STUDIES & RESEARCH (21)
What if Neighbourhood Watch protects more than our homes?
Imagine an older person who lives alone. Every morning, she opens the shutters of her house at roughly the same time. One morning, they remain closed. A neighbour notices.
He is not a police officer, a doctor or a social worker. He is simply someone who knows who lives next door - and knows that something is different.
That small act of attention tells us something important about community safety. A safe community is not only a community where somebody notices a suspicious person, an unfamiliar vehicle or an open window. It is also a community where somebody notices the absence of a neighbour.
For those of us working in Neighbourhood Watch and community safety, this simple example opens up a wider question. Could the relationships that grow around a Watch scheme matter not only for crime prevention, but also for the health and resilience of a neighbourhood? Research on loneliness and social isolation gives us good reason to explore that possibility. It does not, however, allow us to assume that setting up a Neighbourhood Watch group automatically creates social connection. The way a scheme works - and the relationships it encourages - matters.
Loneliness is not the same as being alone
The distinction between loneliness and social isolation is fundamental. Social isolation describes the objective structure of someone's social world: how frequently they meet other people, whether they live alone, how large their social network is and whether they participate in social organisations.
Loneliness is different. It is subjective. It arises when there is a gap between the relationships people have and the relationships they feel they need. A person may therefore have relatively few social contacts without feeling lonely. Conversely, somebody surrounded by colleagues, relatives and neighbours may experience profound loneliness. This distinction has become increasingly important in research on ageing and health.
A 2025 population-based study using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) followed adults aged 50 and over for up to 14 years. The researchers examined 6,031 people and investigated the relationship between loneliness, social isolation and multimorbidity - the presence of two or more long-term health conditions.
Among participants who did not initially have multimorbidity, loneliness was associated with a 38 per cent higher relative hazard of subsequently developing multimorbidity, even after adjustment for demographic characteristics, social isolation and health-related behaviours such as smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity. The relationship also appeared to work in the opposite direction: people with multimorbidity had a 55 per cent higher relative hazard of subsequently developing loneliness.
The researchers therefore identified a significant bidirectional association between loneliness and multimorbidity. Importantly, this was an observational study. It cannot demonstrate that loneliness directly causes chronic disease, nor that chronic disease inevitably causes loneliness. Unmeasured factors may contribute to both. Nevertheless, following the same population over many years provides important evidence that health and social connection may interact throughout the ageing process.
It suggests the possibility of a difficult cycle: loneliness -> poorer health -> reduced activity and participation -> greater loneliness. Breaking that cycle may require us to think about health not only in hospitals and clinics, but also in neighbourhoods.
A global public-health issue
This is no longer a marginal field of research. In 2025, the World Health Organization Commission on Social Connectionpublished its report From loneliness to social connection: charting a path to healthier societies.
The WHO argues that loneliness and social isolation have serious but still under-recognised consequences for health, well-being and society, and calls for social health to receive greater attention alongside physical and mental health.
For community-safety organisations, one point in the WHO's work is especially relevant. Social connection is not only an individual matter. Stronger social bonds are associated with greater cohesion, and communities in which people are connected may be better able to respond together when difficulties arise.
That is very close to the territory in which Neighbourhood Watch operates. The WHO evidence does not tell us that Neighbourhood Watch produces these outcomes. What it does is give us a reason to look more closely at whether a well-designed scheme can create opportunities for familiarity, trust and mutual support to grow.
From watching places to knowing people
Neighbourhood Watch has traditionally been understood primarily through the lens of crime prevention. Neighbours observe their surroundings. They recognise unusual situations. They share information. They report concerns. They cooperate with law enforcement and local authorities. All of this remains essential.
There is evidence that Neighbourhood Watch can contribute to crime reduction. A systematic review published by the Campbell Collaboration, examining studies that had evaluated the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Watch programmes, found an overall reduction in crime. The authors nevertheless noted differences in the quality and comparability of the studies and pointed out that it was not always clear through which mechanisms the programmes produced their effects.
The uncertainty about how Neighbourhood Watch works is important. One possibility is easy to overlook: before a crime is prevented or a concern is reported, neighbours may simply begin to know one another.
Repeated encounters make people familiar. Over time, familiarity can make it easier to trust, exchange information, ask for help or offer it. None of this is guaranteed, but these ordinary interactions are part of how a sense of belonging can develop.
Seen in this way, the familiar Neighbourhood Watch sequence - observation, reporting, crime prevention - is only part of the story. Alongside it may be another process in which neighbours become familiar, begin to trust one another and, eventually, become more willing to act together.
This is a possibility, not a proven chain of cause and effect. But the distinction is worth making. In one model the neighbour is mainly another pair of eyes. In the other, the neighbour is someone with whom a relationship exists.
A neighbourhood experience from Vienna
An experience from Vienna offers a simple illustration of what this can mean in practice. At the founding event of the neighbourhood association proNACHBAR, some residents met again after having lost contact despite living close to one another for decades. Others introduced themselves to neighbours for the first time. One surprisingly practical issue emerged: many people did not even have their neighbours' telephone numbers.
What followed was not a formal care system, but something much simpler - the possibility of asking someone nearby for help. In one case, an older resident who felt threatened by a stranger trying to enter her home felt safer after exchanging telephone numbers with a neighbour. In another, an 80-year-old bedridden woman called for help through an open window; a neighbour responded, helped her and then contacted the care organisation.
These experiences are anecdotal and should not be treated as evidence of the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Watch. But they illustrate an important point: living close to someone does not necessarily mean knowing them. Sometimes the first contribution of a neighbourhood initiative is simply to turn physical proximity into human connection.
Noticing what disappears
Consider again the closed shutters. Neighbourhood Watch usually teaches us the value of noticing something that appears: an unfamiliar vehicle, suspicious behaviour, damage to a property. Social connection teaches us something complementary: the importance of noticing something that disappears.
The neighbour who has not been seen for several days. The older resident who usually walks the dog every morning but has suddenly stopped. The person who normally participates in the local group but no longer replies. The lights that usually come on in the evening but have remained dark.
None of these observations necessarily indicates an emergency. Nor should neighbours become intrusive or assume responsibilities belonging to health or social-care professionals. But they illustrate something valuable: people notice changes when they know what normal looks like. And knowing what normal looks like requires familiarity. This is precisely where crime prevention and social connection begin to overlap.
Older people: from vulnerability to participation
Discussions about loneliness frequently portray older people as passive recipients of assistance: people whom communities should visit, support or protect. That approach, although well intentioned, risks overlooking one of the fundamental principles of community life: reciprocity.
An older resident may be the person who knows the neighbourhood best. She may remember who lives where. She may recognise patterns and changes. She may know the history of the street. She may spend more time locally than commuters who leave early in the morning and return in the evening. She is therefore not merely someone for the community to watch over. She can be one of the people watching over the community.
This shift - from vulnerability to participation - is crucial. It recognises older residents not only as people who may benefit from social connection, but as holders of local knowledge and contributors to collective safety.
The Vienna experience also reminds us that neighbourhood assistance does not need to turn residents into carers. Often its value lies simply in making it possible to know whom to call, whom to check on and whom to ask for help.
The objective should not simply be to ensure that people have more social contacts. The ELSA study itself offers an interesting warning here. In that particular cohort, objective social isolation was not significantly associated prospectively with multimorbidity once the researchers made their adjustments, whereas subjective loneliness was. This does not mean that social isolation is harmless, nor that other research will necessarily produce identical findings. It suggests something subtler: the quality and meaning of human connection may matter as much as the number of contacts people have. Simply putting people in the same room does not necessarily create community. Belonging requires something more.
Young people: rebuilding the weak ties of community
Social disconnection is not only an issue of ageing. A 2026 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), based on conversations with more than 150 young people in England alongside analysis of longitudinal data, describes growing up today as increasingly marked by disconnection. The report found that the proportion of young people saying they had no close friends had risen from around one in a hundred in 2014 to around one in twenty. This is an important warning sign, but it should not be read as proof that young people as a whole are simply becoming lonelier: having fewer close friends and experiencing subjective loneliness are not the same thing.
Research led by Pamela Qualter adds an important caution. Her 2025 review of qualitative research on loneliness among children and young people found that the lived experience of loneliness is multidimensional and that commonly used measures do not fully capture its affective dimension. For community organisations, this reinforces a point already made in this article: counting contacts is not enough. What matters is also how relationships are experienced and whether people feel that they belong. Against that background, the loss of ordinary, low-pressure encounters with acquaintances and familiar faces - the kinds of weak ties from which stronger relationships can sometimes develop - deserves attention. The IPPR report similarly points to the erosion of services and spaces that once helped young people build connection and navigate the transition to adulthood.
This is relevant to Neighbourhood Watch, but it requires the same caution applied elsewhere in this article. A Watch scheme cannot manufacture friendship, nor should it present itself as a remedy for youth loneliness. What it may be able to provide is something more modest and potentially valuable: repeated opportunities for people who share a place to encounter one another, recognise one another and do something together.
Participation may be particularly important here. Asking a young person simply to “meet the neighbours” may have little appeal. Inviting them to contribute to a concrete community purpose is different. Younger residents may bring skills and perspectives that a neighbourhood needs - from digital communication and online-safety awareness to local mapping, community events or helping older residents navigate technology. In this model, young people are not treated as beneficiaries of community support but as contributors to community life.
The principle mirrors the argument made above about older residents. The older neighbour may know the history, rhythms and relationships of the street; the younger neighbour may understand its digital life and emerging forms of communication. Bringing those forms of knowledge together can create bridging social capital across generations. The immediate outcome may be no more than a greeting, a familiar face or a name remembered. But those weak ties matter precisely because stronger relationships often need somewhere to begin.
From fear to participation
There is another side to this relationship: how safe people feel can affect how they use their neighbourhood and how often they meet the people around them. Fear of crime can sometimes constrain behaviour. Research has long suggested that fear and withdrawal may reinforce one another for some people: fear can reduce participation in everyday activities, while reduced social interaction can in turn leave the neighbourhood feeling less familiar and less predictable.
A possible negative cycle is therefore: fear -> withdrawal -> fewer encounters -> weaker social connection -> less presence in public space -> greater perception of insecurity.
The opposite pathway is also conceivable: familiarity -> trust -> participation -> greater use of shared spaces -> more everyday encounters -> stronger belonging -> greater confidence in the community.
This is also a challenge for Neighbourhood Watch. If a group talks mainly about threats, warnings and suspicious behaviour, it may unintentionally make residents more anxious. Unfamiliar people can start to be seen first as risks rather than as neighbours not yet known. In that case, a scheme created to improve safety may end up feeding mistrust. So the presence of a Watch scheme tells us only so much. Its culture matters. A group built around participation, reciprocity and shared responsibility is quite different from one whose main language is fear.
None of this suggests that social cohesion can replace effective policing, good urban design or appropriate security measures. It cannot. Rather, social infrastructure and security infrastructure can reinforce one another.
Beyond surveillance: collective efficacy
Criminology offers a useful way of thinking about this: collective efficacy.
In the classic work of Robert Sampson, Stephen Raudenbush and Felton Earls, collective efficacy combines social cohesion and mutual trust with a willingness to intervene for the common good. The idea is more demanding than simple neighbourliness. The question is whether relationships give people the confidence and shared expectations needed to act when the neighbourhood faces a problem.
A neighbourhood does not become resilient merely because many people live close together. Nor does a collection of houses automatically constitute a community. What matters is whether people develop sufficient mutual trust, shared expectations and willingness to act when something threatens the common good.
Knowing a neighbour makes conversation easier; trust makes it easier to share a concern or ask for help. Where residents also feel some shared responsibility for the place in which they live, cooperation becomes more likely. Over time, this can give a neighbourhood a capacity to act that no resident - and no institution - can create alone.
Neighbourhood Watch, at its best, may help cultivate precisely these conditions. But the evidence should not be overstated: collective efficacy is a broader neighbourhood process, and it cannot simply be assumed to arise wherever a Watch scheme exists.
Strong bonds - but between whom?
Even social cohesion needs to be looked at critically. Strong ties can make a group supportive and resilient, but they are not necessarily inclusive. Trust may stop at the edge of the group.
A useful distinction is sometimes made between bonding social capital - the ties that connect people who already see themselves as part of the same group - and bridging social capital, which creates relationships across differences of age, background, ethnicity, lifestyle or length of residence.
The challenge of weak ties among younger people gives this distinction an additional intergenerational dimension. A neighbourhood organisation can create value not only by strengthening existing relationships, but also by creating low-pressure opportunities for people of different ages to become familiar with one another before any strong relationship exists.
For Neighbourhood Watch, both matter. A close network of established residents may be highly effective at sharing information, yet still fail to create an inclusive community if newcomers or minority groups remain outside it. For Neighbourhood Watch, that distinction is important. Community safety cannot rest only on trust among 'people like us'. It also depends on whether newcomers and people with different backgrounds are recognised as participants in the same neighbourhood.
A different definition of community safety
This suggests a broader way of judging Neighbourhood Watch.Instead of asking only, “Does Neighbourhood Watch reduce crime?“, we might also ask, “What kind of community does Neighbourhood Watch help to create?“
Does it help neighbours recognise one another? Does it encourage participation? Does it create trust between residents? Does it connect people who might otherwise remain strangers? Does it give older residents meaningful roles rather than treating them only as vulnerable people? Does it include newcomers as well as long-established residents? Does it help somebody feel that their absence would be noticed?
None of these questions replaces the basic crime-prevention purpose of Neighbourhood Watch. They do, however, ask us to judge a scheme by more than the amount of information it circulates. We should also be interested in the relationships it leaves behind.
The social infrastructure of safety
The WHO's work on social connection provides an important opportunity for national Neighbourhood Watch associations to reflect on their role. Neighbourhood Watch should not become a health service, and volunteers should not be expected to act as social workers. Nor should claims be made that the simple creation of a Watch group will reduce loneliness or improve health. The available evidence does not justify that conclusion.
But neither should we underestimate what can happen when neighbours begin to know one another. A greeting in the street seems insignificant. Remembering someone's name seems insignificant. Checking on a neighbour who has not been seen for several days seems insignificant. Inviting somebody to a community meeting seems insignificant. Allowing an older resident to contribute their knowledge and experience seems insignificant. Yet these small interactions can accumulate. They can create familiarity. Familiarity can support trust. Trust can make reciprocity possible. And reciprocity can help create the conditions in which people are willing to act together.
The research on loneliness and social connection gives community-safety organisations a reason to look beyond the traditional boundaries of crime prevention. Criminology adds an important caution: trust and collective action do not simply appear because people live close to one another. They are influenced by who is included, how people are encouraged to participate and how a community talks about risk.
One of the most valuable outcomes of Neighbourhood Watch may therefore be something very ordinary: not simply that someone is watching the street, but that someone notices the people who live there.
For EUNWA, this may be the more interesting question for the future. We should continue to ask whether Neighbourhood Watch works. But we should also ask what kind of relationships it helps to create. A safe community needs more than watchful eyes. It needs people who recognise one another, include one another and are prepared to act together.
Further reading
Qualter, P., Verity, L., Walibhai, W., Fuhrmann, D., Riddleston, L., Alam, I., Conway, J. & Lau, J. Y. F. (2025). Exploring child and youth understanding of loneliness through qualitative insights and evaluating loneliness measures considering those lived experiences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1544(1), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15269
Harris, E., Carleton, C., Morjaria, A., Wright, H., O'Halloran, J. & Saju, K. (2026). The loneliest generation: What it is like to grow up in England today. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). https://www.ippr.org/articles/the-loneliest-generation
Murray, J. (2026). “I don’t have any friends”: why do young people today have fewer mates? The Guardian, 5 September 2026.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/sep/05/why-do-young-people-have-fewer-friends-social-media-mental-health-pandemic
Hounkpatin, H. O. et al. (2025). The association of loneliness and social isolation with multimorbidity over 14 years in older adults in England: A population-based cohort study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics.
World Health Organization (2025). From loneliness to social connection: charting a path to healthier societies. Report of the WHO Commission on Social Connection.
World Health Organization (2025). Social connection linked to improved health and reduced risk of early death.
Bennett, T., Holloway, K. & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Liska, A. E., Sanchirico, A. & Reed, M. D. (1988). Fear of crime and constrained behavior: Specifying and estimating a reciprocal effects model. Social Forces, 66(3), 827-837.
Jackson, J. & Gray, E. (2010). Functional fear and public insecurities about crime. British Journal of Criminology, 50(1), 1-22.
Jackson, J. & Gray, E. (2011). Feelings and functions in the fear of crime: Applying a new approach to victimisation insecurity. British Journal of Criminology, 51(1), 75-94.
Preventing residential burglary requires more than just installing alarms and sturdy locks; it demands a deep understanding of how an offender actually thinks, observes, and interacts with the built environment. To support this analytical approach to crime prevention, EUNWA has published Anatomy of theft, a white paper dedicated to decoding the psychological and environmental factors that drive residential crime.
Rather than simply listing physical security measures, the document explores into the mechanics of the crime itself, translating advanced criminological research into accessible, actionable insights for Neighbourhood Watch coordinators and security experts.
The cognitive limits of the burglar
It is a common misconception to view offenders as meticulous planners who calculate every possible variable before breaking into a home. The reality is quite different. The white paper explores the concept of the "bounded offender"—individuals who must make rapid, tactical decisions whilst constrained by limited time, high stress, and incomplete information. Understanding this bounded rationality is crucial, as it explains why certain environmental deterrents are highly effective, whilst others are completely ignored in the heat of the moment.
The tipping point: the threshold of decision
Building upon the concept of bounded rationality, a core focus of the analysis is the "tipping point". When an offender evaluates a potential target, they unconsciously but continuously weigh the perceived risks against the potential rewards. The tipping point represents that critical threshold where a specific environmental variable—an unexpected line of sight from a neighbour's window, a change in lighting, or the psychological deterrent of an active Neighbourhood Watch zone—shifts the balance entirely. The white paper details how offenders reach this psychological breaking point, demonstrating that effective crime prevention is essentially the art of manipulating the environment to trigger this tipping point as early as possible, forcing the intruder to abandon the attempt.
When aesthetics compromise security
One of the most critical topics covered in the analysis is the intersection of urban design, landscaping, and security, and how these factors directly influence the offender's tipping point. The text highlights a frequent, yet often overlooked, paradox: features that significantly enhance the visual appeal of a property may inadvertently provide substantial tactical advantages to an intruder. High, dense hedges, decorative but opaque fencing, and atmospheric low-level lighting can create blind spots. These elements offer perfect concealment, effectively neutralising the natural surveillance provided by the street and giving the offender the confidence to proceed rather than walk away.
By sharing these specific insights, Anatomy of theft aims to equip local networks with a sharper, more scientific lens through which to evaluate their own communities. Understanding exactly how a vulnerability is perceived from the outside looking in is the most effective way to eliminate it, helping us to design and maintain safer, more resilient neighbourhoods across Europe.
Download the white paper: English | Italiano | Deutsch | Português
In modern crisis management, centralised emergency systems excel at macro-coordination and large-scale logistics. However, when a widespread crisis strikes—whether a natural disaster, a technological blackout, or a major geopolitical disruption—a critical operational gap invariably emerges between formal rescue services and the individual citizen.
This gap is located within the “last hundred metres”: the hyper-local physical and social space where daily life unfolds and where vulnerabilities become immediately visible.
To address this challenge, the European Neighbourhood Watch Association (EUNWA) is proud to announce the publication of our latest strategic doctrine: Neighbourhood Watch in Crisis Situations.
The power of the "last hundred metres"
This new White Paper explores how pre-existing Neighbourhood Watch (NW) networks can function as trusted, non-executive, hyper-local information and support interfaces during emergencies.
We start from a simple but vital premise: Neighbourhood Watch groups are not emergency services, police auxiliaries, or statutory responders, nor should they attempt to replace them. Instead, their value lies in proximity and trust. Because Neighbourhood Watch operates in "peacetime" as a subtle guardian of community safety, its transition into a crisis-response mechanism is entirely organic.
Properly prepared neighbourhood groups cannot solve systemic problems, but they can act as a crucial pressure-reduction layer for overloaded state and municipal crisis systems.
A modular and legally bounded framework
The document does not impose a rigid, one-size-fits-all model. Instead, it offers a modular, legally cautious, and GDPR-conscious roadmap that can be adapted to different national realities.
The framework is built upon complementary modalities and practical tools:
-
flexible institutional recognition through local memoranda of understanding;
-
a structured Single Point of Contact (SPOC) interface to prevent information overload;
-
the "direct observer protocol" to filter out rumours, combat the infodemic, and ensure authorities receive verified situational information;
-
opt-in situational neighbourly awareness to safely identify vulnerable residents before a disruption occurs;
-
analogue communication resilience, establishing physical neighbourhood hubs and testing short-range radio networks (PMR446) for scenarios where digital infrastructure fails.
Across six distinct crisis categories—ranging from climatic extremes and public health emergencies to civil defence scenarios—the core functions of the NW remain consistent: observe, pass on verified official information, connect, support, and preserve local calm.
Building a culture of trust
A neighbourhood network is not crisis-ready simply because it exists. As highlighted in the foreword by Henrik Põder, CEO of Estonian Neighbourhood Watch, community-level civil protection is built as a culture, not delivered as a campaign. Trust cannot be created on the first day of a crisis; it grows when people meet before they need help and make small agreements that hold when conditions become difficult.
By strictly defining the boundaries of civic intervention—ensuring the role remains voluntary, civil, and completely devoid of executive or enforcement tasks—this White Paper gives Neighbourhood Watch a careful and highly practical place within the wider civil protection landscape.
Read the full doctrine
We invite municipalities, civil protection authorities, and national Neighbourhood Watch associations to explore the framework.
Despite decades of sustained awareness campaigns, patrimonial losses related to fraud reported across Europe continue to rise. This trend forces us to ask a difficult question: why do intelligent, cautious individuals still fall victim to scams? The answer lies not merely in technological failures, but in the sophisticated manipulation of human psychology.
EUNWA is proud to announce the publication of our latest White Paper, Beyond the human firewall. This document proposes a strategic shift in crime prevention: moving from traditional, awareness-based models to a framework of cognitive defence.
Modern fraud is a form of psychological engineering. Offenders exploit fundamental human dispositions—such as fear, urgency, hope, and the need for connection—to overload emotional processing systems and temporarily impair rational judgement. Under these conditions of sensory overload and isolation, knowledge alone is often an insufficient shield.
What you will find in the White Paper
Rather than simply cataloguing evolving scam narratives, this document examines the underlying psychological structures that make deception effective. Key areas of focus include:
• The psychology of the target: An exploration of cognitive vulnerabilities, such as the "Lake Wobegon Effect" (illusory superiority) and Truth Bias, which explain why vulnerability is widely distributed across all demographics.
• The cognitive switch: Strategies to interrupt automatic emotional responses and restore deliberative control during high-pressure situations.
• Social circuit breakers: The introduction of the "Designated Sceptic"—a pre-existing relational checkpoint capable of providing vital external verification before irreversible actions are taken.
• Environmental nudging and stress inoculation: Practical methods to design friction into decision-making and build resistance through controlled exposure to manipulative techniques.
Empowering local communities
EUNWA recognises that National Neighbourhood Watch Associations operate within diverse cultural, political, and legal landscapes. Therefore, the strategic options outlined in this White Paper are presented as a non-binding, modular toolkit.
Our goal is not to impose uniform operational standards, but to offer a shared analytical framework that supports strategic deliberation. By leveraging the unique proximity, trust, and informal authority of Neighbourhood Watch networks, we can transform local groups into active guardians of our "cognitive space".
Security is not built on digital firewalls alone; it is built on structured trust, shared responsibility, and the simple act of asking a neighbour, "Does this make sense?". We invite all national associations to adapt these insights to their specific realities, ensuring that no citizen has to face manipulative fraud alone.
Download the White Paper: English | Italian
Our new White Paper explores how labels like "ghetto" or "sink estate" fuel insecurity—and what we can do about it.
It often starts with a word. A label. A newspaper calls a neighbourhood a "no-go zone". A politician refers to a housing estate as a "ghetto". A local calls their own area "the bad part of town".
At EUNWA, we usually talk about practical crime prevention, community building, and being good neighbours. So, you might wonder: why have we just published a 70-page research paper on urban sociology?
The answer is simple. We have realised that you cannot build a safe neighbourhood if the outside world has already decided it is a "lost cause".
Introducing "Naming the Border"
Our new White Paper, Naming the Border: Territorial Stigma and the Production of Marginality in Europe, is the result of months of research and collaboration.
We wanted to understand why certain places in Europe get a bad reputation and how that reputation sticks, regardless of the reality on the ground. We looked past the headlines to see how stigma affects the people who actually live there.
In this document, we take a journey across the continent:
-
The UK: How "council estates" went from being "homes for heroes" to being labelled "sink estates".
-
France: The complex story of the banlieues and how language shapes perception.
-
Scandinavia: The controversy of Denmark’s "Ghetto List" and Sweden’s "vulnerable areas".
-
Southern & Eastern Europe: From the Vele of Scampia in Naples to the concrete blokovi of the Balkans.
It’s not just about architecture
What we found is that the problem often isn't the buildings—it's the narrative. When we label a place as "dangerous" or "decayed", we drive away investment, we damage the residents' pride, and ironically, we make the area less safe.
We believe that real security doesn't come from higher walls or aggressive policing. It comes from social capital—neighbours knowing each other, looking out for one another, and taking pride in where they live. Stigma destroys that trust.
A tool for everyone
We haven’t written this just for academics. This White Paper includes practical guidelines for local authorities, police forces, and Neighbourhood Watch coordinators. It’s about shifting our mindset: seeing these neighbourhoods not as problems to be solved, but as communities full of potential.
We would like to say a massive thank you to everyone who contributed, with a special mention to Valeria Lorenzelli and Umberto Nicolini for their time and expertise in reviewing the manuscript.
We hope you find it an interesting read.
Download the White Paper: English | Italian
The European Neighbourhood Watch Association (EUNWA) is proud to announce the launch of the White Book 2026 Series, a comprehensive pan-European analysis of the evolving landscape of participatory security.
More than a decade after our first landmark publication, the environment in which Neighbourhood Watch organisations operate has transformed. To capture this new reality, we are moving beyond a simple inventory to provide in-depth, qualitative country reports.
We are delighted to release the first chapter of this series: The Austria Country Report.
Why Austria? A Unique Case Study
Austria offers one of the most compelling evolutionary paths in Europe. Unlike nations with long-established traditions of Neighbourhood Watch, Austria has undergone a rapid and profound transformation in just fifteen years.
This report traces the journey from the pioneering days of proNACHBAR—a grassroots initiative driven by civic enthusiasm—to the establishment of GEMEINSAM.SICHER (Together.Secure), a structured, state-managed programme coordinated by the Ministry of the Interior.
What You Will Find in This Report
This document provides a critical analysis of two distinct philosophies of community safety. It explores how a model based on "bottom-up" vigilance shifted towards a "top-down" institutional partnership, redefining the citizen’s role from being the "eyes and ears" of the community to a formal "dialogue partner" of the police.
Key insights include:
- The "Institutional Vacuum": How the state intervenes when civil society initiatives face resource constraints.
- Cultural Sensitivity: Understanding the Austrian aversion to the "spy state" label and how it shaped the current model.
- The Digital Dilemma: The trade-off between the speed of citizen-led alert apps and the accuracy of police-controlled information channels.
- Sustainability: Lessons on avoiding the "Founder’s Trap" and ensuring long-term viability for volunteer organisations.
A Series in the Making
The Austria Country Report is just the beginning. The White Book 2026 project will continue to explore diverse models across the continent. We are pleased to announce that the next chapters, currently in production, will focus on:
- Estonia: Examining community safety in a highly digitalised society.
- Ireland: Analysing a model with deep-rooted traditions of community engagement.
Download the Report
We invite policymakers, security practitioners, community leaders, and citizens to download the full Austria Country Report and join the conversation on the future of participatory security in Europe.
Download: White Book 2026 - Country Report: Austria (PDF)
How do we explain the concept of Neighbourhood Watch to a child without generating anxiety? How can we transform "surveillance" into "care"?
These have been the most challenging questions for our community. Today, EUNWA is proud to present an innovative educational answer: The "Super Neighbours' Academy".
This project creates a bridge between the present and the future of our practice. It moves away from the traditional idea of "watching out for danger" and embraces a new, age-appropriate philosophy for children: The Kind Custodian.
A Shift in Perspective: From Threat to Care
At the heart of this workshop is a pedagogical shift. Instead of teaching children to look for "bad things" (a threat filter), we train them to use their "Curious Eyes" and "Kind Hearts" to notice what needs help or attention in their environment (a care filter).
Through the metaphor of Meerkats and engaging games like the "Perception Traffic Light", children learn the foundations of situational awareness. Most importantly, they learn the Golden Rule of safety: a child never intervenes directly but "activates the team" by sharing their observation with a trusted adult .
The Complete Educational Package
We are making this entire educational resource available to our members, teachers, and community leaders. The "Super Neighbours" package is a ready-to-use toolkit designed to run a safe, fun, and impactful 90-minute workshop.
What is included in the download:
- The tutor's operating manual: A comprehensive "flight manual" with a detailed script, ensuring every session is psychologically safe and pedagogically effective.
- The visual presentation: A colourful, engaging slide deck to guide the children through their missions.
- The "Kind Custodian" certificate: A certificate for children to colour and personalise, turning the experience into a lasting memory of pride.
- An online form for tutor feedback: A link to help us improve the project with your insights .
Start Cultivating Today
This project is more than just a lesson; it is an investment in the civic sense of our future citizens. It turns observation into an act of public pride.
We invite all Neighbourhood Watch organisations and teachers to download the materials and open the first "Super Neighbours' Academy" in their community.
DOWNLOAD THE FULL PACKAGE
- Manual (including the link to the tutor's online feedback form)
Note: If you require these materials in another European language, please contact us directly (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) to enquire about availability.
Transforming passive presence into situational intelligence.
We live in an age often defined by a "fortress mentality". Our cities and buildings are increasingly saturated with the tools of security: high-definition CCTV, access control systems, and monolithic physical barriers. Yet, despite unprecedented investment in this hardware, the results are often ambiguous, and crime rates do not always fall in correlation with surveillance density.
Why? Because we have often overlooked the most sophisticated and adaptable resource we have: the human community.
A paradigm shift: from Hardware to Humanware
In our new White Paper, "The Ecology of Security: The Capable Guardian as the Cornerstone of Crime Prevention" , we argue that true security is not a product you buy, but a quality you cultivate.
The paper revisits "Routine Activity Theory" to redefine the concept of the Capable Guardian. Too often, we view a guardian as a passive entity—a security guard at a desk or a camera lens. Our central thesis is that the true capability of a guardian is not physical; it is an intellectual and perceptual skill. It is the ability to interpret context.
What you will find in the White Paper
By downloading the full document, you will explore:
- The anatomy of the Guardian: Why simply "seeing" is not enough, and how to transform passive presence into active vigilance.
- Lessons from Nature and Cyber-Security: What the human immune system and cyber-security analysts can teach us about threat detection (Spoiler: it is always about distinguishing "normality" from "anomaly").
- The synergy of guardians: How to make residents (informal guardians), law enforcement (formal guardians), and technology (mechanical guardians) work in concert.
- Practical strategies: How to design neighbourhoods that foster natural surveillance and how to train citizens to read their environment without descending into paranoia or vigilantism.
Security is a shared responsibility. It is the quiet vigilance of a neighbour, the professional integrity of a network administrator, and the awareness of a community that knows how to look after itself.
Download White Paper "The Ecology of Security" (PDF)
Why do we sometimes feel unsafe, even when crime statistics suggest otherwise?
In an era of rapid social and technological change, security has become a central concern for every European citizen. Yet, the threats we perceive are often different from the objective reality. A broken window, a poorly lit park, or a sensationalist headline can trigger deep anxiety, regardless of the actual crime rate.
EUNWA is pleased to present its new White Paper, "Risk Perception and the Psychology of Security: From Theory to Action".
This document is not merely an academic study; it is an operational handbook designed to bridge the gap between psychological theory and the everyday practice of security. It serves as a practical guide for citizens, law enforcement officers, and policymakers who wish to build safer, more resilient communities.
From 'Eastwick' to Real life: what you will find inside
To make complex concepts accessible, the White Paper introduces the fictional neighbourhood of 'Eastwick'. Through the stories of its residents—like Klaus and Mary—we explore how cognitive biases, social media, and gender perspectives shape our sense of safety.
Key topics covered include:
- The "Insecurity Lifecycle": How a vague sense of unease transforms into fear and changes our behaviour.
- Signal Crimes: Why minor signs of disorder (like graffiti or vandalism) can have a disproportionate impact on a community's trust.
- The Gender Perspective: Understanding the specific and often overlooked dynamics of women's safety in public and private spaces.
- The Trap of "Fake News": How to navigate the digital landscape without falling prey to alarmism.
A Call for shared responsibility
This White Paper advocates for a "bottom-up" philosophy. We believe that security is not solely the task of institutions, but a shared objective that requires the active and conscious participation of every citizen.
However, this initiative also serves as a call to action for political leadership. As highlighted in the document, transparency, accountability, and a commitment to the social contract are the prerequisites for effective prevention.
Whether you are a Neighbourhood Watch coordinator, a police officer, a local councillor, or simply a concerned citizen, this handbook provides the tools to:
- Develop critical thinking and risk literacy.
- Communicate more effectively during crises.
- Implement evidence-based strategies like the 'Contact Hypothesis' to reduce social friction.
Download the Full White Paper (PDF)
By Valeria Lorenzelli
What words do you use to describe the places in your city?
I have a confession to make: I have a deep aversion to the word "periphery". It’s a subtle, almost imperceptible irritation. Every time I hear someone use it to describe parts of my city or others, I find myself wondering what hidden assumptions they are unconsciously trying to uphold.
Over time, I've come to realise it’s a term that conceals an implicit hierarchy of value; a division that goes far beyond simple urban geography. The "periphery" is never just a physical location. It is a social construct, laden with judgment. It carries a default narrative of marginality and lack; a distance that is not just physical but cultural and moral, from a supposed "centre" of greater importance.
The Hidden Power of Words
In my work with placemaking, I've learned that places are also stories. They are collective narratives that define how we see spaces, how we live in them, how we invest in them, and even how we build public policies to transform them. The words we choose to describe places are just that—a choice. And for that reason, they are never neutral.
When we label a neighbourhood as "run-down," "at-risk," or a "dormitory suburb," we are building a narrative that influences perceptions, policy decisions, and the very sense of belonging for those who live there every day. As Henri Lefebvre, the theorist of "spatial justice," wrote: "Urban space is not a neutral container, but a social product that reflects power relations". And language is one of the most potent tools through which these power relations are expressed and perpetuated.
Labelling a neighbourhood as "the periphery" is like a bully giving a classmate a demeaning nickname. The nickname doesn't actually describe the person, but it creates a narrative that weakens them, one that others accept without question. Over time, this label affects how others see them, and even how they start to see themselves. In the same way, defining a neighbourhood with negative labels builds a narrative that impacts both external perception and the identity of those who live there.
The use of the word "periphery" by some media outlets, especially those focused on crime reporting, is particularly problematic. These outlets tend to overuse the term to generalise and quickly sketch out troubling situations. In doing so, they trigger an unconscious apprehension in the reader or, conversely, a sense of privilege derived from feeling distant from such realities.
While it is difficult to precisely quantify the extent of this phenomenon, reports from the Osservatorio di Pavia, initiatives by the Bracco Foundation (like the 'Ten, One Hundred, One Thousand Centres' conference), and studies by Save the Children all confirm a structural problem: the media and social narrative of the peripheries often focuses on deprivation, decay, and marginality. The result is that the opportunities, resources, and development potential present in these areas are obscured.
As Save the Children points out in its 'Atlas of Children at Risk':
"One of the problems for children and young people in the Italian peripheries is the mental laziness with which we have, for decades, continued to represent the contexts where they are born and grow up. Headline after headline, image after image, we have helped create indelible labels that stick to them, fuelling anger and frustration. While the reputation of some neighbourhoods risks branding the aspirations and dreams of many young people, the term 'periphery' is used so obsessively that it has almost lost all meaning."
This selective portrayal creates what the urban sociologist Loïc Wacquant calls "territorial stigma". This is a process where the negative public image of these neighbourhoods becomes impressed upon both the public consciousness and state policies, fuelling prejudice and fear. It triggers a vicious cycle where media stigma reinforces social isolation and economic disinvestment.
The Voice of the Inhabitants
A fundamental aspect, often overlooked, is the impact these narratives have on those who live in the territories labelled as "peripheries". When we listen to the inhabitants, a complex and ambivalent relationship with these external narratives emerges.
On one hand, we find a strong identification with their area and a sense of community that is often more intense than elsewhere, sometimes accompanied by an internalisation of that stigma. On the other, this awareness can also generate proactivity, positive action, and the strength to act authentically and assert their right to self-determination.
This is a significant problem for adolescents, who are still defining their own identities and could end up self-limiting their potential. Those who live in stigmatised contexts may internalise the idea that they live in a place of lesser value or with fewer opportunities, to the point of giving up on seeking future possibilities.
As a professional working in these communities, what I find most important is that this one-dimensional narrative offers no support to people and opens no doors for improvement.
A New Lexicon for Our Communities
This awareness led to my playbook, "#1Post.t: Words That Map Places": a guide to language for describing neighbourhoods that overcomes stereotypes and prejudices, and helps us see our communities with fresh eyes. This playbook offers concrete tools and new ways of seeing and speaking about contemporary urban complexity in its entirety, moving beyond the oversimplifications that often characterise public debate.
Take, for example, the expression "dormitory suburb". This term reduces an entire community to its residential function, as if it were fundamentally true that people only return there to sleep, living their "real" daily lives elsewhere. A more balanced narrative would instead acknowledge the social relationships, the small businesses, and all the elements that make up the daily life of a neighbourhood. Terms like "neighbourhood network" highlight the bonds between residents, while "neighbourhood ecosystem" illuminates the complex social and economic dynamics. Even definitions like "housing context," "urban structure," or "urban fabric" offer a more complete picture and avoid devaluing the place. Or, we can simply call it a "neighbourhood" and let the events and stories of those who live there define its identity.
Developing a more precise vocabulary, therefore, means critically questioning the categories we use to interpret these territories. It means recognising their intrinsic complexity and the multiple identities that characterise them, beyond reductive frameworks.
It's crucial to clarify and acknowledge the limits of our language, because this allows us to move past the simple existence of fragile situations. In fact, when an area is genuinely experiencing social vulnerability or violence, the very first step towards authentic change is to restore dignity to that place through respectful language.
"A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved." — Charles Kettering
A truly transformative approach begins with a change in perspective. We must see these places as territories with their own identities, clearly define the problem, fully understand their specific resources and potential, and effectively tackle any challenge.
Ultimately, the vocabulary we use to describe our communities is a matter of territorial justice. Abandoning the binary logic of centre/periphery means embracing a polycentric vision of our cities, where every neighbourhood is valued for its uniqueness, not measured by its distance from a supposed centre.
Download the "Words That Map Places" playbook to begin your journey towards a more conscious use of territorial language. Whether you are a communicator, a public administrator, a professional, or simply someone interested in seeing your city with fresh eyes, this guide offers concrete tools for a communication style that is more respectful of the complexity of our communities.
So, what words do you use to describe the places in your city?
More...
As the European Neighbourhood Watch Association (EUNWA), we are pleased to present our new report: "Searching for Missing Persons in Europe: A Guide to National Systems and Cooperation Models." We have designed this document as a practical guide for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and third-sector organisations, offering a clear and detailed comparison of the different alert and search systems currently active across the continent.
In the report, we map the considerable diversity of national approaches, from strongly state-led systems to models that rely heavily on the professionalism of volunteers. This guide provides professionals with a valuable tool to understand this complex landscape and identify effective practices.
The Crucial Role of Citizen Participation
A central finding of our research is the confirmation of the crucial role that citizens already play in supporting search operations. In the guide, we analyse several successful models of collaboration already active in Europe, demonstrating that public engagement is a key factor for success. These models range from community apps for vulnerable groups to highly professionalised volunteer search teams and digital mobilisation platforms that use social media to spread alerts.
Our Hypothesis for the Future: Extending the Search Network with Neighbourhood Watch
Building on this analysis of successful citizen participation, in our report we explore a working hypothesis for the future. We suggest that the formal involvement of established Neighbourhood Watch networks as official channels for disseminating alerts could significantly extend the reach and effectiveness of the search network.
The model we propose would leverage these trusted, geographically-focused community structures to act as trained "eyes and ears," complementing the work of law enforcement and specialised teams. We therefore conclude the report by inviting stakeholders to consider this framework as a basis for pilot projects, aimed at testing and adapting this promising approach to different national contexts.
This report is a tool we have designed for professionals working in the field of public safety and community engagement. It provides a comprehensive overview and a forward-looking perspective on how to build more resilient and collaborative communities.
The full report is available for free download.
Click here to download the guide: "Searching for Missing Persons in Europe"
In a contemporary Europe marked by profound transformations, the emergence and proliferation of "patriotic patrols" and vigilante movements present a phenomenon deserving of the highest attention. To provide a thorough understanding of this challenge, the European Neighbourhood Watch Association (EUNWA) has today released its comprehensive new research paper, "Vigilantism, Nationalism and the Rule of Law in Contemporary Europe". The study moves beyond surface-level observations to offer a multi-dimensional analysis of the contextual drivers, participant demographics, operational structures, and tangible impacts of these group.The research argues that while these groups often manifest in localized actions, they are embedded within broader socio-political contexts that challenge the very foundations of liberal democracy. They represent a pressing challenge not only to social cohesion but also to the rule of law itself. Their activities can erode the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force, incite hatred against minorities, deepen social polarization, and delegitimize democratic institution.
The report identifies a complex interplay of factors fuelling the rise of these movements. It points to deep-seated socio-economic anxieties and resentments stemming from periods of economic crisis and growing inequality. These insecurities are often compounded by heightened public concerns regarding security and migration, particularly following the 2015-2016 influx and high-profile terrorist attacks, which created fertile ground for narratives linking immigration to threat. This environment is further shaped by a palpable crisis of trust in traditional institutions, including governments, mainstream media, and even the European Union, which allows "anti-system" narratives to flourish. These groups leverage these anxieties, framing them within potent ideologies of nationalism, nativism, and right-wing populism to champion a return to perceived "native" values and defend against so-called external and internal threats.
EUNWA's research dismantles simplistic stereotypes of the participants, revealing a diverse landscape of individuals drawn to these movements. Far from a monolithic bloc, the participants range from digitally-savvy youth activists, such as those in France's "Génération Identitaire," to middle-aged blue-collar workers in deindustrialized areas—so-called "geographies of frustration"—who might join patrols like Finland's "Soldiers of Odin". The study also identifies a strain of "senior patriotism" among older adherents closer to traditional politics, as seen with supporters of "Britain First" in the UK. The unifying element, the paper suggests, is often not a rigid ideology but a shared "fear of decline".
Delving into their operations, the report emphasizes that tracking financial flows is critical to understanding a movement's maturity and resilience. The ability to manage resources and raise funds marks the transition from fleeting online anger to an enduring organizational presence. Furthermore, financial trails often uncover international networks and support systems that are not apparent from street-level actions alone.
While precisely attributing violent incidents solely to these informal groups is challenging, the research points to a clear correlation between their presence and a rise in hate crimes and public disorder. An analysis of hate crime data shows that countries with a documented history of structured patrol groups, such as Germany with its Bürgerwehren linked to PEGIDA, tend to report higher incidences of physical assaults within their hate crime statistics.
Faced with this phenomenon, institutional responses across Europe have been varied, creating a "regulatory patchwork". Some states, like France and Greece, have adopted repressive approaches, formally dissolving groups like "Génération Identitaire" and "Golden Dawn". Others, such as Germany and Finland, have favoured discreet surveillance and the application of specific laws against paramilitary activities and hate speech. In contrast, countries like Poland and Hungary have shown forms of indirect tolerance or even support where the groups' narratives aligned with government agendas.
However, the EUNWA report concludes by arguing that suppression alone is unlikely to succeed if the underlying anxieties are not addressed through legitimate, democratic means. The proposed alternative to illegal vigilantism is to strengthen the democratic state's capacity to provide security through structured "Participatory Vigilance," or Neighbourhood Watch schemes. Unlike illegal patrols, these programs operate under strict rules and in close partnership with law enforcement. Their role is based on passive observation and qualified reporting through official channels, with an absolute prohibition on carrying out patrols, searches, or using weapons.
The report outlines five pillars for a safe and effective European model: a clear legal framework defining what volunteers can and cannot do; mandatory accreditation and training; the use of official, secure technology for reporting; inclusive governance that reflects community diversity; and independent monitoring to ensure accountability.
"The answer to the shadow of vigilantism is not more closure, but more democracy, more justice, and more cohesion," the report concludes. By channelling citizens' legitimate desire for security into a regulated and constructive framework, it is possible to strengthen the social fabric and reaffirm the core values upon which democratic Europe is based.
The EUNWA Board – July 2025
In today's digital age, communities rely heavily on online communication platforms to stay informed and connected. From neighbourhood watch groups to local forums, these tools are vital for safety, support, and social cohesion. However, they also face significant challenges: informational noise and social anxiety. Understanding and addressing these issues is essential for fostering safer, more inclusive, and resilient communities.
Despite good intentions, online community spaces often become cluttered with irrelevant or false information—what experts call informational noise. For example, during a minor flood, false rumours might spread about dam failures or resource shortages, creating unnecessary panic among residents. In some cases, unverified posts about crime spikes can lead neighbours to overreact, evacuating homes or avoiding public spaces without concrete reasons.
This clutter makes it difficult for residents to identify trustworthy updates and increases confusion and mistrust. Moreover, repeated exposure to alarming or unverified news can heighten social anxiety—feelings of fear, helplessness, and suspicion toward neighbours and authorities. For instance, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims about dangerous mutations or vaccine side effects circulated widely on social platforms, fuelling fear and scepticism.
Trust is the foundation of effective community life. When residents doubt the reliability of information or fear social backlash, they may withdraw from participation—avoiding local events, hesitating to report issues, or spreading misinformation unknowingly. This erosion of social trust weakens community bonds and hampers coordinated responses to emergencies or everyday safety concerns.
Research indicates that social anxiety and information overload don't just cause personal discomfort—they jeopardize overall safety. During natural disasters like the 2021 floods in Germany and Belgium, while social media helped coordinate rescue efforts, false rumours about dam breaches spread quickly, causing panic and delaying official responses.
Addressing these social challenges requires creating purpose-built community platforms that prioritize empathy, clarity, and collective involvement. Some promising approaches include:
- Verified and Clear Sources: Platforms should emphasize messages from trusted authorities—like local officials or emergency services—using verified badges or clear attributions. For example, during a local fire, official alerts with consistent branding and straightforward language help residents trust the information.
- Emotional Support Channels: Dedicated spaces where residents can express fears or seek reassurance from neighbours or mental health professionals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some neighbourhoods set up online support groups that helped residents share concerns and receive accurate advice, reducing feelings of isolation.
- Moderation and Engagement: Trained moderators can filter out false claims and guide the community towards constructive dialogue. In the UK, some neighbourhood apps like Nextdoor implemented moderation teams that actively monitored content, which helped reduce misinformation and fostered a sense of safety.
- Empathy and Inclusive Design: Messages crafted to acknowledge residents' fears without sensationalism, promoting calm and collective resilience. During extreme weather events, successful communities used empathetic messaging to inform residents about safety measures while reassuring them that help was available.
A connected neighbourhood, built on trust and verified information, can act as a buffer against external misinformation campaigns. When trusted community leaders and residents regularly share accurate updates and listen actively, it becomes much harder for false rumours to take root. For example, during a recent misinformation campaign about health risks in a European town, local community leaders scheduled town halls and used local communication channels to counteract false claims, restoring confidence.
Community safety and well-being depend on proactive policies. Investment in local communication platforms, training residents to evaluate information critically, and establishing transparent governance structures are key steps. Cities like Copenhagen have piloted community communication apps that combine verified alerts with forums for residents to discuss concerns safely and constructively, serving as models for other regions.
Reducing social anxiety and informational noise isn’t just about technology; it’s about fostering social bonds that make communities resilient. By designing communication tools rooted in trust, empathy, and participation—like verified alerts, support channels, and active moderation—communities can become safer, more connected, and better prepared to face both everyday challenges and emergencies. Building a strong social fabric ensures that citizens not only stay informed but also feel supported and confident within their neighbourhoods.
Crises such as hybrid threats, armed conflicts, natural disasters, pandemics, and economic turmoil frequently pose significant challenges to the protection of human rights. In these circumstances, states and the international community must ensure that fundamental freedoms and rights remain safeguarded—even when drastic measures become necessary.
When thinking about human rights in times of crisis, many are reminded of the saying, “Those who are drowning must save themselves.” Yet we should remember that the cornerstone here is each individual’s right to be protected by the state. So just how far or close are we to that ideal when it comes to receiving state support in critical moments? And what specific situations and crises are we talking about?
Human Rights Protection During War and Armed Conflicts
Armed conflicts pose one of the greatest threats to human rights and to adherence to humanitarian law, often involving war crimes and mass refugee flows. International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, mandates the protection of civilians and prisoners of war. However, many governments and armed groups disregard these principles, leading to large-scale rights violations. Sadly, this is still happening in the 21st century, including in Europe. There are reports of deliberate attacks on civilians, a failure to aid the wounded and sick, shortages or complete lack of first-aid supplies, and other abuses targeting the local population.
Natural Disasters and Pandemics
Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes can force people to relocate, overwhelm healthcare systems, and cause food shortages. In such situations, human rights include ensuring people’s access to basic needs, as well as imposing on the state a duty to provide information and take effective action.
Pandemics like COVID-19 have shown how difficult it is to balance the protection of public health with individual freedoms. The restrictions on movement we experienced had a considerable impact on both economic and social rights. Human rights advocates and influential public figures have questioned whether health and the right to life should have justified such sweeping limits on freedom of movement and assembly. In many places—especially authoritarian regimes—these measures opened the door to further human rights restrictions, including unmerited tracking of personal data such as people’s habits and movements.
A Fundamental Need: The Right to Health and Healthcare
In all of the scenarios noted above, access to sustainable healthcare is an essential requirement. The right to health is a key human right protected by various international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as Article 111 of Latvia’s Constitution. It is the government’s responsibility to strengthen support mechanisms and ensure that people have access to medical care and medications—even in emergencies.
Adequate access to medicines and healthcare services is vital for public health. International law obligates governments to guarantee people’s access to necessary medicines, vaccines, and medical treatment, including state-funded care for vulnerable groups. But are we in Latvia really prepared to confront potential challenges?
It seems absurd that more and more people are afraid to call an ambulance for fear of a hefty bill. It is equally troubling that healthcare professionals feel underfunded and underappreciated. Although efforts have been made to explain the situation, public concern remains high. Doctors and nurses continue to complain about low pay and insufficient social protections.
During the pandemic, several countries introduced emergency measures to keep healthcare accessible for everyone. Experts, however, have debated just how well these measures worked. Providing equal treatment and equal access is no simple task, especially given many individuals’ unique circumstances. Keeping the public safe while protecting vulnerable groups—children, seniors, and those with chronic conditions who may lack financial reserves—is a complex endeavour. To do this effectively, it is not enough to rely on past experience; proactive planning for different crisis scenarios is needed.
Such crises often exacerbate existing inequalities and discrimination, limiting people’s access to work, education, and healthcare. Governments need to put support systems in place to protect those who are most at risk, since the treatment of vulnerable groups reveals how fragile society is as a whole. In Latvia, we have long discussed unequal access to goods and services, particularly in rural regions and remote areas. Lately, there has also been growing focus on pharmacy availability in both urban and rural settings, as well as on maintaining adequate reserves of essential medicines for crisis situations. Certified pharmacist Zane Dzirkale, a co-founder of the “Health Care System Resilience” think tank, addressed these issues in a recent publication.
Potential Solutions
When we talk about “the state,” we are also talking about every one of us—each playing our role and fulfilling our responsibilities. Yet recent years have shown the significant power of communities and civic organizations, including community centres and service hubs in towns and cities. We have no shortage of good practices in this realm. For instance, the Latvian Platform for Development Cooperation responded rapidly to Ukraine’s need for assistance; there are also inspiring examples of local community collaboration both in Latvia’s regions and in Riga. Support for Ukraine is ongoing, provided by the Marta Centre, the association “Tavi draugi,” and numerous other civic organizations. Crises have shown that the potential of communities is undervalued—even though the need for community engagement continues to grow.
Community strength is also reflected in the concept of community policing, where maintaining public order is not left solely to the police; residents, too, share responsibility. Community policing is built on trust, prevention, and more efficient crime reduction—rather than merely responding after the fact, the police work hand in hand with residents to solve problems at the neighbourhood level. Recall how a local resident in Latgale discovered a drone, alerted the local police unit, and set in motion a response well before the media picked up the story. This community-focused approach has proven successful elsewhere in the European Union and has become an integral part of Latvia’s State Police strategy.
Conclusions
Protecting human rights—especially the right to life and health—in times of crisis is one of the greatest challenges facing the modern world. The international community, national governments, and nongovernmental organizations must coordinate to ensure these rights remain intact, no matter how severe the crisis. Sustainable and effective healthcare policies can greatly enhance people’s living conditions and foster societal stability and resilience—offering protection for individuals’ health and lives. Equally important is the support of communities and NGOs, both in normal times and during periods of crisis.
Ilze Bērziņa
EUNWA Advisory Board, and co-founder of the think tank “Health Care System Resilience”; human rights expert, and lecturer at the Rīga Stradiņš University Faculty of Social Sciences.
References:
