Configurations of the social environment in the context of quality of life resilience
The article examines the architecture of the social environment as a system-forming factor in the resilience of population’s quality of life from the perspective of socioeconomics. Its key components influencing the social landscape of individuals’ livelihoods are identified: institutional, infrastructural, social capital, cultural-psychological, informational, and security. Particular attention is given to the resilience of quality of life as the ability to adapt to external challenges while preserving or transforming mechanisms for maintaining living standards. The functional basis of resilience (absorption, adaptation, transformation) is adapted for the social context. The author takes an interdisciplinary approach combining sociological, institutional and systems analysis with the use of generalisation, tabular structuring, and elements of conceptual modelling. The study defines the substantive characteristics of the social environment’s impact on quality of life (direct, indirect, positive, negative, flexible, formalised, effective, productive, etc.) and outlines risks arising from institutional dysfunctions and weak social ties. Their visualisation confirmed the links between institutional effectiveness, the level of social capital development, residents’ participation in community governance, and society’s capacity to ensure stability and adaptability in crisis conditions. The findings confirm that enhancing the resilience of quality of life is possible through the targeted strengthening of key components of the social environment and their balanced configuration, while the practical task becomes the development of trust, inclusiveness, and social cohesion as the fundamental guidelines for the state’s future social policy.
Durkheim, É. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. URL: https://archive.org/details/socialsystem00pars/mode/2up?ref
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood. URL: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. URL: http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/Anthropology/RiskSociety/RiskSocietyTowardsAnewModernity1992Beck.pdf
Vorona, V., Reznyk, V. (2021). Sociological monitoring of Ukrainian society: observation methods, indicators and identified social trends 1992-2021. Ukrainian society: monitoring of social changes, 8 (23). URL: https://i-soc.com.ua/assets/files/monitoring/monitoring-2021-bez-dodatkov.pdf [in Ukrainian]
Libanova, E. (Ed.). (2019). Human Development in Ukraine. Assessment and Forecast of the Standard of Living of the Population: Collection of Monographs. Kyiv: NAS of Ukraine, M. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Research. URL: https://dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/jspui/handle/lib/39070 [in Ukrainian]
Land, K.C., Michalos, A.C., Sirgy, M.J. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research. Springer.
Yonk, M.R. (2021). Improving Quality of life ‒ Exploring standard of living, wellbeing, and community development. IntechOpen.
Zahnow, R. (2024). Social infrastructure, social cohesion and subjective wellbeing. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 7, 100210.
Sharifi, A. (2023). Resilience of urban social-ecological-technological systems (SETS): a review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 99, 10491.
Sova, O., Bieliaieva, N., Antypenko, N., Drozd, N. (2023). Impact of artificial intelligence and digital HRM on the resource consumption within sustainable development perspective. E3S Web of Conferences, 408, 01006.
Grum, B., Kobal Grum, D. (2023). Urban resilience and sustainability in the perspective of global consequences of COVID 19 pandemic and war in Ukraine: a systematic review. Sustainability, 15 (2), 1459.
The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. (1998). Social Science & Medicine, 46 (12), 1569-1585.
Costanza, R.J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., Elliott Gayer, D., MacDonald Glenn, L., Hudspeth, T., Mahoney, D., McCahill, L., McIntosh, B., Reed, B., Abu Turab Rizvi, S., Rizzo, D.M., Simpatico, T., Snapp, R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 61 (2-3), 267-276.
Zaiats, T., Romaniuk, S., Kraievska, H., Diakonenko, O., Sova, O. (2024). Priority areas for the formation of capable territorial communities in Ukraine. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 10 (1), 135-164 [in Ukrainian]
Zhao, G., Hui, Xu, Zhao, F., Feng, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, Y. (2024). How does social capital facilitate community disaster resilience? A systematic review. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1496813.
Morsut, С., Kuran, C., Kruke, B.I., Orru, K., Hansson, S. (2022). Linking resilience, vulnerability, social capital and risk awareness for crisis and disaster research. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 30 (2), 137-147.
Liu, C.-F., Mostafavi, A. (2025). Network dynamics of community resilience and recovery: new frontier in disaster research. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 123, 105489.
Kuzior, A., Krawczyk, D., Brożek, P., Pakhnenko, O., Vasylieva, T., Lyeonov, S. (2022). Resilience of smart cities to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of sustainable development. Sustainability, 14 (19), 12645.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), 253–267.
Walker, B., Salt, D. (2012). Resilience Practice. Washington: Island Press.
Alexander, D.E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13 (11), 2707-2716.