Traditional adaptations to natural hazards have been increasingly explored as options for disaster risk reduction. We develop three critical arguments regarding traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) related to natural hazards. First, authoritative heritage discourses do not acknowledge the dynamics of TEK and may result in heritigized practices that lack diachronic depth. Second, this hinders a deeper understanding of the feedbacks between human adaptations and the environment. Third, some works on traditional adaptations include a logical inconsistency as they disconnect adaptive practices from the preceding and subsequent catastrophic events and their impacts, thus creating a false optimism for current uses of TEK.