Connecting and Strengthening: A Resilient Society for Everyone

By Jori Kalkman, Esther van ’t Veen, and Huib Zijderveld

Previously published in: het Burgemeestersblad: De Veiligheidseditie (2025)

In recent years, global security has significantly deteriorated. War has returned to the European continent, and hybrid attacks are carried out daily, systematically undermining our free society. Additionally, the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly visible, with extreme weather events occurring more frequently. When disaster strikes—be it an attack or a natural catastrophe—it can take a long time before government aid arrives. Therefore, society must learn to cope with threats and hardships. In short, societal resilience must be increased. But how? This article identifies several lessons from disaster studies.

Resilience is generally defined as a community’s ability to effectively resist risks, absorb shocks, and recover. Concerns about resilience levels exist in Europe: many citizens do not seem very worried about potential crises, and businesses and public institutions appear only moderately capable of adapting to times of disaster or war.

This isn’t the first time a government has worried about its citizens’ resilience though. At the start of the Cold War, there was also much attention on building a resilient society. Back then, the U.S. government wondered how citizens would react in the event of nuclear war. Policymakers expected widespread chaos and anarchy. To verify this, they enlisted scientists. Since the aftermath of a nuclear war couldn’t be studied directly, researchers analyzed large disasters, which had a similar scale and impact. The results were surprising.

Contrary to expectations, people did not panic. In fact, most acted rationally. Victims may feel fear and flee, but in many disasters, this is only logical. Policymakers also assumed people would become selfish and that disasters would bring out the worst in humanity, but the opposite proved true. Looting is extremely rare, crime rates drop, and people become more supportive and engaged with their communities. Many victims even retain warm feelings from the aftermath of a disaster, as it brings communities together. Spontaneous initiatives to help one another emerge quickly, and in major disasters, the most vital aid often comes from neighbors, not the government.

Various studies show that people spontaneously offer help during disasters out of solidarity. During the COVID-19 crisis, volunteer healthcare workers - often former professionals - were invaluable. In wartime, many civilian initiatives also arise. Volunteers distribute food, clothing, and water, and provide shelter to displaced people. Some even support soldiers directly. For example, the Protect Ukraine Foundation collects supplies like off-road vehicles and helmets to help Ukrainian soldiers at the front.

These findings offer hope for building a resilient society. Unfortunately, outdated myths about human behavior during crises persist. Media reports still focus on looting (despite little or no evidence), and officials often deploy law enforcement instead of aid workers after a disaster. While situations are complex, such decisions reflect a political desire for control and a distrust of citizens, undermining a community’s intrinsic resilience.

Instead, government organizations should strengthen and build on communities’ self-reliance. Citizens possess valuable “social capital”: knowledge, networks, and resources they can mobilize during crises. Communities rich in social capital can organize themselves and provide mutual aid, enabling faster recovery. Institutions like schools, community centers, sports clubs, and scouting groups help build social capital by bringing people together. They also raise awareness of risks and teach useful skills for emergencies. Research in Japan shows that communities with more such institutions have lower death rates during disasters. After a major earthquake in 1995, Japan even developed laws to support self-reliance. Citizens have long been actively involved in risk reduction through volunteering and self-governance. The point isn’t that local organizations must strengthen social capital entirely on their own, but that their capacity and knowledge should be recognized and utilized to enhance societal resilience.

It’s crucial to acknowledge inequalities in society to strengthen resilience across the population. Socially vulnerable groups, including minorities, women, the elderly, and low-income individuals, are disproportionately affected by crises. Those with fewer financial resources face higher mortality risks, suffer greater financial impacts, and take longer to recover. Yet aid efforts often don’t account for these disparities. In major disasters, affluent neighborhoods typically receive help first, while vulnerable people are reached more slowly. Without attention to inequality, resilience initiatives can worsen societal disparities. Solidarity is essential. Resilience and vulnerability are two sides of the same coin. Anyone working on resilience without addressing poverty, discrimination, and marginalization will be disappointed.

Due to climate change and increased military threats, we will likely face longer, more intense periods of crisis in the future, leaving communities more reliant on themselves. This means safety and aid are not solely government responsibilities: they are societal ones. Resilience requires supporting, facilitating, and motivating the entire society to prepare for active roles during crises, with solidarity as the guiding principle.

Previously published in: het Burgemeestersblad: De Veiligheidseditie (2025)

Thank you for reading. Together we can build a more resilient society.

Join us in Riga for Common Effort 2025 and be part of the dialogue.

Join us in Riga