The increasing frequency and intensity of natural threats have highlighted the significance of community action and individual resilience in reducing the potential impact of any given hazard. The social networks theory of building bonding, bridging and linking networks (Figure 1) offers an interesting perspective for examining community self-organisation and the role of non-disaster risk reduction (non-DRR) organisations in CBDRR indirectly (Pooyan & Hokugo 2025). Instead of viewing social capital as an ambiguous resource, social network theory details the social-structural processes through which people and organisations work together to pool and cultivate trust to enhance preparedness, response and recovery capacity through resource collaboration (Chu & Yang 2020). Each type of network untangled a unique, albeit dependent, aspect of resilience building. Together, these findings illuminate the complex nature of non-DRR organisations’ contributions to community disaster governance. Bonding networks are based on strong, intimate connections that exist in a social group of a given commonality, such as a family, relatives or neighbourhood (Aldrich et al. 2021). These bonds are formed through assistance and trust, especially in crisis contexts. Non-DRR organisations, such as microfinance institutions, women’s saving groups, and cultural and religious organisations, often help strengthen these bonds through participation and joint activities (Rivera 2018). While focusing on employment, schooling and welfare, organisations foster a social context in which trust and collaborative norms emerge among peers. Such frameworks in catastrophic circumstances enable communities to organise and combine resources for timely evacuation, shelter and food provision, or to aid the vulnerable long before formal assistance arrives (Ashida et al. 2017). The effects of strong bonding networks manifest as heightened preparedness and self-help practices that underpin primary disaster responses. However, the exclusive use of bonding networks may foster isolation, inhibiting the acceptance of ideas and interactions with potential collaborators, which is vital for enduring resilience. Conversely, bridging and linking social capital provide avenues for long-term survival and broader community rejuvenation by connecting diverse groups and institutions. Bridging networks cross the outer limits of people’s immediate social circles in every conceivable social, cultural or organisational direction (Liew, Yeates & Lilley 2021).

Although the current literature suggests that they are less dense than bonding ties, bridging networks are important access points for a much wider reach of knowledge, innovation and opportunities. Many non-DRR NGOs assume bridging ties by connecting communities to peer networks, civil societies and professional organisations (Jones et al. 2014). For example, agricultural cooperatives that bring together farmers from villages go beyond economic ends to promote the sharing of climate change adaptation and disaster risk-preparedness strategies. Health and social youth associations, within their primary spheres of interest, often link with local disaster management committees to raise cross-social group disaster awareness and organisational skills. With respect to CBDRR, bridging networks imply a wider resource availability. Communities are exposed to various coping strategies and collaborations (Shaw 2012) that strengthen bridging ties and resource integration; such efforts represent an intentional move toward in situ culturally relevant strategies and the endorsement of regional collaboration (Sohn 2014).

Linking networks finishes the illustration by bridging communities to institutions, authorities and individuals with formal power and resources. Compared with bonding and bridging ties, which are horizontal, linking networks are vertical and include connections with governmental arms, patrons and global bodies (Page-Tan 2021). These ties are largely facilitated by non-DRR organisations, which, because of their focus on other sectors, such as health, education or advocacy, end up interacting with formal structures (Karso, Hardi & Baryalai 2025). For example, when a health NGO partners with a public authority to carry out a vaccination campaign and, in the process, helps position communities access healthcare support in the aftermath of a disaster (Aldrich & Meyer 2015). Linking networks incorporate local concerns into wider disaster governance frameworks, thus enabling disaster-affected communities to access vital infrastructure, warning systems and relief funds (Hermansson 2016). These ties are not without danger, which includes fostering dependency and elite capture, in which case the most marginalised are likely to be overlooked. Bonding, bridging and linking networks together create a structural layer of resilience that is key to CBDRR (Pfefferbaum, Van Horn & Pfefferbaum 2017). Bonding ties provide social cohesion and rapid mobilisation, bridging ties widen adaptive capacities through community interchanges, and linking ties integrate community actors into formally recognised disaster governance systems (Partelow 2021). The contributions of organisations not directly involved in DRR are nuanced, yet significant. Embedding resilience into activities such as managing livelihoods, education and healthcare systems reinforces various social networks vital during times of crisis. In the short term, a community that relies on bonding social capital can exhibit unity after a disaster only to face the risk of social isolation later during the recovery process. In contrast, a community that possesses strong bridging and linking social capital but is paradoxically deficient in bonding social capital has easy access to external resources but lacks internal cohesion to mount collective action (Chu & Yang 2020). The interplay of all three dimensions – bonding, bridging and linking – leads to the convergence of resilient and inclusive forms of resilience in a community.

This synthesis is a case in terms of the practical value of social network building theory in relation to CBDRR. By transcending disaster-specific institutional frameworks and inquiring into the social and organisational ties that underpin resilience, the theory makes a strong case for the circumstantial, yet often overlooked, contributions of non-DRR organisations. Their constructive impact on the bonding, bridging and linking network tie framework completes the theoretical perspective of embracing a multidimensional form of resilience that is community-centred and institutional.

This research utilised Google Scholar and Scopus as essential tools to meticulously identify and examine articles, books, chapters, reports and conference papers that explored the role of NGOs’ social network-building initiatives in strengthening CBDRR. To prevent reference duplication, we employed an EndNote reference manager. Figure 2 provides a summary of the studies selected for this study. The mesh terms used to select the literature included non-DRR NGO, social networks, CBDRR and social capital.

In this study, the researcher utilised thematic analysis to scrutinise the primary data using NVivo12 software (QSR International Pty Ltd, Doncaster, Victoria, Australia). Thematic analysis is celebrated for its versatility in qualitative research, making it a favoured approach for exploring diverse investigative goals and subject areas, and providing insights that quantitative methods often fail to capture (Castleberry & Nolen 2018). Moreover, non-numerical data analysis is primarily inductive, enabling patterns and themes to arise from the data instead of being guided by a predetermined hypothesis, as outlined by Giesen and Roeser (2020). They describe six steps in the qualitative data analysis process (Table 3). Various de-identification codes were assigned to different participant groups such as NGO officials (NOP), local government bodies (LGP) and community beneficiaries (CBP).

The researchers employed a two-cycle coding strategy, which included both structural and provisional coding techniques. Structural coding, often referred to as open coding, is an inductive method originating from the data itself. In contrast, provisional coding is shaped by pre-existing concepts and theories (Hemmler et al. 2022). The researchers engaged in initial coding (open coding) to uncover unique concepts for categorisation, which facilitated the progress of their study. During the subsequent stage, termed selective coding, the process involved refining and merging categorised data, which ultimately led to the formation of theoretical insights that were used to select and integrate organised data categories, ultimately leading to the formulation of theories. The process evolved to a more abstract level to develop a case narrative (Table 4). A document review was carried out to better comprehend the contextual application and the significance of individual participants.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Newcastle, Human Research Ethics Committee (No. H-2019-0068).

Prior to the interviews, the researcher prepared and provided informed consent to the participants. These forms included details about the purpose of their involvement, the criteria for participation, the rights of the participants, the method of contact, and the length of each session, which was approximately 1 h. The University of Newcastle mandates that ethics approval be obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). These procedures require that the investigator adhere to certain ethical standards. The ethics application for this project, numbered H-2019-0068, was approved on 12 June 2019. Ethical principles were upheld throughout the data collection and analysis phases to protect the integrity of both the participants and the researcher.

Non-governmental organisations play a crucial role in fostering and strengthening connections between community members through local associations. Non-governmental organisations have empowered CBP by offering training in skill development and raising awareness of socio-economic and ecological concerns. The participants then shared the insights and learning they gained with others in their groups, which not only reinforced strong bonds, but also encouraged collective action to address ecological and socio-economic challenges. During disasters, local communities rely primarily on mutual support and collaboration to address the difficulties they face (Partelow 2021). Initially, friends, family and neighbours stepped in to provide rescue, relief and repair of damaged homes. Consequently, social bonds contribute to reducing a community’s vulnerability and risk during disasters through joint effort. Prior to any flood, cyclone or tidal surge, social capital built through these bonds aids in gathering critical information for preparedness and preventive measures, thus motivating the community to engage in safety-focused activities. As expressed by the participants:

Another study by Kim and Hastak (2018) produced comparable findings, given the government’s limited ability to manage disaster aftermath; community members, families and neighbours often act as initial responders, playing a vital role in early disaster relief efforts. Historically, communities have received warnings shortly before events because of inadequate communication systems, leading to poor disaster preparedness and significant damage. Non-governmental organisations improve preparedness through group-based strategies within their networks. Beneficiaries of NGOs receive alerts from officials and promptly inform their families, relatives and neighbours, enabling them to prepare and relocate safely. They also assist vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities, the elderly, pregnant women and children in reaching cyclone shelters, thereby enhancing disaster readiness by reducing the community’s exposure and vulnerability in socio-economic, physical and environmental terms (Lee et al. 2022). Non-governmental organisation community associations have gained acceptance owing to their expertise, collaborative efforts and developmental roles, encouraging organised responses to potential threats. A beneficiary participant noted:

Moreover, during disasters, when the trafficking of women and children increases, association members collaborate with communities to act as guardians, ensuring the security and welfare of women and children in emergency storm shelters (Seddiky, Giggins & Gajendran 2022a). The community has come to trust and respect the organisation’s members for their expertise and collaborative efforts. Trust plays a crucial role in reinforcing interpersonal connections, which, in turn, enables the swift dissemination of information, cohesive and sensible decision-making and enhanced teamwork. The research by Depping et al. (2016) reported consistent results, showing that trust between individuals is crucial for successful teamwork because it enhances communication and collaboration among team members. This synergy is instrumental in reducing hazard risk, susceptibility and exposure, thereby strengthening the mitigation and preparedness efforts.

One beneficiary remarked:

Sanyal and Routray (2016) reached similar conclusions, emphasising that, within the action priorities of the SFDRR, community-level associations are valuable for their accepted capacity to foster member cooperation, share knowledge and strengthen communities to implement self-driven localised hazard mitigation plans. Similarly, Ahmad and Afzal (2022) in their research found that in disaster-prone areas, communities are much more prepared for potential disasters, primarily as a result of strong community-level associations and enhanced perceptions of equity and trust. Overall, in non-DRR NGOs, bonding network activities within communities help strengthen people’s social ties and build cohesion in times of adversity, which is vital in CBDRR.

Non-DRR NGOs also play an important role in community development. They mobilise and promote self-help, savings, and credit in cooperative societies, cultural groups, and volunteer groups. This builds trust, mutual support and collective actions. Such networks and groups provide coping mechanisms during disaster exhaustion and facilitate the resilience of social capital, which eases the processes of sharing intensive information on social order during disaster preparedness and recovery. In this regard, the form of bond non-DRR NGOs is vital in promoting social communities, responding to disasters, and supporting the need for community resilience:

In the realm of CBDRR, creating bridging networks plays a vital role in uniting various groups and promoting inter-community cooperation as well as ensuring the flow of information, resources and assistance during critical times. Non-governmental organisations’ training sessions and gatherings help to build amicable ties between people from different areas and communities. Through active collaboration and partnerships with local entities, such as educational institutions, faith-based organisations and individuals from different communities, NGOs have created a wide-ranging and resilient network that can be counted in times of crisis (Pal & Shaw 2018). These local organisations include a diverse range of socio-economic groups that enhance the effectiveness of disaster preparedness and management by improving the quality of responses, resources and local expertise.

By engaging NGO beneficiaries in training sessions and meetings held in government and private offices, the scope of positive interactions and collaboration with people from various communities has broadened. By incorporating grassroots organisations into their regional initiatives, NGOs foster stronger connections with these local entities and the communities they intend to support. The interconnectedness between locally rooted organisations and their counterparts in various regions expands collaborative efforts, aiding immediate assistance and the sustained rebuilding of communities in high-risk areas. This also bolsters their ability to reduce risk and minimise susceptibility to harm (Acosta et al. 2018). In the study region, when severe storms such as Aila, Sidr, Foni and Mahasen occurred, the affected communities obtained substantial support, including financial support, medical supplies, food assistance, materials for rebuilding shelters and access to clean drinking water. A robust network of local groups and organisations significantly contributes to minimising disaster vulnerability and improving preparedness.

As expressed by the participants:

Comparable results from Sanyal and Routray (2016) suggest that following the 1985 earthquake in Mexico, networks of individuals and civic-based organisations across different areas came together to assist those affected, demonstrating a strong bridging connection. Kristian and Ikhsan (2024) discovered that when community members were introduced to and engaged with local institutions, they facilitated their positive adaptation and response to crises. The participation of both mainstream and online communication platforms in community forums, on-site demonstrations and public gatherings has significantly expanded the reach of these initiatives and has played a crucial role in enhancing inter-community connections. The local press, trusted for its wide reach, serves as a key source of information, disseminating news, raising awareness and soliciting support from affected communities before and after disasters (Ogie et al. 2022).

In response to early disaster warnings from the media, many individuals evacuated to safer locations, using dried goods, essential records and livestock as part of their emergency readiness efforts. Additionally, numerous individuals and organisations nationwide responded to media calls for assistance, providing resources such as water pumps, communication devices, inflatable rafts, packaged meals, utility carts, and assistance with housing restoration to alleviate both immediate and long-term vulnerabilities, thereby accelerating disaster mitigation and preparedness efforts. Non-governmental organisations’ community-level partnerships helped bridge the gaps between various groups and communities by addressing structural weaknesses, which are vital for reducing disaster risk.

One beneficiary participant said:

Similarly, Ganoe, Roslida and Sihotang (2023) highlighted in their research that local media plays a crucial role in preparing communities for disaster threats by effectively raising awareness and initiating preparedness and recovery actions. The majority of the services provided by community-level associations supported by NGOs rely on voluntary involvement. Irrespective of cultural or demographic background, participants are committed to fostering societal development and emergency preparedness through charitable activities. They act as liaisons between local communities and main crisis management bodies, customising solutions to meet specific community needs and facilitating communication between at-risk populations and authorities (Shah et al. 2023). Non-governmental organisations empower the communities they serve by forging partnerships and fostering relationships across disparate scales to enhance community disaster resilience (Azad et al. 2019). The resilience witnessed in many communities, where NGOs operate, can be attributed to their ability to construct networks comprising local institutions, voluntary organisations, the press and the populace. These networks aid in integrating the various phases of disaster preparedness, response and recovery, ensuring that the community’s disaster response and recovery mechanisms are optimised.

In CBDRR, the integration of local social networks with influential figures, government entities and international organisations enables these networks to access essential information, resources, financial disaster management and ongoing post-disaster support. Non-governmental organisations are essential for orchestrating efforts across the local, national and international spheres to support communities during extended recovery periods. Once immediate relief supplies are provided by local entities and communities, they must rely on external organisations for sustained recovery support, which largely hinges on organisational and community linkage capabilities (Abiddin, Ibrahim & Abdul Aziz 2022).

NGOs build strong alliances with government officials and beneficiaries to raise awareness of the potential risks and challenges, thereby enhancing their preparedness. They often engage with global donors to execute local projects because a significant portion of their financial support is derived from these sources (Mikeladze 2021). Non-governmental organisations obtain financial support from global aid agencies to assist individuals in crisis responses and rebuilding efforts. They also receive support from national donors to aid communities by building temporary shelters, repairing homes and providing health services, all of which aim to reduce socio-economic and physical vulnerability, and enhance disaster preparedness. One participant stated:

Non-governmental organisations offer beneficiaries the opportunity to engage in both national and international communities. Through community-level associations, NGOs facilitate interactions with NGO officials, local government representatives, elected officials, and occasionally donor representatives during training sessions, meetings, or programme orientations, fostering strong relationships. Similarly, Yan, Lin and Clarke (2018) stated that in collaborative efforts across different sectors, NGOs can take on various roles, such as consultants, intermediaries, communicators and advocates, enabling them to utilise their networks to drive significant social transformations. Non-governmental organisation beneficiaries use mobile phones to reach out to relevant individuals and organisations for assistance in disaster-stricken areas. An extensive social capital network empowers communities affected by disasters to receive immediate support, such as emergency aid and crisis intervention, and ongoing assistance, including innovation, agricultural inputs and livelihood support. This finding is consistent with Page-Tan (2021), who argues that technologies enhance coordination, facilitate the spread of information, and boost community involvement, leading to more effective disaster response and recovery operations. This network not only garners increased attention from both domestic and global stakeholders, but also bolsters local resilience, aids in risk mitigation, and enhances readiness for future challenges. Similarly, Quader et al. (2023) provide evidence that NGOs contribute to the development of linking social capital by working alongside influential actors or institutions to execute DRR projects within communities.

One of the participants said:

In essence, linking networks developed by NGOs strengthens CBDRR by aligning local requirements with national and global resources, promoting collaborations with relevant partners, and providing access to financial, technical and institutional assistance. These networks also address governance and coordination issues to bolster community robustness and risk reduction, support recovery and adaptability, and enhance responses to future disasters. Nevertheless, efforts to collaborate across multiple levels and organisations have introduced complexities in forming an efficient network. Close-knit groups within these systems can leverage their closeness to authorities and policymakers to advance their own agendas (Valdez, Vassallo & Braunstein 2023). Non-governmental organisation coordination initiatives frequently neglect elected officials as they are not directly obliged to them. This oversight is misguided, given that civic-elected leaders are vital in their local areas and can assist NGOs in crafting and executing initiatives that truly benefit the local population.

As for the local government, the issuance of permits and licences to NGOs intending to undertake community projects has always been performed in close collaboration with NGOs. Non-governmental organisation representatives claim that there are several obstacles to gaining permission from civic authorities for community projects, especially the illegal payment of bribes. Therefore, incorporating hazard vulnerability into NGO activities and preserving their standards is very difficult. Local authorities openly solicited bribes, while civic leaders pressured NGOs to prioritise distributing aid to their political patrons. Such cooperation has bred cross-interest among NGOs and local governments.

In summary, NGOs have been able to utilise their social capital to form networks on regional and global scales, which have, in turn, enhanced the strategies of preparedness, mitigation and prevention for the communities they serve. Nonetheless, there are occasions when conflicts of interest among local stakeholders disrupt these cooperative endeavours, ultimately increasing the exposure of communities to disaster risks.

Bangladesh has a fascinating development circle. Although a growing population is an asset for economic progress, the country’s development indicators are not encouraging because of pervasive poverty and ongoing natural hazards. Natural calamities, such as tremors, storms, inundations and landslides, have uneven impacts and greatly affect the bulk of the population that does not have proper resources and infrastructure. Grassroot interventions in under-represented populations are a hallmark of the transformational narrative, as NGOs strategically collaborate with government-sponsored programmes. Although DRR is crucial, it is important to recognise that numerous NGOs prioritise actions related to response and recovery following a disaster rather than focusing on preventive strategies. Concerns have been raised regarding the effectiveness of these current approaches, considering the DRR principles that, if adopted, could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these approaches. At the grassroots level, NGOs foster the formation of networks that generate trust and collaboration among members, thereby facilitating collaboration to achieve shared goals. They help to establish both formal and informal communication systems that operate within and beyond the community.

Their local branches encourage members to actively participate in group discussions, information-sharing sessions and training workshops, which helps strengthen bonding, bridging and linking networks. Such networks are useful for pre-positioning resources to mount a swift response to a disaster and facilitate long-term recovery assistance. In addition, these networks improve communities’ preparedness and capacity to reduce risks by increasing access to technology and funds for risk reduction and community development overseas. By facilitating the sharing of specialised technical insights, training and hands-on experience, such coordination plays a crucial role in fostering local development and mitigating the community’s susceptibility to hazards and risks.

Building relationships with remote communities and organisations enhances the community’s access to knowledge, information and finances, which improves community-enduring relief and reconstruction efforts and thus strengthens the community’s resilience. Non-DRR NGOs have the potential to create robust social networks for disaster risk management by fostering meaningful collaboration among local governments, development NGOs and DRR-focused organisations. It is crucial to ensure that these social network programmes align with the national and local DRR strategies. Incorporating DRR education into community-focused social network programmes can empower communities to identify risks and mobilise effectively during disasters. All stakeholders should prioritise holistic development over personal interests by leveraging social networks initiated by non-DRR NGOs. Special consideration should be given to vulnerable groups within community networks, such as women, children and the elderly with disabilities. This study’s exploration of non-DRR NGOs’ social network-building programmes and their contribution to CBDRR provides valuable insights for policy makers, NGOs, communities and practitioners. These findings can help strengthen social capital development efforts through non-DRR NGO programmes to enhance community resilience. Future research could apply institutional theory, dependency theory and legitimacy theory, involving a broader range of participants, to examine the effectiveness of NGOs’ social network-building programmes in enhancing CBDRR. This approach would contribute to validating or refuting the conclusions drawn from this investigation, while also filling gaps in knowledge within related fields. The research findings are grounded in the context of Satkhira district, which is representative of many rural areas in Bangladesh. However, caution must be exercised when applying these results to economically advanced countries.