Across all research objects we explored, science was not the only type of knowledge to which people referred. Most people we talked to in the Westfjords stressed local knowledge as a vital resource for dealing with environmental changes. Local driftwood farmers have witnessed the declining supply of new logs, local fishers know about how operating conditions at sea have changed, and local inhabitants have experienced the challenges in avalanche disaster preparedness. Local knowledge is less formal and more implicit than scientific knowledge [66] but has a role to play in navigating the Anthropocene.

At the end of this exploration, we wonder about who should integrate scientific and local knowledge and how. We heard different potential answers to this question. One could consider art as a practice that allows integrating different types of knowledge [Interview 3], argue that every profession has some capacity to integrate [Interview 6], or call on scientists to incorporate local knowledge into their work. Yet, challenges abound. Artists may rely heavily on individual perceptions and reach only part of the population; local people in many professions may have only few contacts with scientific work; and scientists may struggle to incorporate local knowledge into formalized research methods.

In light of these challenges, should we contend ourselves with valuing scientific and local knowledge alongside each other instead of striving for integration? Or do we need to zoom in on local human-environment relations even more closely to identify blueprints for successful knowledge integration? We think the latter is worth exploring in the future—in the Westfjords and elsewhere.