**6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendation**

The DFA case is arguably representative of the complicated history that Taiwan has experienced with regard to indigenous land issues and the fact that indigenous people were and remain oppressed. Under the colonial regime and rise of the modern state, DFA land was snatched and registered as owned by the state. To meet the national development goals of different periods, this land was assigned with varying policy tasks. In the era of economic development, the land was used to produce commercial agricultural products of high economic value. In today's era, emphasizing global environmental changes, the land was converted into forests to enhance ecological resilience and to serve as support for the resilience of the national social-ecological system. Whether the focus is on the well-being of social systems or ecological resilience, the needs of indigenous people were dismissed by mainstream society's dominant powers.

This study determined that, for a long period, the central government determined "resilience for whom." The central government shaped the political, economic, social, institutional, and ecological contexts; they dominated resilience discourses and determined the problem-framing and problem-solving agenda; they defined the scale and levels at which social-ecological system governance issues were to be addressed; and they determined the knowledge system used to define and solve problems. This situation has changed, somewhat. The current DFA governance institution has begun to incorporate the views of multiple stakeholders, and, to a limited extent, allow more governance power to these stakeholders. More active, mostly local actors are participating in the governance process. These new participants have begun to contribute their views on resilience discourses and have exerted influences on governance and trade-offs among differing governance goals. This is certainly meaningful progress that can help people achieve a finer balance between national and local perspectives. Findings of this article demonstrated, however, that under the established political, economic, institutional, social, and cultural structures, dominated by Han people, the current participatory governance regime primarily reflects the power, views, and interests of Han society. On the whole, the governance of the DFA can be said to have changed from the "resilience for the public" mode to the "resilience for both the public and local people" mode. Regardless of the mode, though, the main beneficiaries are Han people, not indigenous people. In fact, indigenous people almost always pay a disproportionate price in decision-making. Final questions arise: whose rights should be actively recognized and safeguarded, and what measures can the people take to improve the process of rights recognition and protection?

For the indigenous communities in the DFA, under the established structure, the pursuit of their own social-ecological system resilience is long and extremely difficult. Both in an era of economic development and an era of highlighted social-ecological systems, this struggle is the same. The emergence and goodwill of the participatory governance model does help indigenous people express their views and substantially influence the governance process and outcomes, but it is far from sufficient to address the roots of the "resilience for mainstream society" phenomenon: the established land ownership and subsequent governance authority. Obviously, affirmative action is sorely needed to effectively recognize and safeguard indigenous autonomy.

Redefining land ownership and returning land rights to indigenous people is undoubtedly a highly challenging political issue in Taiwanese society, in which Han people make up 97% of the population. A nationwide, systematic solution relies on the Indigenous Land and Ocean Act under discussion in parliament. However, due to the complexity of the issue, the passage of this bill is likely remote and far from certain. Before taking that step, people could consider other institutional pathways. A practical example, the case of Molisaka, near the DFA, might be a model worth considering. Molisaka is a traditional territory of the indigenous Truku people that was too classified as state-owned land and

managed by the Forestry Bureau. After years of academic investigation, this land was confirmed by the Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Committee appointed by the Presidential Office to be indigenous [43]. Administrative procedures for returning land are in progress. A governance committee has also been formally established, with more than half of its representatives indigenous. This article suggests that the DFA case follows the same approach. A formal land history survey through an official proposal of the Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Committee can be conducted, and after confirming the historical facts of the territory, the legal and administrative procedures for land return can be initiated. This may open a new era of "resilience for indigenous people" in traditional indigenous territories as early as possible.

Emphasizing "resilience for indigenous people" is of significant importance not only to indigenous people but also for the DFA region and the overall social-ecological system resilience of Taiwan. For years, when discussing social-ecological resilience in Taiwanese society, people have focused on ecological resilience and the well-being of Han society. This deficiency should be corrected. From a positive perspective, following synthesis of the comprehensive review by Chapin et al. [44], I suggest that "resilience for indigenous people" helps improve the social-ecological resilience of individual regions and of Taiwan as a whole. It enhances the capacity of crucial segments of society, particularly that of vulnerable groups, to adapt to adverse impacts. It sustains cultural diversity and helps maintain a diversity of options that could be crucial to social-ecological resilience. Social cohesion, trust, networking, and communication among various groups can be fostered to adapt governance that realizes sustainable solutions. All these will contribute to the transformation of all of society into a more resilient social-ecological system.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, grant numbers MOST 102-2621-M-259-001; MOST 103-2621-M-259-004; MOST 104-2621-M-259-004; MOST 105-2621-M-259-001; MOST 106-2621-M-259-001; MOST 107-2621-M-259-001. This work was also partly supported by the National Research Foundation of KoreaGrant funded by the Korean government (NRF-2017S1A3A2067220), which covered the literature analysis costs and travel expenses incurred when attending the international conference "Practicing the Commons in East Asia: From Possibility to Reality", held in Jeju, Korea, February 15–16, 2017.

**Acknowledgments:** The author is heartily grateful for the team work and inspiration provided by all research team members in the joint research project entitled "Social-Ecological System Resilience in Central Eastern Rift Valley: The Role of Danungdafu Forestation Area." Special thanks are given to all interviewees, including local community members, government officials, non-governmental organization practitioners, and scholars, for their generous support and feedback. The author also heartily thanks I-Ming Chen for generously providing the blueprint of the DFA Ecological Corridor. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the International Conference "Practicing the Commons in East Asia: From Possibility to Reality," Jeju, Korea, 15–16 February 2017, and the 17th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC), Lima, Peru, 1–5 July 2019. The author thanks the panel participants at these conferences for their valuable comments. The author also thanks two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions which improve the content of the article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
