhanced local capability, and hybrid governance models are necessary for effective adaptation; decentralisation provides insights for flexible and participative water governance.	Partial integration; although there are vertical links, they frequently lack institutional coherence, inclusivity, and capacity.	Implementing hybrid governance structures that integrate local knowledge and engagement with national and subnational adaptation planning is necessary.
[53]	Ghana	Qualitative methods include informal and key informant interviews and group discussions.	Water security in the face of climate variability and dry season irrigation	Local expertise in conjunctive water use, well design, recharge timing, and groundwater identification	Informal groundwater management based on customary authority and local customs	Inadequate formal government assistance and poor incorporation into national frameworks for groundwater management	Farmers utilise conjunctive usage tactics to increase resilience and maintain dry-season irrigation; local knowledge makes it possible to identify groundwater sources, recharge timing, and well construction times.	Weak to moderate; most activities take place outside of established groundwater governance frameworks	Community-based irrigation methods must be recognised by policy, shallow aquifer use must be assessed for sustainability, and formal water resource planning must incorporate local groundwater expertise.
[49]	South Africa	Qualitative; 72 small-scale farmers participated in focus groups	Variability in the climate; resistance to extremes in temperature and rainfall	Crop supervision, seasonal adjustment, and rainfall forecasting using Indigenous and creative adaptation techniques	Adaptation within the community in smallholder farming	Limited official recognition of Indigenous traditions; partial conformity with the South African National Climate Change Strategy	Farmers use both traditional and modern methods to maintain crops, increase yields, and promote food security; these methods include crop diversity, seasonal adaptation, garden planning, fertiliser use, and extension officer advice.	Moderate; the national climate plan aligns with adaptation methods, but there is still little integration of Indigenous knowledge.	Policy frameworks that effectively combine extension services, climate resilience initiatives, and Indigenous adaptation expertise are needed.
[60]	Zimbabwe	qualitative empirical research using focus groups and interviews	Risk of flooding and preparedness for disasters	Local coping skills and Indigenous flood survival techniques	Rural areas at risk of flooding; community-based disaster assistance	Inadequate formal institutional integration in frameworks for the risk of disaster	IKS greatly lessened the effects of floods; resilience was impacted by socioeconomic capacity and geophysical exposure; a stronger socioeconomic foundation enhanced coping ability.	Low level of official integration; mostly informal and community-driven	IKS must be incorporated into organised systems for water governance and catastrophe risk reduction; scalability across high-risk areas has not been fully evaluated.
[3]	Multi-African national: South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, and Zimbabwe; regional: South, West, and East Africa	Qualitative Comprehensive evaluation and iNDC analysis	Adaptation of the water industry to climate change	LIK in agroforestry, irrigation, rainwater collection, and water use	Local governance, community, and household contexts	Compliance with iNDCs; restricted IK and LK participation (10.4% of governments)	When compared to non-IK and LK techniques, IK and LK strategies have a greater impact on the adoption of 18 adaptation measures; the strongest evidence is found in Southern, West, and East Africa.	IK and LK are rarely included in official government adaptation plans; it is partially integrated at the home and community level.	Low IK and LK involvement in national adaptation planning; frameworks for many knowledge sources are necessary for sustainability and coherence of policy.
[42]	Tanzania	Mixed	Climate adaptation and environmental stressor resistance for smallholder farmers	IK in environmental stewardship, sociocultural traditions, and agricultural adaptation	Haya people’s local adaptation in smallholder farming groups	Limited official acknowledgement of IK in national policy related to water governance or adaptation	African knowledge systems are independent of Western epistemologies, and IK is firmly rooted in local environmental knowledge and sociocultural context, offering practical climate adaptation options.	Weak; Community-based adaptation strategies are weak, and they are not well integrated into larger water or agricultural governance.	Systematic recording, policy integration, and assessment of IK’s potential to support official adaptation plans are needed.
[52]	South Africa	Qualitative frameworks and institutional review	Governance and participative management of water quality under challenging environmental conditions	Monitoring water quality with the community and incorporating local knowledge	Governance of water resources based on Catchment and subCatchment fora	Strong legal and constitutional backing for involvement; execution is hampered by institutional inconsistency	The suggested multitiered linkage system improves vertical and horizontal integration, whereas inadequate information flow between national water quality organisations and community-based structures impedes effective participation.	There are formal institutions in place, but they are not functionally integrated with community organisations.	Operational methods that integrate community monitoring into national water quality systems, improve municipal-Catchment coordination, and institutionalise information exchange are needed.
[54]	Various African countries	Qualitative Bibliometric evaluation combined with case studies	Adaptation to climate change	LIK in rainfall and climate adaptation	Rainfall adaptation, agroforestry, and water management at the community level	National adaptation plans have limited explicit inclusion.	LIK promotes resilience-building, ecosystem-based adaptation strategies, and local forecasting while enhancing biocultural heritage.	Partial; Limited national policy integration, primarily at the household and community level	Systematic frameworks are required to combine LIK with scientific climate services and cross-scale policy planning.
[46]	Various African countries	Qualitative	Resilience building and adaptation to climate change	Using LIK in land management, crop types, and traditional practices	Water and climate governance mechanisms at the national and local levels	There are institutional and legal obstacles, and LIK is not widely acknowledged in official policy frameworks.	LIK offers helpful adaptation techniques, but institutional inflexibility, legal hierarchy, epistemic bias, and sociopolitical obstacles make it difficult to apply.	Weak; there is still little interaction with scientific and policy frameworks.	Strategies are required to go beyond governance, legal, and epistemic obstacles to successfully incorporate LIK into official frameworks for water management and climate adaptation.
[1]	South Africa	Documentary evaluation and content analysis of government policies and peer-reviewed publications	Vulnerability, severity, readiness, and reaction to drought	Insufficient focus on ecosystem-based and Indigenous adaptation techniques	National and subnational water governance in the face of institutional complexity, inequity, and climate stress	Examines strategic governance papers, drought policies, and water law; finds implementation and structural gaps	Climate change and governance shortcomings are observed to be the main causes of water scarcity; SWOT analysis identifies systemic readiness deficiencies.	Partially; There are policies in place, but they are not well coordinated among institutions and are implemented in a fragmented, reactive manner.	Indigenous methods and ecosystem-based adaptation are not sufficiently integrated, and there are few proactive models for drought governance and inadequate coordination systems.
[38]	Zimbabwe	qualitative exploratory research with 30 in-depth interviews	Adaptation to climate change and resilience to hydrological fluctuations	The role of IKS in sustainable livelihoods, water management, and agricultural diversification	Adaptation within the community with a focus on maintaining local customs	IKS has received little official acknowledgement in national water or agriculture programs.	Communities establish water storage systems, mulch, erect temporary riverbank walls, and switch crops; these actions preserve customs and improve resilience.	Weak; community-level adaptation tactics are implemented with little incorporation into official frameworks for water or climate governance.	The necessity of incorporating IKS into climate adaptation policy frameworks and conducting a thorough assessment of its efficacy at greater scales
[47]	Zimbabwe	Thematic analysis, individual interviews, and qualitative multiple case studies	Adaptation in land and water resource management and climate governance	Water management, land stewardship, and agricultural productivity using IKS	Climate governance at the community level in smallholder agricultural systems	IKS is only partially formally institutionalised in resource and climate governance policy.	IKS improves adaptability and resilience in land and water management; IKS and scientific knowledge must complement each other for effective climate governance.	Partial: IKS primarily functions locally and has little organised connection with official governance frameworks.	Formal frameworks are required to operationalise knowledge coproduction and incorporate IKS into policies about land, water, and climate governance.
[44]	South Africa	Qualitative; coastal community case studies	Socioeconomic vulnerability, disaster risk, and climate change	Indigenous and local knowledge for community adaptation and fisheries management	Management of coastal resources and control of small-scale fisheries	National strategies and policies for catastrophe risk reduction, sustainable development, and climate change	Local knowledge can improve the coherence and implementation of policies; yet, integration into formal government is still restricted. Policies are not in line with local realities.	Limited; LIK is recognised but not consistently included in project execution or policy planning.	There is still a lack of developed mechanisms for both vertical and horizontal integration of LIK into formal governance; implementation results must be evaluated.
[41]	Various African countries	Qualitative and peer-reviewed publications	Early warning systems, catastrophe risk reduction, and climate adaptation	IK in climate interpretation, risk management, seasonal forecasting, and resource management	Formal water governance receives little direct attention; it is pertinent to local adaptation planning and climate services.	IK’s poor formal integration into adaptation policy frameworks and lack of institutional recognition are highlighted.	IK is essential to early warning systems, adaptation tactics, and the coproduction of information with scientific knowledge, but it lacks a consensual definition and is being undermined by modernisation and sociocultural change.	Strongest integration was shown in meteorological and climate services through IK–scientific knowledge collaboration, which is still in its infancy.	Inadequate documentation and organised incorporation of IK into formal governance and water policy institutions; little empirical assessment of institutionalised coproduction models.
[43]	Northern Namibia	mixed-approaches empirical research (qualitative, quantitative, and urban-rural comparison)	Climate variability, socioecological resilience, and flood dynamics	IK in adaptive practices, coping mechanisms, and hazard education	Local flood control in the context of growing urbanisation, poor spatial planning, and socioeconomic susceptibility	Limited integration of explicit policies; emphasises planning and governance shortcomings that increase the danger of flooding	Flood vulnerability is caused by intricate socioecological shifts, poverty, and poor spatial planning; IK has traditionally improved coping mechanisms, but the quick changes in the socioenvironment have reduced their efficacy.	Weak; Resilience is mostly framed at the community level and has little structural integration into official institutions for water or flood governance.	Governance reforms addressing structural reasons of risk are necessary; political and spatial governance drivers of vulnerability are not given enough attention; and IK is not institutionally sufficiently included in flood planning.
[50]	Botswana	mixed-methods; key informant interviews (9) and a household survey (455)	Access to and management of water under socioenvironmental challenges	Local resource management, gendered responsibilities, and Indigenous and traditional methods of water governance	Association between statutory and customary entities in rural water governance	There are institutional contradictions and little official recognition of traditional water governance.	Access to water is influenced by gendered duties; household size, wealth, distance to sources, and water use determine consumption; and traditional institutions endure but frequently conflict with legal frameworks.	Partial: local governance structures are not fully integrated, but there is some conformity with statutory policies.	To enhance fair access and local water management, an integrated water governance model that takes socioeconomic and gender factors into consideration is needed.
[48]	Cameroon	mixed approaches, literature review, and participatory research	Sustainability of rural water supplies in the face of socioenvironmental conflict	Traditional leadership, community-based natural resource management, and local governance methods	Community-Based Water Supply Management (CBWSM): the relationship between local institutions and centralised management	Despite decentralisation frameworks, there is little effective devolution; participatory governance concepts are not well implemented.	Because of centralised control, poverty, little stakeholder participation, and power disparities, CBWSM has failed to provide a sustainable water supply; success depends on strong traditional leadership and true devolution.	Formal water management methods do not fully incorporate grassroots governance institutions.	For community-driven, sustainable water governance to be achieved, real decentralisation, rural community empowerment, and the adoption of best practices are needed.
[45]	Ethiopia	Qualitative case study: observations, conversations, and interviews	Sustainable water supply in the face of environmental change	Indigenous water management techniques (Harta ponds, Ella wells); traditional governance	Traditional community-run water systems are collaborating with official water supply initiatives	Standardised management paradigms are promoted by development initiatives, with little regard for Indigenous systems.	Contemporary interventions frequently marginalise local customs, whereas traditional systems incorporate governance ideals like equity, cost recovery, enforcement, ownership, and collective responsibility.	Weak to partial; Indigenous governing processes are usually replaced by modern systems rather than integrated.	The need for flexible, situation-specific governance models that incorporate Indigenous institutional values into official frameworks for water supply planning and policy.
[55]	Selected African countries	Qualitative Review of literature and case studies	Resilience and vulnerability of the community	Water management, weather forecasting, and land tenure	Water management at the local or community level	Insufficient incorporation into national adaptation strategies	LIK reduces vulnerability and improves adaptive capability; historical heritage shows usefulness.	Partial; emphasised the necessity of combining formal techniques with LIK for successful adaptation.	Limited legal integration and formal recognition; little collaboration with contemporary climate adaptation techniques.
[51]	South Africa	Field research: focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires	Rain-fed agriculture and climate adaptation	Using local indications to forecast the weather (stars, moon, ants, mist)	Decision-making in agriculture is influenced by rainfall	LIK’s formal policy recognition is limited.	Indigenous knowledge improves resilience to climatic shocks and successfully directs farmers’ adaptation options.	Potential to supplement contemporary climate services, but not explicitly integrated	Farmers’ perspectives and practices are not adequately recorded or included in policy; LIK has to be effectively evaluated and given credit in adaptation plans.
[61]	Tanzania	Empirical field research (key informant interviews, focus groups, desk research, and observation)	Effects of climate change on mixed farming systems, freshwater, and food security	Wetland farming, drought-tolerant crops, local insecticides, food storage, and drought adaptation	Systems of mixed agricultural and cattle-centred around river basins	Insufficient official institutional backing; LIK is primarily community-driven	Communities deploy complex, socioculturally entrenched IK during protracted droughts, disease outbreaks, and severe winds; crop diversification and wetland farming are essential components of adaptation.	Locally integrated to some extent; not consistently connected to official frameworks for climate management.	To improve long-term resilience, IK must be hybridised with scientific adaptation techniques and receive organised support.
[59]	African Sahel	Review of concepts and analysis	Combining adaptation and mitigation in the face of ongoing drought	Indigenous coping mechanisms for drought: a combination of mitigation and adaptation techniques	Semiarid, drought-prone agro-pastoral systems; resource management based in the community	IKS is not fully included in formal frameworks for adaptation and mitigation.	Historically, Indigenous methods have decreased susceptibility to extreme climate fluctuation; mitigation and adaptation have been typically sought as complementary methods.	Indigenous mitigation–adaptation synergies are rarely included in modern frameworks due to poor formal integration.	There is insufficient evidence of operational paths, and institutional mechanisms are required to integrate IKS into integrated climate policy.
[57]	Tanzania	case study that involves participation (meetings, interviews, group discussions, observation, multimedia documentation)	Preservation of knowledge and adaptability in water management	IKS and traditional water management techniques used by the Maasai	Water resource management by the community in semiarid environments	Limited official recognition; the colonial schooling legacy marginalises knowledge	Maasai water technologies show practical, context-specific management techniques; collaborative research creates expert-community collaborations; African traditional knowledge is underdocumented and endangered.	Coproduction of knowledge leads to emerging integration, which is not yet fully institutionalised.	Structured frameworks, policy recognition, and methodical recording are required to connect mainstream and Indigenous knowledge systems in water governance.
[63]	South Africa	Qualitative systematic review	Water scarcity, resistance to drought and floods	Indigenous methods of conserving water, such as rainwater collection, terracing, managing wetlands, forecasting the weather, and adaptive farming	The national water security agenda includes community-based water management.	Conformity to the national water security objectives of 2030; restricted institutional integration of IK	IK practices support inclusion and intergenerational knowledge transmission; they are inexpensive, culturally ingrained, environmentally sustainable, and improve climate resilience.	High integration potential but underutilisation at the moment; little official institutional support	Financial incentives, organised data collecting, policy mainstreaming, and hybrid frameworks connecting IK with contemporary water technologies are all necessary.
[37]	Global nations	Qualitative scoping review	Water resource fairness and access, as well as Indigenous water governance	Indigenous water systems’ guiding principles, beliefs, and methods of governance (such as “water is life,” Living Water First Law, and Kistihtamahwin)	Water governance that is culturally ingrained and community-based, a comprehensive ecosystem, and community health.	Water governance systems from colonial and mainstream cultures; little acknowledgement of Indigenous frameworks	Effective implementation of Indigenous water governance is hampered by colonial legacies and exclusion, which highlight the connection between water and life and community.	Limited integration: Indigenous governance structures and ideals are rarely incorporated into mainstream systems.	Indigenous worldviews must be included in water governance systems through structural change, and Indigenous governance models must be scaled up and modified for use in practice and policy.
[64]	Nigeria	Participatory research and case studies	Water management and flood risk	Land-use planning, conventional water management, and flood risk assessment	Urban and riverine management of water	Minimal participation in official water and flood policies	IK improves community involvement and resilience while lessening the effects of flooding.	Minimal; requires incorporation into official flood risk management	IK is not formally recognised by policy frameworks; there are few hybrid approaches.

According to the synthesised data from the reviewed literature, LIK is both a cultural artifact and a functional aspect of water governance that aligns with the fundamental theoretical areas of the study. The literature states that to obtain epistemic acknowledgement, LIK must be proven to be a legitimate and useful governance logic. Studies such as Behailu et al. [45] demonstrate how the Borana and Konso communities in Ethiopia have managed water for generations utilising LIK-based systems on the basis of the principles of cost recovery, equity, and collective responsibility. These findings show that LIK-based systems often mirror, and sometimes even precede, the very objectives that modern technocratic approaches struggle to achieve, such as sustainable resource allocation and enforcement. Therefore, rather than viewing LIK as an additional input, epistemic acknowledgement entails recognising it as a coequal type of scientific and administrative reasoning.

Given that statutory legislation frequently supersedes and delegitimises customary norms, the combined findings demonstrate continuing dissonance in institutional systems. Gondo et al. [50] highlighted this conflict in Botswana, where the absence of official legitimacy for traditional water organisations hinders effective local management. To bridge these gaps, the literature promotes “nested governance” and “vertical integration,” which create strategic links between regional community institutions and national policy frameworks. According to Nare et al. [52], excellent architecture requires a multitiered governance framework that facilitates information flow between subcatchment forums and national monitoring agencies to guarantee that local adaptive approaches are institutionalised rather than suppressed.

Ultimately, the analysis highlights the role of political agency in helping local communities manage power and build resilience. When centralised state distribution fails, rural populations strategically mobilise LIK to build “people-centred and community-driven” water systems, as shown in Cameroonian community-led management [48]. This agency is exhibited by the active application of traditional leadership and ancestral principles of behaviour to self-organise and maintain infrastructure in the absence of formal bureaucratic support. This type of strategic mobilisation demonstrates that LIK is a dynamic governance framework that communities use to assert their rights to water sovereignty and adapt to climate threats on their own terms.

6. Conceptualising Local and Indigenous Knowledge in Water Governance

Until recently, the dominant technocratic and neoliberal water governance paradigm has ignored the role of LIK systems, which, as knowledge systems, are strong, historically grounded, and deeply implicated in water governance, culture, and power relations [25,27]. It includes the accumulation of knowledge, practices, and beliefs that have been developed and refined as a result of sustained interaction and engagement with the environment, including hydrological observations, water conservation, water distribution, and the moral and ritualistic use of water and aquatic ecosystems [27,65]. Recent research conceptualises LIK as a plural form of knowledge, which challenges the dominant assumption of the water management paradigm, as it is distinct from the view that it is somehow an auxiliary or unofficial form of scientific knowledge [25,66]. Current theories place LIK in the realm of climate and water governance and highlight its practice through institutional means, normative guidelines, and authority structures in the regulation of water resources [46,67,68].

Political-economic theories demonstrate that the development of colonial and postcolonial states resulted in the suppression of Indigenous water governance systems and the installation of state-centric systems that focus on expert knowledge and capital-intensive technologies [68,69]. As a result, LIK has often been marginalised and commodified without respect to Indigenous governance authority and rights [58,70]. The notion of LIK as a system of governance instead of merely data or input has important policy implications [13,31]. It moves the focus away from the derivation of local insights to the recognition of local institutions, power-sharing, and legal pluralism within systems of water resource management [6,31]. LIK is not only a source of ecological knowledge but also a force that can shape equitable, adaptive, and contextualised water governance policies that are both sustainable and socially legitimate [31,35,48].

7. LIK and Climate Change Adaptation in the Water Sector

There is emerging evidence of the important role of LIK in climate change adaptation, especially in areas prone to drought, hydrological fluctuations, and ecosystem degradation [54,63]. LIK has been shown to play a role in early warning systems, risk perception, ecosystem-based adaptation, and livelihood resilience, offering place-specific adaptation strategies that can improve adaptive capacity [42,63]. In savanna and semiarid ecosystems, Indigenous drought management techniques have been shown to increase water retention, soil moisture, and ecosystem resilience, thereby promoting both environmental and socioeconomic resilience [1,66]. However, such adaptation results remain largely dependent on the scale of governance and institutional alignment [18,36]. The persistent misalignments between local practices and national or basin-level policy frameworks remain major impediments to vertical integration for LIK, thereby affecting its overall impact on statutory allocation, infrastructure investments, and large-scale planning [2,62]. Although local actors show dynamic and context-specific innovation in response to climate change impacts, such an understanding does not filter into policy or decision-making spaces, highlighting structural challenges to multilevel governance [71,72]. These trends are supported and extended by comparative studies from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand [72,73]. LIK-based water management builds adaptive capacity and resilience where institutional arrangements formally acknowledge and incorporate local knowledge; however, it is susceptible to degradation in systems with strong technocratic and centralised governance [63,71]. These studies, taken together, emphasise the need for governance arrangements that connect local knowledge systems with policy processes at a higher level so that adaptation is both scientifically valid and socially legitimate [10,63].

8. Indigenous Water Governance Systems

Empirical studies performed in Southern and Eastern Africa have shown that Indigenous water governance systems existed before colonial statutory water governance systems, with control over rivers, wetlands, and water springs exercising through Indigenous rules, calendars, and norms [47,74]. Indigenous water governance systems are more than just Indigenous knowledge systems; they are actually systems of water governance that mediate water use in agriculture, households, and the environment, as well as balancing social and environmental values in communities [4,74]. However, postcolonial water reforms have often ignored or delegitimised these institutions as informal or incompatible with modern administration [75]. When arrangements recognise multiple legal or normative values, Indigenous objectives can be integrated into formal water allocation or environmental flow assessments [72,76]. The purpose of Indigenous water governance is to transcend tokenistic participation to integrate Indigenous institutions of water governance at multiple levels, including legal recognition, co-management arrangements, and Indigenous authority [35,64]. This would make Indigenous water governance more resilient, flexible, and socially legitimate in the face of climate variability or water scarcity [17,70].

9. Participation, Power, and Social Differentiation

Participatory forms of governance are strongly encouraged in water resource policy. However, existing research has indicated a disconnect between policy discourse and implementation [16,22]. The disconnect has been shown to perpetuate existing structural inequalities. The existing forms of participation have been accused of favouring experts, political elites, and urban populations, while Indigenous and local populations are excluded [74,77]. Gender has also been shown to limit participation, especially in the exclusion of women from decision-making processes, despite their central role in water management in households [16,77]. For example, urban and peri-urban areas show how sociospatial inequalities intersect with poor governance to lead to environmental degradation and differential access to water services [22,74]. From a political-economic perspective, the application of capital-intensive and infrastructure-based approaches to water management is at odds with Indigenous values related to water, thereby exacerbating marginalisation in both rural and urban areas [30,78]. For the integration of LIK to be realised, attention must be given to issues of power, representation, and differentiation within communities instead of assuming a “homogenous community” of knowledge holders [63,79]. The policies and governance systems must be aware of heterogeneous community actors and create space for Indigenous authorities to influence decision-making [6,13].

10. Lived Practices, Epistemologies, and Water Relations

LIK is realised through lived practices, rituals, language, and technology, which shape relations between humans and water, moving beyond conventional water management [80,81]. Ethnographic and qualitative research on water relations and water cultures shows that relational epistemologies, where water is seen as a living entity, are entwined with social, moral, and spiritual aspects [82,83]. These worldviews, which differ from those of conventional water management, provide opportunities for sustainability. Examples of such methods include traditional water harvesting systems, pastoral water management, and ecosystem stewardship approaches, which have continued to benefit smallholder farmers in adapting to changing hydrological conditions. Such examples illustrate the dynamism of LIK, challenging the perception that Indigenous knowledge is static or outdated [84]. The recognition of LIK as both practice and governance highlights the dual importance of LIK. It is both a regulatory and normative practice, which defines access and allocation, and a practical epistemology, which defines water use practice, risk management, and ecosystem stewardship [84,85]. The dual importance of LIK cannot be overemphasised in the design of adaptive water governance systems.

11. Barriers to Policy Integration

Despite the demonstrated advantages of LIK, the full integration of LIK into water resource policy and management remains limited [6,86]. The barriers to the full integration of LIK into water resource policy and management are institutional rigidities; a lack of legal recognition; epistemic privilege accorded with quantitative knowledge; and difficulties in transferring knowledge across the local, catchment, and national levels [10,64]. In addition, the fragmented governance structure hinders the effectiveness of cross-level water management strategies [4,6]. Systematic analyses have demonstrated that the incorporation of LIK into water policy and management is largely tokenistic, with LIK being recognised but not integrated into actual policy and decision-making processes [37,55,86]. Indigenous knowledge, for example, has been used as a source of information and a technical input into water policy and management, thereby perpetuating the marginalisation of Indigenous knowledge and its limited contribution to policy and decision-making processes [14,47]. In the literature, the integration of LIK is generally understood in a very narrow and technical sense, which ignores the political and power dynamics of water governance [13,65]. This enables the symbolic and extractive usage of Indigenous knowledge, where the information obtained from Indigenous sources is translated, validated, and integrated into scientific frameworks, without the inclusion of Indigenous institutions and authorities in any significant way in water governance [4,12,86]. This calls for a significant reform of water governance that recognises the importance of equity, flexibility, and power sharing, moving from a tokenistic approach of inclusion to a co-governance approach and recognition by water authorities.

More significantly, these obstacles might be seen as expressions of deeper institutional logics that purposefully perpetuate exclusion. Specifically, epistemic privilege, where Western scientific knowledge is prioritised over the qualitative and context-specific quality of LIK, maintains bureaucratic resistance by giving institutions control over what qualifies as acceptable evidence [57,63]. Institutional route dependency, which has its roots in colonial and technocratic governance systems that are structurally at odds with LIK’s decentralised and adaptable character, further reinforces this [40]. However, genuine power sharing is constrained by the continued existence of centralised authority, leading to tokenistic inclusion that upholds current governance structures [40,48]. From the standpoint of political economics, these dynamics are indicative of a larger mass–elite divide, in which policy processes marginalise Indigenous institutions and decision-making authority while favouring expert-driven approaches [50].

12. SWOT Analysis of LIK in Water Governance

To critically evaluate the incorporation of LIK in water governance, a SWOT analysis was carried out, integrating findings from empirical research, conceptual literature, and comparative case studies. This SWOT analysis helps to reveal the inherent strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of LIK, as well as its positioning within larger institutional, sociopolitical, and climatic settings. The SWOT analysis framework emphasises the role of LIK in adaptive water resource management, the challenges it faces, and the opportunities that exist for innovation in policy and water governance. Through this systematic integration of findings into a SWOT framework, SWOT analysis offers a research and policy diagnostic to help understand why LIK remains sidelined despite its proven worth and how inherent risks could jeopardise its role in climate-resilient and socially inclusive water governance.

Table 3. SWOT analysis for LIK in water governance [1,3,33,37,42,46,47,74,76,77,87].

Parameter	Findings	Implementations
Strength	- LIK offers context-specific and adaptive knowledge for water and climate governance. - Governance frameworks are embedded to manage access, ensure compliance, and resolve conflicts of use. - Social, cultural, and environmental epistemologies are interconnected to promote sustainability.	LIK offers context-relevant and adaptive approaches to climate resilient water management, enhances ecosystem management, facilitates socially legitimate and community-focused water governance, and supports co-management, participatory decision-making, and allocation in diverse water systems.”
Weakness	- LIK is often tokenized or selectively appropriated in formal governance. - There is limited vertical integration, where local knowledge is not used in basin-level planning or allocation. - Participation is often not inclusive of women and marginalised groups, which perpetuates inequality.	The influence of LIK is also limited by the processes of marginalisation, lack of vertical integration, and the exclusion of women and other marginalised groups, which calls for deliberate structural reforms and the use of inclusive decision-making and legal recognition to enable the full and effective contribution of LIK to water governance and water policy.
Opportunities	- Institutional integration and co-governance instruments can institutionalise LIK roles. - Multilevel governance can link local knowledge with scientific and technological strategies. - Comparative global experiences can inform participatory strategies on a large scale.	The integration of LIK via co-governance frameworks, multilevel policy approaches, and hybrid knowledge systems provides opportunities to link local knowledge with scientific and technological management, enhance climate adaptation, and tap comparative lessons from global water governance experiences.
Threats	- Technocratic and centralised approaches may bypass or undermine LIK, hence its relevance may be reduced. - Political-economic factors: Capital-intensive and infrastructure-centric strategies may not align with Indigenous values and interests. - Climate change and variability may undermine the effectiveness of LIK for adaptation.	The technocratic and centralised water management systems, political-economic drivers, and rising climate variability undermine the effectiveness of LIK, underscoring the need for enabling institutional support, legal recognition, and integration strategies to maintain adaptive capacity and safeguard Indigenous political authority.

shows the SWOT analysis for LIK in water governance.

13. LIK Incorporation into Water Governance and Policy Contribution to SDGS

The integration of LIK into water governance and policy is fundamentally connected with the international development agenda, as captured by the United Nations’ SDGs [21,22]. First and foremost, this body of literature is immediately relevant to SDG 6, which focuses on Clean Water and Sanitation by showing how water governance and management practices embedded in local cultures improve the sustainability of water availability, access, and governance in water-scarce, drought-prone, and hydrologically variable areas of the world [88,89]. By focusing on the issue of representation and aspects of social differentiation and power in the process of decision-making, the review also addresses SDG 10, which focuses on reducing inequalities, particularly in the context of how inclusive institutional mechanisms can help address the problem of systemic marginalisation of Indigenous and rural communities in the formal water policy-making process [16,21]. Moreover, empirical and governance-based studies have shown that LIK’s adaptive water management strategies, such as Indigenous drought management, ecosystem-based adaptation, and water ethics, improve the capacity of socioecological systems to cope with climate stresses, which is immediately relevant to SDG 13, which focuses on climate action [21,90]. Additionally, the focus on legal recognition and co-governance structures and multilevel institutional integration also speaks to Goal 16 of the SDGs (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), particularly in the context of the importance of legitimate and accountable institutions and respect for plural legal systems and epistemology [21,91]. Finally, the comparative benefits and hybrid models of governance that the review has identified also embody the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), as they demonstrate the potential of intersectoral, epistemologically diverse forms of interagency and intercommunity collaboration between Indigenous societies, the scientific community, and the institutions of water governance to coproduce more effective, equitable, and sustainable forms of water governance [21,92]. These interconnections not only embed LIK within a broader normative and procedural framework of water governance but also highlight the strategic significance of LIK in the pursuit of resilient, equitable, and sustainable water governance within an uncertain climate [21,32,90].

14. Climate Adaptation and Water Governance in Africa

Climate change significantly impacts African water systems, with rainfall variability, droughts, and floods undermining water-dependent livelihoods, food security, and ecosystem services on the continent [93,94]. African people, especially rural and Indigenous groups, have always used LIK systems in water resource governance and adaptation to water variability and other climatic events, which are essential for building water socioecological resilience in Africa [1,54]. Traditional water governance practices in Africa include rainwater harvesting, water allocation during seasons, floodplain management, well and pond water governance, and irrigation practices [34,50]. Water governance practices in Africa are not only technical but also socially, culturally, and institutionally underpinned in terms of roles and responsibilities in water governance, as well as enforcement practices in African society [47,74]. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of LIK in climate adaptation, its integration into national and regional water governance systems has remained limited. In particular, dominant centralised, technocratic, and neoliberal approaches to water governance often result in marginalisation and commodification of knowledge, as well as a bias towards infrastructure- or capital-intensive solutions [27]. Empirical evidence from southern, eastern, and western Africa has demonstrated that co-management approaches, legal pluralism, and participatory planning are important for enhancing adaptive capacity where there are alignments between Indigenous and formal systems [2,72]. In contrast, where there are mismatches between scales of water governance, local, basin, and national, and between Indigenous and formal systems, there are often tokenistic approaches to inclusion and traditional adaptive capacity. Therefore, the integration of LIK in CA water governance is highly aligned with the implementation of the following SDGs: SDGs 6, 13 and 16 [21]. To integrate LIK into water governance, governance transformations with a focus on verticality, epistemic pluralism, and power-sharing arrangements with Indigenous peoples are needed [71,91]. Future research directions include the study of hybrid frameworks in which scientific monitoring is blended with local indicators, assessments of governance interventions in which LIK is operationalised, and studies on the scaling-up possibilities of Indigenous water management practices in various socioecological systems.

15. Influence of LIK on Water Resource Policies in Africa

LIK is an important, although underutilised, asset in governance and adaptation to climate change in Africa. Evidence from South Africa, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania suggests that LIK not only contributes to the enhancement of social and economic resilience in these countries but is also important in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of water resource policies in the region [62,63]. For social and policy implications, LIK is important in promoting social cohesion, participatory governance, and the transfer of knowledge across generations, which is important in the governance and management of water resources [41,74]. In South Africa, rainwater harvesting, wetland management, terracing, and weather forecasting promote community empowerment and social cohesion, although these practices are not often considered in the country’s water policies [44,63]. In Malawi, local climate change indicators promote the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers, which is important in promoting community decision-making, although the country’s adaptation strategies to climate change do not adequately consider these practices [58]. In Zimbabwe, flood and drought-vulnerable groups depend on LIK for agricultural strategic planning, food security, and drought preparedness [47,60]. The success of LIK is dependent on socioeconomic factors; thus, developing policy guidelines that incorporate community strengths and local knowledge systems is important. In Tanzania, the Maasai people use Indigenous water conservation and drought-tolerant crop practices that are culturally embedded and environmentally sustainable [42]. Although these practices improve local governance and livelihoods, their recognition of the country’s water management policies is still limited.

Additionally, for economic and policy relevance, LIK ensures affordable and locally appropriate approaches that can maintain agricultural productivity, improve food security, and decrease dependence on external resources [94]. Rainwater harvesting, terracing, wetland management, drought-tolerant crops, and locally formulated pesticides can effectively utilise water and soil resources, protect households from climatic changes, and promote income diversification [1,90]. Policies that neglect the importance of LIK practices can lead to inefficiencies in resource allocation, as official policies may end up duplicating or even conflicting with locally appropriate approaches [10,86]. Compared with official policies, approaches based on LIK practices are more sensitive to local microclimatic conditions; thus, incorporating LIK into national water policies, disaster policies, and climate change policies can be highly beneficial [86]. Although it has been proven to be quite useful, there is a general marginalisation of LIK systems in mainstream water governance structures in Africa [34,50]. There have been a number of studies advocating for a new type of governance that combines LIK systems with scientific knowledge. This would ensure a more inclusive approach to water policy-making in these countries. This would be important in enhancing the potential for mainstreaming some of the successful local adaptations in the national policy frameworks [86,90]. LIK has been instrumental in providing some economic and social benefits in different parts of Africa [9,49,64]. However, it is important to ensure that this knowledge is utilised to its maximum potential by recognising it as a legitimate knowledge system that can be integrated with national policy frameworks to ensure a more collaborative approach to water resource policy-making. This would be important in enhancing the potential for mainstreaming some successful adaptations in the national policy frameworks while providing a more inclusive approach to water policy-making.

16. Towards Coherent and Inclusive Water Governance

The importance of policy coherence in integrating Indigenous and scientific knowledge systems in water governance is shown in Figure 4. The major ways through which this can be achieved are through co-management institutions, legal pluralism, participative planning and decision-making, and multilevel capacity building to enable local adaptive practices to influence strategic planning. Thus, instead of assimilating LIK into existing technocratic systems, effective water governance involves acknowledging the role of Indigenous systems of water management as legitimate partners in decision-making processes. This not only improves vertical and horizontal integration at different levels of governance but also improves the robustness, legitimacy, and equity of water governance strategies. This model of water governance, which encourages inclusive and adaptive governance, is compatible with greater sustainability, climate justice, and SDG agendas and provides a way forward for the equitable and sustainable management of water resources in the face of increasing environmental and sociopolitical challenges.

17. Implications for Policy

The results of this review highlight the need for water governance reforms that fully incorporate LIK into climate-resilient water governance. Throughout the literature, LIK is seen not only as a means of providing technical knowledge but also as a system of governance itself that is embedded within culture, authority, and social norms. For this reason, policy needs to shift from mere participation to formal institutional recognition, allowing Indigenous institutions, customary authorities, and community-based organisations to play a defined role in decision-making, planning, and implementation. This is in line with the achievements of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) [88,89] and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) [21,91]. Legal pluralism is a key concern. In many situations, statutory water legislation coexists with customary water institutions, but formal legislation supersedes customary law. Reforms in water policy should enable the integration of customary allocation laws, management norms, and conflict resolution practices with statutory laws [95]. This will ensure that water resource management is both socially legitimate and biologically adaptive while ensuring accountability and equitable allocation of resources, a principle that sustains SDG 10 (reduced inequality) [16,21].

Vertical integration is another important policy consideration. LIK-based practices have proven effective at the local level, improving climate adaptation, ecosystem management, and livelihood resilience [63,68]. However, such knowledge is seldom used in basin-level planning, infrastructure development, or national water policy agendas. Improving connections between local governments, basin institutions, and national governments enables adaptive practices to shape strategic decision-making, turning localised knowledge into system-wide resilience and directly contributing to SDG 13 (climate action) [21,90]. However, co-management and participatory governance approaches must address issues of power asymmetry. The evidence indicates that most current approaches are still consultative, with the power to decide to rest with state institutions or technical specialists. To be effective, co-management must therefore include power-sharing arrangements, decision rules, and capacity development for Indigenous and local peoples. Otherwise, participatory approaches may perpetuate hierarchical relationships and tokenistic representation. Therefore, incorporating LIK into governance structures improves adaptive capacity, social acceptability, and climate resilience simultaneously [54,96].

Finally, water policies must embrace epistemic pluralism as an underlying philosophy. By acknowledging diverse ways of knowing water, relational, spiritual, and place-based epistemologies, Indigenous ways of knowing water are acknowledged without being assimilated into scientific or technocratic approaches to water planning. Environmental flows, climate change adaptation measures, or monitoring practices are examples of water policy instruments that can be improved by considering the Indigenous values, laws, and governments of water, in addition to scientific criteria. Epistemic pluralism promotes intercommunity and interinstitutional trust, building resilience to water challenges under conditions of climate change uncertainty. Collectively, these implications point to the strategic integration of LIK in water governance as a moral and functional imperative and provide avenues to achieve inclusive and adaptable water management in line with the SDGs. Water governance stakeholders are encouraged to capitalise on the strengths and opportunities of LIK, address the challenges and threats to it from SWOT analysis, and institutionalise water management practices to achieve sustainability and equity in water management worldwide.

18. Future Research Directions and Gaps

• Although LIK has been shown to be effective at the local and community scales, little empirical research exists on the mechanisms for vertically integrating LIK into basin-scale and national water governance systems. Future studies could explore models for multiscalar institutional integration with Indigenous authority while building systemic resilience.
• Most current studies assume that LIK is supplementary or advisory rather than coequal to scientific knowledge. More research is needed on pragmatic approaches for epistemic pluralism that facilitate the coproduction of knowledge, policy-making, and climate change adaptation planning without subordinating Indigenous perspectives.
• Another recurring issue has been the lack of recognition of Indigenous water governance institutions under the law. More comparative policy and legal analyses could be carried out on hybrid water governance systems that accommodate both statutory and customary water laws, including enforcement.
• There is limited research on the dynamic socioenvironmental contexts of urbanisation, human migration, and changes in land use and their effects on the applicability of the LIK. There is a need for dynamic research approaches to assess the dynamic nature of LIK.
• The LIK integration process also fails to consider the power relations in the social group. The power relationships should be examined with respect to gender, age, and socioeconomic status. There is a need to assess intersectionality in water governance.
• Systemic evaluations of the effectiveness of LIK-informed water governance and adaptation strategies are still lacking. Future research should prioritise the development of effective indicators and metrics to monitor ecological, social, and climate adaptation outcomes.
• Likewise, LIK is facing increasing pressures from migration from rural areas to urban areas, modernisation, and climate disruption. Future research should prioritise the development of effective knowledge preservation and transfer methods in a culturally sensitive manner.
• Although there is an overrepresentation of African societies in the literature, there is a need to carry out comparative studies in other Global South societies and Indigenous societies.

19. Conclusions

The importance of LIK as the core of water governance, which is resilient, adaptive, and equitable, is clearly established by the critical review. According to African and global case studies, LIK is not only a body of knowledge but also a water governance system that promotes the adaptation and resilience of water resources to climate change, as well as the sustainability of ecosystems. However, the integration of LIK into formal water policies has been a challenge, despite its potential. SWOT analysis indicates that although LIK has adaptive strategies, participatory legitimacy, and co-governance opportunities, its impact is threatened by technocratic hegemony, fragmented governance, and the marginalisation of Indigenous authority. Overcoming these challenges requires governance reforms that take into account legal pluralism, promote co-management, enhance vertical integration, and embrace epistemic pluralism, thus ensuring inclusive and SDG-compatible water policies. The discussion underscores that the proper integration of LIK supports the achievement of several SDGs, including SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). By integrating Indigenous governance systems with scientific knowledge and multilevel institutions, water governance can be made more legitimate, adaptive, and robust, addressing both environmental and sociopolitical issues arising from climate variability. In conclusion, moving beyond tokenistic participation toward true recognition and co-governance is necessary. LIK should not be seen merely as an epistemic input but rather as a co-governance actor that has the potential to shape policies, influence climate-resilient adaptation pathways, and improve the sustainability and equity of water resource management. This review provides a conceptual, empirical, and policy base for inclusive water governance that leverages the benefits of diverse knowledge systems in a hydrologically and climatically uncertain world. Thus, LIK systems are vital in climate-resilient water governance; however, they are marginalised in formal policy frameworks. This review of LIK has shown that a shift in perspective from LIK as a system of data to LIK as a system of governance is essential to appreciate its importance. It is not just a technical challenge in mainstreaming LIK in water resource management policies; rather, it is a political and ethical challenge in rethinking power and rights in the face of climate change. Future studies should concentrate on the development of hybrid knowledge systems that connect Indigenous and scientific perspectives, the scalability of LIK integration across governance levels, and the empirical assessment of co-governance models.