**1. Introduction**

In the context of global changes, the influence of resilience thinking has expanded rapidly over the past two decades. Academia, governments, civil society, and even the private sector have embraced the notion of social-ecological system resilience and have applied it to a wide range of sustainability issues [1]. Resilience here is defined as "the capacity of a social-ecological system to absorb a spectrum of shocks or perturbations and to sustain and develop its fundamental function, structure, identity, and feedbacks through either recovery or reorganization in a new context" [2]. As this definition demonstrates, from the origin of the concept, social systems and ecosystems have been regarded as an inseparable and closely interacting system [1,3]. Because of the nature of the social system and the need to distinguish which system states are desirable or undesirable when undergoing adaptation and transformation, resilience is an inherently value-laden concept [1,4]. Similar to the concept of sustainability, resilience concerns the well-being of human society at different levels [5,6]. It must therefore address related social issues, including value judgments, power, political and social processes, distribution, inequality, collective action, and human agency. Thus, resilience should address the following core questions: resilience of what to what? and resilience for whom? [1,7,8].

As a core issue of resilience, the issue of "resilience for whom" should be addressed explicitly, especially in relation to disadvantaged and marginalized groups in the social system (see, for example, [9]). Numerous scholars, however, have stated that the extent to which this issue has been addressed in resilience research remains far from adequate [10–14]. More precisely, deficiencies are reflected in several interrelated subtopics.

Power is a key issue in the resilience and governance of social-ecological systems. Unequal power relations between different social groups are often the root cause of environmental and resilience problems, and the deterioration of the environment and resilience often worsens inequalities in distributions of power [10]. Power directly involves politics. Power inequality not only involves contemporary political and social processes but can often be traced back to the colonial period and the period of state-building [11]. Power and politics shape politically advantaged and disadvantaged groups and ethnic, class, economic, cultural, and gender boundaries and affect the capacity of groups to respond to disturbances. Generally, the groups most vulnerable to disturbances are also the most politically powerless [11]. Not only does inequality cause low resilience in certain groups, it also reduces the possibility of rebuilding resilience [13]. This means that power, politics, and ethical considerations are, among others, the main driving factors affecting the resilience of social-ecological systems. They should be deliberately included in any analysis rather than be intentionally or unintentionally ignored [8].

Considering power, politics, value judgments, and ethical aspects, a number of major issues emerge when people attempt to address the question "resilience for whom" in a specific case: (1) Who and what drivers shape unequal political, economic, social, institutional, and ecological contexts [15,16]; (2) Who dominates resilience discourses and determines problem-framing and problem-solving agendas [10,17]; (3) Who defines the scale and levels at which social-ecological system governance issues are addressed [10]; (4) Who determines the knowledge system used to define and solve problems [10]; (5) Who are the major agents of the governance process, who exerts influences on governance and why [18,19]; (6) Who decides trade-offs among conflicting resilience governance goals [10]; and (7) Whose rights should be actively recognized and safeguarded, and what measures can people take to improve this process of recognizing and protecting rights [13,20–22].

Compared with international trends, Taiwan has recognized and applied the concept of social-ecological system resilience relatively late. Only about 10 years have passed since it became popular. Even so, the concept of resilience has already been used in numerous fields. Taking Taiwan's central governmental sectors as an example, the Ministry of Science and Technology recently completed a disaster prevention policy proposal titled "Resilient Cities under Extreme Disasters" [23]. The Council of Agriculture has moved toward resilient agriculture [24], and the Taiwan Forestry Research Institute of the Council of Agriculture has called for pursuing resilient urban forests [25]. The Ministry of the Interior has promoted the concept of resilient communities [26]-. Also, the Ministry of Economic Affairs made "Resilient Water Resources Management" one of its major policies [27]. These examples suggest that the concept of resilience has penetrated main public policy fields and exerted a significant influence on policy discourses. However, although nearly all sectors of Taiwanese society have quickly embraced resilience notions, many profound theoretical and practical issues have emerged. As the review in the previous paragraphs argues, the "resilience for whom" issue is a critical topic that is rarely addressed. Similar phenomena can be seen in Taiwan, and a greater degree of attention is urgently needed to correct deficiencies that may have occurred at the level of theoretical understanding as well as policy discourse and implementation.

This article aims, through a case study in the context of Taiwan indigenous peoples, to explore the "resilience for whom" issue. It argues that so far, discourses and practices related to resilience in real cases in Taiwan have mainly focused on ecological resilience and the well-being of mainstream society, whereas the views, rights, and well-being of indigenous peoples are largely ignored or at least underestimated. These phenomena are deeply rooted in the political, economic, institutional, social, and cultural structures dominated by the mainstream Han society. I argue that, in Taiwan's pursuit of social-ecological resilience, this is a major deficiency that cannot be ignored. Proactive measures are

required to correct this unacceptable injustice. Despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles, this article also suggests possible institutional pathways that could help solve the problem of resilience for whom in the context of Taiwan.

The article is organized as follows. After explaining the significance of the research background, research questions, and purpose of the work in the first section, the article briefly introduces the background of the studied case in the second section. Section 3 describes the research methodology used. In Section 4, various subtopics in the issue of resilience for whom are analyzed according to the sequence of the case's evolution. The major findings of the case study are discussed in Section 5. The final section summarizes the conclusions. Based on the real circumstances of Taiwan presented in this case, this article also proposes possible institutional approaches to improve the problem-solving process.
