Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are disproportionately affected by climate change, experiencing its impacts on their livelihoods and environments. Understanding their perceptions of these impacts is crucial for effective monitoring and adaptation strategies. Previous research highlights the influence of both site-level (culture, values, environmental settings) and individual-level (socio-demographic characteristics, livelihood activities) factors on climate change impact reporting. While some studies show correlations between socio-demographic variables and reporting, others find no such relationships, underscoring the complexity of this issue. This study utilizes the concept of cultural consensus, focusing on site-level and individual-level agreement in reports, to investigate the consistency of climate change impact reports among IPLC members. By examining ten diverse sites across four continents, it moves beyond case studies to explore larger-scale patterns. The research questions address the consistency of reports across sites and individuals, and the factors influencing this consistency at both levels. Specifically, the study investigates the relationship between consistency and livelihood activities at the site level, and the association between consistency and experience with nature, Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), and local family roots at the individual level.

Existing literature demonstrates the significant impact of climate change on IPLC, affecting their resource-dependent livelihoods. Studies have explored the ways in which IPLC observe and report these changes, highlighting the value of their local and traditional knowledge systems. However, the consistency of these reports and the factors influencing it remain unclear. The literature suggests the involvement of diverse site-specific factors, including worldviews, values, and environmental conditions. Case studies reveal varying relationships between individual characteristics and climate change impact reporting, with inconsistencies in findings regarding the influence of age and livelihood activities. The cultural consensus theory offers a framework for analyzing the patterned distribution of knowledge within communities, assessing agreement in cultural knowledge and identifying culturally correct information. Previous research applying cultural consensus methods in climate change contexts has highlighted discrepancies between local perceptions and external assessments, emphasizing the need for nuanced understanding.

This cross-cultural study draws data from the Local Indicators of Climate Change Impacts (LICCI) project, involving ten sites across four continents with diverse climates and livelihood systems. The methodology employed a mixed-methods approach: semi-structured interviews with key informants, focus group discussions, and surveys. The semi-structured interviews aimed to identify environmental changes attributed to climate change, while focus groups validated this information through discussion and consensus-building. Surveys presented respondents with a random selection of site-confirmed climate change impacts (15 impacts per respondent, randomly selected from site-specific lists), querying their observation of each impact and its direction. The study included three additional sections in the survey: a pebble distribution method to assess respondents’ lifetime experience with various livelihood activities, self-assessment of ILK specific to particular livelihood activities, and a question about the number of grandparents who grew up in the area (to gauge local family roots). A total of 1860 individuals participated in the surveys. Data analysis involved calculating site-level climate change impact report consistencies (CCIC) as the arithmetic mean of individual CCICs within each site. Linear models were used to compare CCIC across atmospheric subsystems and livelihood activities. Individual-level analysis employed generalized linear models (GLM) at the site level and meta-analysis across sites to examine the associations between individual-level variables (experience with nature, ILK, local family roots) and individual CCIC. Age and sex were included as control variables.

Across the ten sites, respondents' reports of climate change impacts on the atmospheric system matched site-confirmed reports at an average of 68%. Consistency varied significantly between atmospheric subsystems, being highest for seasonal changes and temperature (75% each), followed by precipitation (71%) and air masses (52%). Site-level CCIC ranged widely, from 34% (fisherfolks in Tanzania) to 98% (iTaukei fisherfolks in Fiji). Concerning impacts on biophysical elements supporting livelihood activities, the average alignment with site-confirmed impacts was 69%, significantly differing across livelihood activities. Pastoralism showed the highest CCIC (76%), followed by crop production (71%) and gathering (60%). Again, considerable variation existed across sites. At the individual level, local family roots, ILK, and experience with nature-dependent livelihood activities were not significantly associated with CCIC across all sites. However, site-specific associations were observed, with some sites showing positive relationships between these variables and CCIC. Meta-analysis across all ten sites revealed a near-significant positive association between age and CCIC for both atmospheric systems and livelihood-related biophysical elements, indicating older respondents showed greater agreement with agreed-upon climate change impacts.

The high level of agreement in climate change impact reports within sites suggests a shared understanding of environmental changes, facilitated by knowledge exchange and social learning within communities. However, significant inter-site variations highlight the influence of site-specific factors. Livelihood activities emerged as a crucial factor, with pastoralism showing higher consistency than crop production or gathering, potentially due to greater homogeneity in pastoralist practices across the studied sites. Variations in consistency across sites with the same predominant livelihood activities further indicate that factors beyond livelihood type influence report consistency, including heterogeneity in livelihood practices and environmental settings. Differences in consistency across atmospheric subsystems (e.g., higher consistency for temperature and precipitation than air masses) may be linked to the varying relevance of these subsystems to different livelihood activities. The lack of significant cross-cultural associations between individual-level variables and CCIC suggests that knowledge about climate change impacts is relatively evenly distributed within sites, despite individual differences in experience and knowledge.

This study demonstrates considerable consistency in climate change impact reports within communities, but with significant inter-site variation. Livelihood activities and site-specific contexts are key factors influencing this variation. The findings highlight the importance of involving IPLC in climate change monitoring and adaptation planning, tailoring strategies to the specific contexts and livelihood activities of each community. Future research should further explore the interplay of individual, social, and environmental factors influencing climate change impact reports, particularly in sites with low consistency.

This study acknowledges four methodological limitations. First, the random sampling of climate change impacts for the survey resulted in an unbalanced number of questions across sites. Second, the selection of site-confirmed reports might have biased the results towards widely acknowledged impacts. Third, the ten sites selected represent only a fraction of IPLC across the globe. Fourth, the study’s operationalization of knowledge might have overlooked idiosyncratic expert knowledge. Future research could address these limitations through more balanced survey design, inclusion of a broader range of impact reports, a more representative sample of sites, and more diverse measurements of knowledge.