Asian Journal of Geographical Research

Indigenous knowledge has moved from the margins of disaster scholarship towards formal recognition in disaster risk reduction policy, yet the research field remains conceptually uneven, geographically selective and methodologically dominated by context-specific case studies. This critical narrative review maps the evolution of scholarship on Indigenous, traditional and local knowledge in disaster management; identifies recurrent thematic patterns; evaluates the strengths and limitations of the evidence base; and develops priorities for research and governance. Literature published from 1 January 1995 to 18 July 2026 was considered, with older or adjacent foundational work retained where necessary to interpret conceptual developments. The synthesis indicates a marked transition from early documentation of environmental cues, oral hazard memory and vernacular coping practices towards frameworks for knowledge integration, co-production, pluralism, epistemic justice and Indigenous knowledge sovereignty. Research expanded substantially after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and gained policy legitimacy through the Sendai Framework, but institutional practice has not kept pace with normative recognition. Evidence is particularly strong in demonstrating that place-based observation, oral history, social memory, livelihood practice and culturally grounded communication can improve the local intelligibility of hazard information. Evidence is weaker for causal claims that particular Indigenous-knowledge interventions independently reduce mortality, economic loss or long-term vulnerability, because retrospective case studies, small purposive samples, limited counterfactuals and short follow-up remain common. The literature also reveals persistent tensions around scientific validation, power asymmetries, intergenerational transmission, climate non-stationarity and the extraction of knowledge into external databases. Future progress requires Indigenous-led research governance, longitudinal and comparative designs, multilingual and regionally inclusive evidence mapping, evaluation of policy implementation, and community-controlled digital infrastructures. The field is therefore best understood not as a search for a universal method of “integrating” knowledge, but as an evolving effort to create legitimate, reciprocal and context-sensitive relationships among distinct knowledge systems in disaster risk governance.