**5. Dealing with Disaster-Shocks: The Taiwan Experience**

Since the devastating effects of Typhoon Herb in 1996, Typhoon Mindulle in 2004 and Typhoon Morakot in 2009, Taiwanese academia assumed a leadership role in disaster management, DRR and post-disaster recovery among Indigenous communities. We arrived at this conclusion after having analyzed 111 peer-reviewed studies on Indigenous peoples, climate change and resilience since Typhoon Morakot (see also Bayrak et al. in this Special Issue). We found that 76 of these (68.5%) have dealt with one of the four stages of disaster management or DRR, ranging from risk perception to post-disaster recovery. Most of these studies were written in the context of Typhoon Morakot (Table 2).


Indigenous tourism 7 4 11 Traditional agriculture 6 2 8 Climate justice 4 4 8 Adaptive governance 4 0 4 Indigenous education 0 1 1

**Table 2.** Number of publications in Taiwan since 2009 on climate change, resilience, disaster resilience and indigenous peoples, in peer-reviewed publications indexed in Scopus or Airiti Library.

> There are many lessons to be learned from Taiwan. The Taiwanese government shifted a significant amount of funding towards research projects on Indigenous peoples and DRR, resulting in a substantial number of studies, encompassing a variety of views and perspectives. For example, Wang et al. [46] employed a community resilience model to discover the drivers of successful post-disaster recovery. These drivers were: effective use and coordination of community resources, private-public sector partnership building, and positive values among community members (such as a sense of mutual help, sharing of social and economic assets, and autonomy). Other studies on Taiwan's post-disaster response [47–49] showed that some cases of DRR have been culturally inappropriate.

For example, after Typhoon Morakot, several historically rival Indigenous groups were resettled in the same villages. Reconstructed villages were often planned without the necessary input from the new residents [47,50]. Additionally, insufficient attention was given to the farming and livelihood practices of the resettled groups. Indigenous households were unable to resell their homes or return to their old farming and hunting grounds [48,50]. Based on these criticisms, Taiban et al. [49] concluded that post-disaster policies for Indigenous communities should be land-based and culturally appropriate in order to enhance community resilience in a post-disaster setting.

Studies on Taiwan have adopted various resilience or vulnerability approaches, such as community resilience [46,49], social and cultural vulnerability [36] and livelihood vulnerability [51]. However, these approaches have not always been embedded in a particular Indigenous context. Power relations are part of that context. One of the more promising approaches in the literature has been procedural vulnerability. Procedural vulnerability arises "from people's (and peoples') relationships to power rather than environment, and the ways that power is exercised" (p. 309) [52]. Historical vulnerabilities and power relations have shaped contemporary disaster management among Taiwan's Indigenous peoples, and therefore also their resilience to environmental change.

Indigenous knowledge and wisdom (including TEK, ILK and IK) has been another important theme or approach in the literature (24%). Some studies have linked knowledge to DRR or climate change adaptation. Examples include studies on traditional farming methods [53,54], Indigenous ecological knowledge and disaster management [55], and traditional knowledge and risk perceptions [56]. Lin and Chang [57] argue that local knowledge plays a substantive role in disaster risk management. They introduce a new type of knowledge, which they define as involuted disaster knowledge, which integrates Indigenous knowledge with scientific knowledge. Significantly, many studies on Indigenous knowledge and wisdom have been written, either as first author or co-author, by Taiwanese Indigenous peoples themselves (i.e., [54–56,58–60]).

Among the analyzed publications, four studies addressed themes of adaptive governance and management [57,61–63]. Tai developed a framework on adaptive governance aimed to be deliberative, multi-layered, just, networked and participatory [61]. Lin and Chang [57] called for an inclusive form of disaster governance that fits "into local contexts and have the capacity to solve community problems" (p. 8). As Taiwanese Indigenous peoples are actively asserting their political rights to restore their customary territories, new modes of adaptive governance are needed to govern and manage these territories. Studies on adaptive governance in the context of land and resources, as well as in disaster management, are therefore crucial.

Social learning is widely acknowledged in the analyzed studies as being important for strengthening social-ecological resilience, community resilience [46], post-disaster recovery [49], knowledge creation [57], and adaptive governance [61]. A study of Yen and Chen [53] involved a series of workshops, which served as social learning platforms for local Tayal farmers to exchange knowledge on sustainable agriculture and agricultural adaptation. As pointed out by Gerlak et al. [64], many studies, in Taiwan and internationally, lack a clear conceptualization and operationalization of (social) learning. Empirically, it has also not been clear how social learning has shaped Indigenous resilience and adaptive governance in Taiwan.

Typhoon Morakot was a "focusing event", defined as "a sudden, exceptional experience that, because of how it leads to harm or exposes the prospect for great devastation, is perceived as the impetus for policy change" (p. 983) [65]. The disastrous consequences of Morakot led to policy change, which enabled a substantial amount of government funding to be channeled towards Indigenous community resettlement, post-disaster recovery, academic research, and DRR [36,49]. As the impact of Morakot was disproportionally severe for Taiwan's Indigenous communities [36], many studies consequently shifted attention to Indigenous-related issues.

While this shift is important, future studies could more explicitly focus on the role of social learning in shaping Indigenous resilience and adaptive governance. This could be carried out at multiple levels from local to national, as well as over time, i.e., longitudinal or ex-post approaches. The scholarship in Taiwan on Indigenous peoples, climate change impacts, and disaster risk reduction is strong. While there is an increasing amount of studies on Indigenous knowledge [55,66–71] and community resilience, more work is warranted on social learning and adaptive governance in the context of environmental change.

#### **6. Towards Adaptive Governance with Indigenous Resilience**

Acknowledging the right of Indigenous peoples as self-determining entities that can define their own means of shaping the future, how do we foster Indigenous aspirations for dealing with disasters? This is a question of governance. Indigenous knowledge helps people to understand environmental change and respond to it. It is a major factor in building Indigenous resilience and in facilitating adaptive governance. Although Indigenous knowledge and participation have contributed to the response to disaster-shocks in Taiwan, the concept of Indigenous resilience [6] remains to be developed, as indicated by the literature review in the previous section. The present section deals with the policy implications of these findings and the way ahead. Specifically, we discuss the prospects toward adaptive governance using Indigenous knowledge and learning.

Perhaps the major lesson from the literature is the importance of building capacity for learning and adapting (i.e., the resilience approach) for adaptive governance. Approaching disaster risk reduction through social learning can build resilience in the face of rapid change and unpredictable events. This, we argue, is a key requirement for disaster preparedness, given the context of global change, uncertainty and the suddenness of most disaster-shocks. Learning-based adaptive governance has a better record in dealing with surprises than conventional management, which embodies assumptions of predictability and controllability [6,12,72].

Dealing with unpredictable events, such as extreme weather events, is a very difficult task for governments. Using Indigenous knowledge to build resilience and adopting a learning approach can help deal with unpredictability. The term adaptive governance captures this flexible, integrated, holistic form of governance. Governance is considered the broader arena in which institutions operate; it is used here as a more inclusive term than management. Adaptive governance is governance that incorporates social learning to improve outcomes in an iterative way; in our case, from one disaster-risk reduction and recovery case to the next [57].

Adaptive governance is a research framework for analyzing social, institutional, economic and ecological aspects of governance for building resilience. It is an outgrowth of the search for modes of managing uncertainty and complexity [73]. Adaptive governance is based on learning-by-doing, and builds on social learning and experience. In contrast to individual learning, social learning is learning at the level of groups, including institutions. Adaptive governance is an ongoing process. As Pahl-Wostl and Hare [74] put it, it "is not a search for the optimal solution to one problem but an ongoing learning and negotiation process where a high priority is given to questions of communication, perspective sharing, and the development of adaptive group strategies for problem solving" (p. 193).

The key to adaptive governance is social learning and the co-production of knowledge: the art of combining different kinds of knowledge to solve problems [24]. Local and Indigenous knowledge can create opportunities for problem-solving through local collective action and self-organization, assisted by government science. Intermediary organizations, such as universities and non-governmental organizations, help perceive and assess disaster-shocks, and respond and adapt to them. Learning-by-doing can be made more effective by (1) co-management, the sharing of power and responsibility for making decisions; (2) participatory research involving local people and scientists/managers working together; and (3) capacity development (capacity-building) to improve the ability to deal with problems.

Co-management is important for setting the stage. Participatory research is effective for social learning and also results in trust-building, especially important in situations in which there is no previous experience of working together. Capacity development helps cooperation and communication, for example, by sharing technical vocabulary and concepts. It also helps to tackle problems at increasingly greater scales, starting with small problems and moving onto larger ones. Essential ingredients of adaptive governance include linkages at multiple levels, allowing two-way communication from local to national. Co-management and participatory research can give rise to problem-solving networks, sometime called learning communities, which are informal groups of people who collaboratively apply their knowledge. These measures have the potential to facilitate knowledge co-production for mutual learning.

To recap, resilience-building, social learning with Indigenous knowledge and science, and adaptive governance are significant for the ability to respond to risks and hazards. They help the ability to respond to climate change impacts and other disaster-shocks. Funding and encouragement of disaster-response studies in Taiwan are extremely important in this regard. Indigenous resilience shows promise to be effective in dealing with unpredictable events. Useful Indigenous knowledge exists, for example, in the area of water management in Taiwan [62]. Intermediary organizations such as universities have an important role to play as partners in bridging different kinds of knowledge; developing capacity; assisting with communication; supporting local institutions; and fostering social learning.

Emphasis on social learning, with ongoing adjustments in governance, makes adaptive governance dynamic. This calls for a willingness to experiment with innovative policies and practice in the face of uncertainty [72]. The active engagement of local people, including Indigenous peoples, through democratic participation is crucially important. Multiple voices are needed to generate innovative practices and governance options [75]. Indigenous resilience, driven and controlled by local communities, and characterized by place-based knowledge, social learning, collective action and empowerment, is an essential part of the way ahead in dealing with disaster-shocks.

### **7. Introduction to the Papers of the Special Issue**

This Special Issue brings together several papers on Taiwan and international case studies on local and Indigenous resilience to environmental change (see Appendix A for the full list of papers). We identify five (overlapping) themes: (1) Indigenous resilience and knowledge systems; (2) Social learning and adaptive governance; (3) DRR and disaster management; (4) International case studies; and (5) Academic and policy dialogues towards a new policy agenda on Indigenous resilience.

In terms of Indigenous resilience and knowledge systems, authors have focused on local marine-area management among coastal Amis communities (Futuru C.L. **Tsai**), seeing Indigenous resilience through a foodscape lens in the face of global climate change among Tayal communities (Yih-Ren **Lin** et al.), and building Indigenous resilience after Typhoon Soudelor (Su-Hsin **Lee** and Yin-Jen **Chen**). Studies in this Special Issue show how Indigenous resilience should be better situated within broader livelihood strategies, socialecological dynamics, and Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems. Authors such as Yih-Ren **Lin** et al. and Yayut Yishiuan **Chen** highlight the importance of decolonizing knowledge and Indigenous counter-stories of resilience and sustainability. This would serve to understand how Taiwan's Indigenous peoples cope with, adapt to, and transform negative impacts of climatic and other environmental stressors and shocks. More than "giving voice" to Indigenous people, it is imperative to understand and listen to Indigenous narratives and knowledges towards creating resilient social-ecological systems which can cope with broader social, environmental and climate-related challenges.

The second theme is social learning and adaptive capacity. Futuru C.L. **Tsai**, Yayut Yishiuan **Chen** and Yih-Ren **Lin** et al. show in great detail how Indigenous communities engage in social learning, and how this is linked to community-building, agriculture and food systems, local ecosystem management, traditional institutions, and worldviews and belief systems. Yayut Yishiuan **Chen** understands resilience from Tayal's "ontological understandings of their place in the world" (p. 2), which requires a completely new paradigm and mindset towards Indigenous resilience. The paper by Joyce Hsiu-yen **Yeh** et al. further shows how the transformation and innovation of Indigenous cultural heritage provide Taiwanese Indigenous peoples additional possibilities to create culturally appropriate development interventions, which can help them to cope better with the challenges of contemporary society and environmental change.

Futuru C.L. **Tsai** and Hsing-Sheng **Tai** discuss the adaptive governance of Indigenous communities. Both studies highlight in detail the struggles that communities face with top-down government planning. While participatory governance regimes are starting to emerge (such as community-based natural-resource management), Hsing-Sheng **Tai** concludes that social-ecological resilience in Taiwan has "focused on ecological resilience and the well-being of Han society" (p. 16). If so, this is problematic as there is a growing awareness among many policy-makers and scholars in Taiwan that Indigenous communities are disproportionally affected by typhoons and other disaster shocks (Mucahid Mustafa **Bayrak** et al.) and their needs require attention too.

Regarding the third theme, DRR and disaster management, Mucahid Mustafa **Bayrak** et al. have effectively shown in their bibliometric analysis and literature review that Taiwan has assumed a leadership position in this field. Two papers stand out which deal with this theme: the papers of Pei-Shan Sonia **Lin** and Wei-Cheng **Lin,** and Su-Hsin **Lee** and Yin-Jen **Chen**. The former focusses on post-disaster recovery among Tsou communities after Typhoon Morakot, whereas the latter highlights the coping strategies during and after typhoon Soudelor among Tayal communities. The cultural dimensions related to how Indigenous peoples cope with climate disasters should play a more prominent position in DRR and post-disaster recovery efforts according to both studies. Pei-Shan Sonia **Lin** and Wei-Cheng **Lin** state: "shared culture positively influences cohesion within an ethnic group, allowing communities affected by disasters to jointly strengthen, preserve, and sustain their identity" (p. 13).

The fourth theme of this Special Issue is related to international cases. The study of Gerard A. **Persoon** and Tessa **Minter** shows how four Indigenous communities in Indonesia and the Philippines have reacted to external development interventions and how climate change impacted their ways of life. This study is particularly valuable as many parallels could be drawn between Taiwan's Indigenous peoples and the Indigenous peoples of insular Southeast Asia. The papers by Ephias **Mugari** et al. and Muhamad Khoiru **Zaki** et al. both employ quantitative methods. The former identified the underlying drivers influencing Indigenous climate change response in Botswana, whereas the latter focused on how local and Indigenous knowledge systems helped communities cope with changing weather events and droughts in Indonesia. Two additional papers focus on Pacific Island states. Jan **van der Ploeg** et al. include a discourse analysis on the "sinking islands" narrative, and argue that this narrative detracts attention and resources from more urgent environmental and development problems. The paper by Janne **von Seggern** employed a meta-ethnographic approach in order to analyze studies focusing on local and Indigenous climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in selected South Pacific Island States.

The fifth and last theme is about generating a conversation among scholars, Indigenous peoples, and policy-makers to move the agenda forward. All papers have policy implications, but the two papers by Gregory A. **Cajete** and Richard **Howitt**, both keynote addresses at the December 2019 conference, provide particularly important policy considerations towards a new agenda on Indigenous resilience to environmental change.

Richard **Howitt** argues that Indigenous vulnerability and resilience need to be understood in the messy contexts of lived experience: "policy, science and practice all need to develop a much more sophisticated literacy in the scale politics of responding to the risk landscapes that Indigenous groups negotiate" (p. 2). Researchers need to engage with the knowledges, ontologies and experiences of Indigenous peoples meaningfully, considering their specific histories, geographies and impacts of colonialization: "Climate risks render Indigenous groups more vulnerable, not because of their indigeneity, but because their lives are so often marked by intergenerational legacies and the newly created scars of colonialism" (p. 11). Hence, decolonizing people and places is part of the approach to nurture Indigenous self-determination in rethinking the geopolitics of Indigenous resilience.

Gregory A. **Cajete**, an Indigenous scholar himself, articulates some foundational considerations toward a framework for thinking about Indigenous community-building and development, as illustrated with Taiwan examples by Joyce Hsiu-yen **Yeh** et al. Directly addressing Indigenous peoples, he argues that Indigenous science is not subordinate to western science: "we have ancient systems of extended family, clan, and tribal relationships that we can mobilize in positive ways to implement sustainable changes in our economies" (p. 10). These Indigenous ways of sustainability could be translated into the present through Indigenous community-building and science curricula development toward culturally responsive models—models that strengthen Indigenous societies and develop capacity for new forms of economic development, self-determination, and ways of dealing with adversity, including disasters.

The engaged scholarship of this Special Issue encourages the readers of Sustainability and other scholars to critically reflect upon the various insights and lessons learnt on Indigenous resilience in the context of Taiwan and beyond. The recognition of Indigenous issues in Taiwan is closely intertwined with democratization processes. The emergence of Indigenous voices, Indigenous knowledge, and the consideration of Indigenous resilience to environmental change are not apolitical processes, but rather related to democratization by direct participation. The engagement of more scholars and practitioners with comprehensive studies and applications of Indigenous resilience is needed. In doing so, we hope that Taiwan's Indigenous peoples, as well as all other Indigenous peoples, are at the forefront of this new paradigm shift.

**Author Contributions:** The authors H.-M.T., Y.-R.L. and M.M.B. are the Guest Editors of the Special Issue entitled "Indigenous Resilience and Indigenous Knowledge Systems in the context of Climate Change". F.B. gave the opening keynote address at the conference and took the lead in writing this Editorial with significant input from H.-M.T., M.M.B. and Y.-R.L. in writing, reviewing and researching for this Editorial. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** We thank the Research Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences (RIHSS), Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) for funding and sponsoring the Conference on "Climate Change, Indigenous Resilience and Local Knowledge Systems: Cross-time and Cross-boundary Perspectives" held in Taipei, 13–15 December 2019.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** Special thanks for the chair of the conference organizing committee, Sue-Ching Jou, Deputy Director of RIHSS, and her colleagues. Thanks for the contributions of additional invited speakers at the conference and many authors who gave oral presentations and participated in panels. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors of the conference or our universities.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A**

**Table A1.** List of papers belonging to the Special Issue (ordered according to Section 7's themes).


**Table A1.** *Cont*.


#### **References**

