*2.1. Community's Social Resilience for Post-Disaster Recovery*

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) has been keenly accepted the BBB as a priority action in recovery and reconstruction strategy worldwide. Clinton conducted research following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and proposed the BBB concept with ten supporting claims [9]. Other research affirmed his viewpoint [10,11] based on studies in Aceh and Sri Lanka. Among them, Fan noted that politics have a significant influence on the success of BBB in terms of international humanitarian aid between countries and domestic collaboration among different parties [12]. Based on previous publications, Mannakkara and Wilkinson proposed an analytical framework to evaluate whether post-disaster recovery is now better than before and has been used to evaluate different types of recovery worldwide [13–15]. After some revision, in 2019, Mannakkara et al. proposed a framework comprised of three main aspects—disaster risk reduction (DRR), community recovery, and effective implementation—to evaluate recovery situations [16]. In the community recovery aspect, social, psychological, and economic factors were the keys for a community to recover from disaster and sustain a resilient situation.

Therefore, besides referring to indices to determine whether a community is recovering satisfactorily or not, a deep understanding of a community's social cohesion should be undertaken for a more comprehensive understanding of its rehabilitation [17]. The UNDRR emphasizes that although restoring physical infrastructure is important for reconstruction, revitalizing the community's societal systems is necessary to meet the standards of BBB [18]. This illustrates that the effects of DRR on the social fabric of a community is key to deeply understanding the context of recovery processes [19]. Social resilience was proposed by Adger to describe a community's ability to cope with external stress and disturbance, including social, political, and environmental change [20]. It shows the ability of different social units (such as a person, organization, or community) to sustain, adapt, absorb, and

respond to environmental and social threats [21]. Social resilience emphasizes "response" and explores the new opportunities arising from it [22]. This is similar to the ideas of renewal and learning in the reorganization phase of the "adaptive renewal cycle of development" model [23].

Among the various types of recovery, relocation and replacement is the type that influences the people and changes the community the most, resulting in relocated individuals depending on culture as their recovery source. Thus, rather than simply following scientific opinion and government strategy, it is critical to listen to the relocated community's needs and concerns [24]. Recovery is a challenging issue because it requires not only new buildings and infrastructure but also new social networks and livelihoods [25,26], which act as both the root causes and results of resilience.

Relocated people often encounter huge challenges in adapting lifestyle and culture into the new setting [8]. This could be because of the public sectors' disregarded and oversimplified replacement strategy, as well as the results of the missing linkage between culture, land, and people [4,8]. Cultural influence on disaster risk reduction could also be seen in local and scientific knowledge integration [5]. From Taiban, Lin, and Ko's case study in Taiwan, traditional crops and cultivation turned out to be the source of resilience for the indigenous community's recovery process [8]. Furthermore, cultural value was rediscovered and brought indirect income for the community. However, there is still a lack of discourse on how livelihood acts as a practical reason for post-disaster culture revival and inheritance.
