Events in Times of Crisis

In times of crisis, events are often seen as signs of hope. A concert, a cultural festival, or a sports tournament can symbolise a return to normal life and offer emotional relief. During and after COVID-19, many organisers promoted virtual events and hybrid formats to keep people connected. But while these efforts were important, not everyone had equal access to this new normal. This blog looks at how post-crisis events may help some groups recover while leaving others behind. We ask: Who do these events serve and who do they forget?

Virtual Inclusion or Digital Divide?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many events moved online. From international conferences to local music shows, organisers embraced digital platforms like Zoom and YouTube Live. These virtual events were praised for being safer and more accessible.

However, this shift exposed a deep inequality in access to technology. According to Chun et al. (2024), There are still many people in the world who lacked reliable internet access during the pandemic. In rural areas of Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the digital divide was even worse.

For example, a study by Chakraborty et al. (2022) found that in India, only 15% of rural households had access to stable internet strong enough for streaming. In Vietnam, while urban centres adapted quickly to online events, rural students and cultural workers often missed out due to poor infrastructure and high data costs (Pham, 2025).

Therefore, while virtual events were meant to keep everyone included, they unintentionally excluded millions who didn’t have the tools to participate. This shows that technology is not a neutral solution it can reinforce existing inequalities (Holling, 1973).

Recovery for whom?

Major events held after a crisis are often framed as a symbol of resilience. They signal that life goes on. But when the people most affected by the crisis are not included, that symbolism can feel hollow. Take the Tokyo Olympics 2021. Held during the global pandemic, the event was framed as a “beacon of hope.” Yet local opposition was strong: over 80% of Japanese citizens opposed the event in polls due to health and financial concerns. Small businesses that expected tourism revenue received little benefit because the games were closed to international visitors, and resources were redirected away from pandemic relief efforts (Yamamura, 2021).

According to Lee Ludvigsen (2021), the Olympics became more about serving broadcasters, sponsors, and political image than about helping local communities recover. For many, the event symbolised inequality more than resilience.

Crisis Responses that Leave People Out

When events are used as tools for recovery, organisers often focus on economic or reputational goals. But what about social repair? Finkel et al. (2019) argue that recovery must go beyond symbolism. It should involve rebuilding trust, addressing loss, and ensuring everyone especially vulnerable groups have a role in shaping what comes next. However, many post-crisis events are designed without public input. They rely on top-down models that don’t account for diverse needs.

Even in hybrid events, many marginalised groups such as people with disabilities, low-income workers, or those living in informal settlements lack the resources or infrastructure to join. As a result, the very people most hurt by the crisis are left out of recovery celebrations (Del Carpio et al., 2022).

Rebuilding With Fairness in Mind

So how can events become fairer tools of recovery? One step is to apply the principles of inclusive design. This means planning events that start by asking: who might be excluded, and how can we change that?

Raworth (2018) suggest using community engagement and accessibility audits early in event planning. These tools allow organisers to identify gaps in digital access, physical space, language, and timing.

Organisers should also support community-led initiatives—events created by and for local people rather than imposed from the outside. These smaller-scale events often respond better to local realities and can offer more meaningful healing (Bladen et al., 2022).

Finally, funding should be rebalanced. According to Thomasson (2022), post-pandemic recovery budgets in many countries favoured flagship events over grassroots ones. Redirecting resources to underserved communities ensures a more equitable path forward.

Events are a Platform for Change?

Events are powerful tools. They bring people together, create shared meaning, and mark important moments. But when they only include the privileged, they risk reinforcing the same inequalities that crises expose (Darcy, 2012).

As we continue to recover from the global health crisis, the events we host need to be sensitive to the diverse needs of people around the world. Because true recovery doesn’t just mean celebrating survival, it means making sure no one is left behind.

Reference

Chun, D.S., Park, K.K.C. and Kim, J.M., 2024. From Disruption to Sustainability: The Event Industry’s Journey through the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 16(14), p.6013.https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146013 

Darcy, S., 2012. Disability, access, and inclusion in the event industry: A call for inclusive event research. Event Management, 16(3), pp.259-265. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599503108751685 

Bladen, C., Kennell, J., Abson, E. and Wilde, N., 2022. Events management: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003102878 

Del Carpio, X., Cuesta, J.A., Kugler, M.D., Hernández, G. and Piraquive, G., 2022. What effects could global value chain and digital infrastructure development policies have on poverty and inequality after COVID-19?. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(2), p.43. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15020043 

Thomasson, S., 2022. Festivals in the Pandemic. Contemporary Theatre Review, 32(3-4), pp.227-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10486801.2022.2120278 

Pelling, M., 2010. Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203889046

Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems [online] https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009177856.038

Raworth, K., 2018. Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Pham, T.T., 2025. Mobile internet and income improvement: Evidence from viet nam. Asian Development Review, pp.1-34. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0116110525500210 

Yamamura, E., 2021. Do you want sustainable Olympics? Environment, disaster, gender, and the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Sustainability, 13(22), p.12879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212879 

Lee Ludvigsen, J.A., 2021. Book review: NOlympians: Inside the Fight Against Capitalist Mega-Sports in Los Angeles, Tokyo & Beyond. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902211010643