Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Elinor Parrott
 -- 1502 2024-01-09 18:42:16 |
2 update references and layout
Rita Xu
 -22 word(s) 1480 2024-01-10 03:30:34 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Parrott, E.; Bernardino, A.; Lomeli-Rodriguez, M.; Burgess, R.; Rahman, A.; Direzkia, Y.; Joffe, H. Community Resilience after Disasters. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53622 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Parrott E, Bernardino A, Lomeli-Rodriguez M, Burgess R, Rahman A, Direzkia Y, et al. Community Resilience after Disasters. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53622. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Parrott, Elinor, Andrea Bernardino, Martha Lomeli-Rodriguez, Rochelle Burgess, Alfi Rahman, Yulia Direzkia, Helene Joffe. "Community Resilience after Disasters" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53622 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Parrott, E., Bernardino, A., Lomeli-Rodriguez, M., Burgess, R., Rahman, A., Direzkia, Y., & Joffe, H. (2024, January 09). Community Resilience after Disasters. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53622
Parrott, Elinor, et al. "Community Resilience after Disasters." Encyclopedia. Web. 09 January, 2024.
Community Resilience after Disasters
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su16010073

Despite the potentially catastrophic nature of disasters, survivors can be highly resilient. Resilience, the capacity to successfully adapt to adversity, is both individual and collective. Policymakers and academics have recently emphasised the importance of community resilience, but with little consideration of local survivors’ perspectives, particularly young survivors within low- and middle-income countries.

disaster post-disaster recovery resilience community resilience

1. Conceptualising Community

“Community” has been conceptualised in community resilience studies in various ways but is rarely critically explored. While a community can be a place (i.e., a geographical location or shared institution), communities can also be systems of practice (i.e., those belonging to a shared activity or profession), diagnostic identities (i.e., those associated with mental health conditions) and other symbolic relationships (i.e., those with intangible shared meanings and identities, such as religious communities) [1]. Therefore, disaster survivors can belong to multiple communities (see [2]).

2. Psychosocial Impacts of Disaster: What Do Communities Need to Be Resilient to?

It is important to acknowledge the mental health burden of disaster-related stressors for communities. The psychological impacts of disasters occur through the direct effects of the extreme event (primary stressors) (e.g., witnessing the collapse of buildings and experiencing physical injuries) and the knock-on consequences of disaster (secondary stressors) (e.g., employment loss, loss of identity and disturbance to community roles) (see [3] for a review). Secondary stressors can impact mental health and well-being in similar ways to the initial disaster exposure [4], influencing the long-term mental health burden of disasters. This includes the impact of collective trauma, defined as the group-level psychological impact arising from a shared experience of a highly distressing event, generally involving a fear of death or injury. Such collective trauma can harm individuals’ psychological functioning and therefore the social fabric of the community [5][6].
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following disaster exposure is among the most studied mental health disorders (for reviews, see [7][8]). However, disasters also produce an increase in experiences of grief, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance abuse and other stress-related problems. Some manifestations of the psychological impacts of disasters may vary between Western and non-Western cultures. For example, after the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka, trauma was often expressed via somatic complaints, such as headaches and bodily pain [9].
Young people are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of disasters. In a seminal review of the disaster literature, Norris et al. [8] found that the psychological impairments of young people were elevated and extreme compared to adults. More recent studies support the idea that younger age is associated with elevated PTSD symptoms (e.g., [10][11][12][13][14]). Economic inequality can impact resilience, as young people living in poverty are likely to have fewer tangible resources to harness to cope with disaster stressors, therefore heightening their risk [26]. They may also be more likely to experience chronic or multigenerational trauma pre-disaster, which is exacerbated by the impacts of disasters [15]. The risk factors for PTSD in children that were identified in a review of eight studies include female gender, disaster exposure, negative coping and lack of social support [16]. Many reasons have been suggested as to why girls may be more vulnerable to the impacts of disasters. These include gender differences in cognitive appraisals of threat [17][18], gendered vulnerability to the consequences of disasters, such as a rise in violence, increased mortality risk and economic vulnerability [19][20][21]. Alternatively, the putative greater vulnerability of girls to the impacts of disasters may be a consequence of the gendered expectations of adults (i.e., parents and teachers), who often complete quantitative measures on behalf of their children [22]. Such expectations may also determine that girls carry the burden of domestic chores and caring responsibilities post-disaster, which can impede their return to schooling post-disaster [23]. This emphasises the importance of research that directly gauges the experiences of girls, particularly from marginalised communities.

3. Resilience to Disasters: From the Individual to the Community

Despite extensive research focused on the mental health impacts of disasters, in most circumstances, disasters do not lead to serious, long-term psychological impairment. Methodological limitations such as sampling biases have led to a historical overreporting of dysfunction in trauma research [24]. More recent, innovative techniques using longitudinal trajectories of disaster survivors have shown that sustained psychological challenges rarely exceed 30% [25]. Studies such as those by Bonanno et al. [25] and Masten and Narayan [26] review the multiple factors that promote adaptive, resilient functioning after disasters at the individual level. This includes individual differences, such as personality and beliefs, cognitive appraisal processes and social resources, which interact to guide the coping strategies that an individual employs when experiencing adversity [27]. However, resilience research has attracted criticism for promoting a neoliberal agenda that neglects the structural inequalities that impede the resilience of individuals [28][29].
An alternative approach is to explore resilience as a collective phenomenon that operates at the level of the community [30]. Community resilience has been defined in several ways, but researchers generally agree that such resilience is an “adaptive capacity” that supports the community to cope with adversity (e.g., [31][32][33]). Norris and colleagues’ [31] well-cited model theorises successful community adaption as a process emerging from four adaptive capacities: economic development, social capital, community competence and information and communication. The model has been referenced in many studies exploring resilience in non-Western contexts (e.g., [34][35][36]).
Although community resilience is far less extensively researched in psychology than resilience at the individual level, there is a historical precedent in psychological research for considering the strength-oriented responses of communities to disasters. Research on high-income settings has long shown that in public emergencies, communities come together to overcome adversity (e.g., [37][38][39]). Numerous terms have been used to describe the positive affinity shared between groups who experience collective adversity, including “brotherhood of pain” [39], “altruistic communities” [40] and “therapeutic communities” [41]. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, these terms capture the elevated levels of spontaneous assistance, support and cohesion demonstrated by survivors. Altruistic communities refers to the harmony of disaster survivors who reciprocally support each other; these responses have the potential to be therapeutic by alleviating the adverse psychological effects of experiencing a disaster [50]. Social psychologists have interpreted these collective responses through the lens of the social identity approach [42]; this explains the cohesion, solidarity and coordination that occurs in the face of adversity as the product of a shared “disaster survivor” identity [43][44][45][46]. However, most research in this area focuses on the immediate disaster response, while the community dynamics that facilitate (or impede) long-term recovery are rarely explored. The research that exists in this area yields mixed results: Ntontis et al. [47] reported that after flooding in the UK, secondary stressors promoted community support beyond the initial emergency, whereas Paton et al. [48] found that after the Christchurch earthquake, community groups were transient and dissipated once their survival needs had been met. However, there is a notable absence of research in this area from non-Western contexts. Research in non-Western contexts is important, as cultural belief systems and practices influence processes of coping and adaption to adversity [49][50]. Therefore, while some determinants of resilience may resonate cross-culturally, their presentation and impact can be context-dependent and culturally nuanced [50][51].

4. Building Back Better: According to Whom?

In tandem with the rising popularity of the concept in psychological literature, resilience has become a policy buzzword in disaster risk management since the development of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 [52]. The more recent Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 [53] was developed to build the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Beyond early definitions of resilience connotating a “bouncing back” following an external shock [54], the more recent disaster literature emphasises the need to bounce back better [55]. The “Build Back Better” agenda argues that disaster relief should be coupled with long-term development objectives to reduce vulnerabilities to future natural hazards as a “new normal” is sought [56]. This means that the discourse of resilience can bridge the gap between humanitarian crisis intervention and longer-term sustainable development goals [57]. However, it is important to note that despite the compelling narrative of “Build Back Better” that is promoted extensively following disasters, long-term development projects are not always delivered in practice, particularly in countries that are fragile and experience weak governance, as seen following the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti [58][59]. More recently, the “Building Back Fairer” agenda asserts that disaster response must prioritise social equity to reduce the structural drivers that exacerbate inequality, making marginalised populations particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of disasters [60].
However, the concept of resilience in disaster management runs the risk of becoming a set of top-down attributes decided by international agencies [61]. Since a hazard becomes a disaster due to an interplay of social, political and economic factors that shape the vulnerability of the community [62], it is the most marginalised, poorest communities who are likely to experience the most negative impacts. Therefore, such voices should be at the forefront of interventions designed to strengthen community resilience. This must include children, who suffer the most and have been recognised for their potential to actively contribute to community recovery and resilience (e.g., [63]), but whose voices are rarely included in research.

References

  1. Elias, L.; Singh, A.; A Burgess, R. In search of ‘community’: A critical review of community mental health services for women in African settings. Health Policy Plan. 2021, 36, 205–217.
  2. Burgess, R.; Mathias, K. Community Mental Health Competencies: A New Vision for Global Mental Health. In The Palgrave Handbook of Sociocultural Perspectives on Global Mental Health; White, R.G., Sumeet, J., Orr, D.M.R., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017; pp. 211–235.
  3. Lock, S.; Rubin, G.J.; Murray, V.; Rogers, M.B.; Amlôt, R.; Williams, R. Secondary stressors and extreme events and disasters: A systematic review of primary research from 2010–2011. PLoS Curr. 2012, 4.
  4. Williams, R.; Ntontis, E.; Alfadhli, K.; Drury, J.; Amlôt, R. A social model of secondary stressors in relation to disasters, major incidents and conflict: Implications for practice. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 63, 102436.
  5. Hirschberger, G. Collective Trauma and the Social Construction of Meaning. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1441.
  6. Muldoon, O. Collective trauma. In Together Apart: The psychology of COVID-19; Jetten, J., Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A., Cruwys, T., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UK, 2020; pp. 84–89.
  7. Galea, S.; Nandi, A.; Vlahov, D. The Epidemiology of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder after Disasters. Epidemiol. Rev. 2005, 27, 78–91.
  8. Norris, F.H.; Friedman, M.J.; Watson, P.J.; Byrne, C.M.; Diaz, E.; Kaniasty, K. 60,000 Disaster Victims Speak: Part I. An Empirical Review of the Empirical Literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry 2002, 65, 207–239.
  9. Ashraf, H. Tsunami Wreaks Mental Health Havoc; Bulletin of the World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; Volume 83, pp. 405–406.
  10. Kirkpatrick, H.A.; Heller, G.M. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Theory and Treatment Update. Int. J. Psychiatry Med. 2014, 47, 337–346.
  11. McDermott, B.M.; Lee, E.M.; Judd, M.; Gibbon, P. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and General Psychopathology in Children and Adolescents following a Wildfire Disaster. Can. J. Psychiatry 2005, 50, 137–143.
  12. Schein, J.; Houle, C.; Urganus, A.; Cloutier, M.; Patterson-Lomba, O.; Wang, Y.; King, S.; Levinson, W.; Guérin, A.; Lefebvre, P.; et al. Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States: A systematic literature review. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2021, 37, 2151–2161.
  13. Weems, C.F.; Taylor, L.K.; Cannon, M.F.; Marino, R.C.; Romano, D.M.; Scott, B.G.; Perry, A.M.; Triplett, V. Post Traumatic Stress, Context, and the Lingering Effects of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster among Ethnic Minority Youth. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2009, 38, 49–56.
  14. Yelland, C.; Robinson, P.; Lock, C.; La Greca, A.M.; Kokegei, B.; Ridgway, V.; Lai, B. Bushfire impact on youth. J. Trauma. Stress 2010, 23, 274–277.
  15. Masten, A.S.; Lucke, C.M.; Nelson, K.M.; Stallworthy, I.C. Resilience in development and psychopathology: Multisystem perspectives. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2021, 17, 521–549.
  16. Lai, B.S.; Lewis, R.; Livings, M.S.; La Greca, A.M.; Esnard, A. Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Trajectories Among Children After Disaster Exposure: A Review. J. Trauma. Stress 2017, 30, 571–582.
  17. Karanci, N.A.; Alkan, N.; Aksit, B.; Sucuoglu, H.; Balta, E. Gender differences in psychological distress, coping, social support and related variables following the 1995 Dinal (Turkey) earthquake. N. Am. J. Psychol. 1999, 1, 189–204. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-16045-004 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  18. Pine, D.S.; Cohen, J.A. Trauma in children and adolescents: Risk and treatment of psychiatric sequelae. Biol. Psychiatry 2002, 51, 519–531.
  19. Neumayer, E.; Plümper, T. The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981–2002. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2007, 97, 551–566.
  20. Tanyag, M. Depleting fragile bodies: The political economy of sexual and reproductive health in crisis situations. Rev. Int. Stud. 2018, 44, 654–671.
  21. Tanyag, M. Resilience, Female Altruism, and Bodily Autonomy: Disaster-Induced Displacement in Post-Haiyan Philippines. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 2018, 43, 563–585.
  22. Masten, A.S. Resilience of children in disasters: A multisystem perspective. Int. J. Psychol. 2020, 56, 1–11.
  23. Bradshaw, S.; Fordham, M. Double Disaster: Disaster through a Gender Lens. In Hazards, Risks, and Disasters in Society; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 233–251.
  24. Bonanno, G.A. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pr. Policy 2008, S(1), 101–113.
  25. Bonanno, G.A.; Brewin, C.R.; Kaniasty, K.; La Greca, A.M. Weighing the costs of disaster: Consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychol. Sci. Public Interes. 2010, 11, 1–49.
  26. Masten, A.S.; Narayan, A.J. Child Development in the Context of Disaster, War, and Terrorism: Pathways of Risk and Resilience. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011, 63, 227–257.
  27. Mancini, A.D.; Bonanno, G.A. Predictors and Parameters of Resilience to Loss: Toward an Individual Differences Model. J. Pers. 2009, 77, 1805–1832.
  28. Chandler, D. Beyond neoliberalism: Resilience, the new art of governing complexity. Resilience 2014, 2, 47–63.
  29. Joseph, J. Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality approach. Resilience 2013, 1, 38–52.
  30. Schwarz, S. Resilience in psychology: A critical analysis of the concept. Theory Psychol. 2018, 28, 528–541.
  31. Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2007, 41, 127–150.
  32. Berkes, F. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Nat. Hazards 2007, 41, 283–295.
  33. Paton, D. Community Resilience: Integrating Individual, Community and Societal Perspectives in the Phoenix of Natural Disasters, Community Resilience; Gow, K., Paton, D., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 13–31.
  34. Alonge, O.; Sonkarlay, S.; Gwaikolo, W.; Fahim, C.; Cooper, J.L.; Peters, D.H. Understanding the role of community resilience in addressing the Ebola virus disease epidemic in Liberia: A qualitative study (community resilience in Liberia). Glob. Health Action 2019, 12, 1662682.
  35. Dewa, O.; Makoka, D.; Ayo-Yusuf, O.A. Measuring community flood resilience and associated factors in rural Malawi. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2023, 16, e12874.
  36. Moreno, J.; Shaw, D. Community resilience to power outages after disaster: A case study of the 2010 Chile earthquake and tsunami. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 34, 448–458.
  37. Drury, J.; Carter, H.; Cocking, C.; Ntontis, E.; Guven, S.T.; Amlôt, R. Facilitating collective psychosocial resilience in the public in emergencies: Twelve recommendations based on the social identity approach. Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 429165.
  38. Fritz, C.E.; Williams, H.B. The Human Being in Disasters: A Research Perspective. Ann. Am. Acad. Politi-Soc. Sci. 1957, 309, 42–51.
  39. Oliver-Smith, A. Communities after catastrophe: Reconstructing the material, reconstituting the social. In Community Building in the 21st Century; School of American Research Press: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2005; pp. 45–70.
  40. Barton, A.H. Communities in Disaster: A Sociological Analysis of Collective Stress Situations; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1969.
  41. Fritz, C.E. Disasters and Mental Health: Therapeutic Principles Drawn from Disaster Studies; Historical and Comparative Disaster Series #10 (1996; written 1961); University of Delaware; Disaster Research Center: Newark, DE, USA, 1996.
  42. Ntontis, E.; Drury, J.; Amlôt, R.; Rubin, G.J.; Williams, R. What lies beyond social capital? The role of social psychology in building community resilience to climate change. Traumatology 2020, 26, 253–265.
  43. Drury, J. Collective resilience in mass emergencies and disasters: A social identity model. In The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-Being; Jetten, J., Haslam, C., Haslam, S.A., Eds.; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2012; pp. 195–215.
  44. Drury, J. The role of social identity processes in mass emergency behaviour: An integrative review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 29, 38–81.
  45. Williams, R.; Drury, J. The nature of psychosocial resilience and its significance for managing mass emergencies, disasters and terrorism. In Rebuilding Sustainable Communities for Children and Their Families after Disasters: A Global Survey; Awotona, A., Ed.; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, 2010; pp. 121–148.
  46. Williams, R.; Drury, J. Personal and Collective Psychosocial Resilience: Implications for Children, Young People and Their Families Involved in War and Disasters; Cook, D., Wall, J., Cox, P., Eds.; Palgrave McMillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2011.
  47. Ntontis, E.; Drury, J.; Amlôt, R.; Rubin, G.J.; Williams, R. Emergent social identities in a flood: Implications for community psychosocial resilience. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 28, 3–14.
  48. Paton, D.; Mamula Seadon, L.; Selway, K. Community Resilience in Christchurch: Adaptive Responses and Capacities during Earthquake Recovery. 2013. Available online: https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/report/Community_Resilience_in_Christchurch_Adaptive_responses_and_capacities_during_earthquake_recovery/23166890 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  49. Theron, L.C.; Liebenberg, L. Understanding Cultural Contexts and Their Relationship to Resilience Processes. In Youth Resilience and Culture: Commonalities and Complexities; Theron, L.C., Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 23–36.
  50. Ungar, M. Resilience and culture: The diversity of protective processes and positive adaptation. In Youth resilience and culture: Commonalities and Complexities; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 37–48.
  51. Ungar, M. Resilience across Cultures. Br. J. Soc. Work. 2008, 38, 218–235.
  52. UNISDR. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. 2005. Available online: www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  53. UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030; UNISDR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; Available online: http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  54. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2003, 4, 1–23.
  55. Matyas, D.; Pelling, M. Positioning resilience for 2015: The role of resistance, incremental adjustment and transformation in disaster risk management policy. Disasters 2015, 39, s1–s18.
  56. Khasalamwa, S. Is ‘build back better’ a response to vulnerability? Analysis of the post-tsunami humanitarian interventions in Sri Lanka. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Nor. J. Geogr. 2009, 63, 73–88.
  57. Joseph, J.; Juncos, A.E. A promise not fulfilled: The (non) implementation of the resilience turn in EU peacebuilding. Contemp. Secur. Policy 2019, 41, 287–310.
  58. Cunningham, O. The Humanitarian Aid Regime in the Republic of NGOs: The Fallacy of ‘Building Back Better. Josef Korbel J. Adv. Int. Stud. 2012, 4, 101–126. Available online: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/advancedintlstudies/9 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  59. O’Connor, D.; Brisson-Boivin, K.; Ilcan, S. Governing failure: Development, aid and audit in Haiti. Confl. Secur. Dev. 2014, 14, 309–330.
  60. Marmot, M.; Allen, J.; Goldblatt, P.; Herd, E.; Morrison, J. Build back fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot review. Institute of Health Equity, London 2020. Available online: https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/build-back-fairer-the-covid-19-marmot-review (accessed on 4 December 2023).
  61. Shah, R.; Paulson, J.; Couch, D. The Rise of Resilience in Education in Emergencies. J. Interv. Statebuilding 2019, 14, 303–326.
  62. Massazza, A.; Joffe, H.; Brewin, C.R. Earthquakes, attributions, and psychopathology: A study in a rural community. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2019, 10, 1661813.
  63. Pfefferbaum, B.; Pfefferbaum, R.L.; Van Horn, R.L. Involving children in disaster risk reduction: The importance of participation. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2018, 9, 1425577.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Psychology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Elinor Parrott
,
Andrea Bernardino
,
Martha Lomeli-Rodriguez
,
Rochelle Burgess
,
Alfi Rahman
,
Yulia Direzkia
,
Helene Joffe
View Times: 87
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 10 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback