SWEDEN

Strong villages as expressions of psychological resilience on Gotland

Images: Region Gotland

Image: Region Gotland

While psychological resilience has gained increasing attention within Finnish security discourse, the concept is rarely used explicitly in Swedish policy. Instead, related ideas are embedded within concepts such as motståndskraft (capacity to withstand), beredskap (preparedness), and psykologiskt försvar (psychological defence). These concepts tend to emphasise system robustness, information resilience, and willingness to defend rather than everyday social and relational capacities.

Against this backdrop, the Stark Socken initiative on the island of Gotland provides an empirical case of how psychological resilience can be operationalised in practice, without being explicitly labelled as such. By mobilising local communities around preparedness, the initiative connects national security concerns with everyday life and demonstrates how social cohesion, trust, and collective agency contribute to resilience.

Development of Stark Socken

Stark Socken emerged in the early 2020s in a context of heightened geopolitical tension. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, this period marked a significant shift in Swedish preparedness policy, with renewed emphasis on total defence and whole-of-society engagement. Within the Swedish security context, Gotland occupies a unique position. As a strategically important island with limited redundancy in infrastructure and supply systems, preparedness concerns are particularly salient. At the same time, the island has strong local identities and historically rooted community structures, known as socknar (parishes or villages), which continue to function as important social units.

Stark Socken was developed by Region Gotland in collaboration with the County Administrative Board and civil society actors as a response to both this strategic context and a growing demand from individuals and companies seeking ways to contribute and to reduce feelings of vulnerability among their families and communities. Rather than introducing a top-down programme, the initiative was deliberately designed with flexibility which enabled a locally driven process based on local ownership, volunteer participation, simplicity, and integration into everyday life. From the outset, the initiative brought together a range of actors, including emergency services, voluntary defence organisations, the Red Cross, the Church of Sweden, and other community associations. Public authorities provide coordination, guidance, and methodological support, while civil society organisations contribute local knowledge, networks, training, and meeting spaces. This combination of institutional support and local engagement has been central to fostering trust and shared ownership for the initiative.

Success factors for developing resilience

In practice, Stark Socken typically involves local meetings where residents, associations, and businesses come together to discuss risks that may disrupt everyday rhythms (e.g., power outages, water shortages, and communication failures). Together, the residents map resources and identify how they can support one another in times of need—for example, by creating neighbour groups (grann-lag), thereby fostering a stronger social fabric and clearer communication routes in case of emergency. Preparedness activities combine household-level measures with collective organisation. Guidance from public authorities is intentionally light, with minimal bureaucracy and no strict reporting requirements. This low-threshold approach reduces barriers to participation and allows communities to proceed at their own pace. While the guiding principles of the initiative are replicated across the region, the application looks different from parish to parish, with each community discussing and conducting the work according to their individual circumstances and perceived needs.

An important feature of the initiative is that it does not aim to replace or create new preparedness structures. Instead, it connects, strengthens, and makes visible existing local initiatives, allowing communities to build on what is already in place. According to a representative from the County Administrative Board, this bottom-up approach is what makes Stark Socken successful, as the villages build upon the work that already exists and then plug into the broader Stark Socken initiative. This design reflects a broader shift from viewing citizens primarily as recipients of information or appointed responsibilities towards recognising them as active contributors to resilience and responsible agents according to their own agency and capacity.

The Stark Socken project demonstrates how community‑based preparedness can strengthen resilience at multiple levels—individual, community, organisational, and cross‑sectoral—by transforming concern and uncertainty into collective action:

Individual level: Agency, meaning, and perceived safety

Interviewees highlighted that, while meeting to discuss crisis preparedness can feel uncomfortable or anxiety‑provoking, it also generates important positive psychological effects. Stark Socken emerged from public desire to reduce vulnerabilities and contribute to society, and participation was described as fostering agency and a sense of control. Being able to act, however modestly, helped transform anxiety about crises into something tangible and manageable.

Two interviewees reflected on their own experiences (and that of their relatives) in preparing for hardships during war, noting that, despite potential material scarcity and fear, it also created a sense of belonging, empowerment (through their active contributions), social connection, and feelings of purpose. Similar mechanisms can be expected in Stark Socken, where contributing to the community, planning together, and knowing one has a role reduces feelings of helplessness and increases perceived security, while building trust among neighbours and establishing individual meaning and agency. Through the initiative, villages are encouraged to identify local actors, such as religious institutions or trusted organisations, which could offer psychological and emotional support during crises, helping communities collectively address fear and uncertainty, not only practical needs. According to one representative from Region Gotland, these efforts are at the core of resilience:

What resilience is really about is not creating watertight plans or preparations that mean a crisis will never feel difficult. It always will. But when we work with the civic society and residents and create these conditions, people recover much faster and are able to bounce back. And, in the midst of the hardship and strain that crises bring, being able to do something as an individual, even something very small, to help, improve, or contribute in some way already makes things feel much easier. (Representative of Region Gotland)

Community level: Social cohesion, trust, and shared understanding

At the community level, the initiative aims to strengthen social cohesion and renewed connections among residents. While Gotland’s villages historically had strong social structures, many of these structures have weakened over time, with increasing anonymity, fewer shared initiatives, and a less rooted and established community. This is due, in part, to high numbers of seasonal homes contributing to a transient atmosphere. A participant in the Stark Socken project recalled earlier forms of village cooperation, such as “village teams” (bya‑lag) which functioned as informal safety nets during crises, but there has been a trend of weakening interest and meeting places in the village.

In line with this, the coordinating representatives of Stark Socken noted the ongoing anonymisation occurring on Gotland, as in society in general. According to the interviewees, the Stark Socken initiative can work against anonymity in society through building social cohesion, trust, and belonging, which rebuild resilience and support society both in times of stability and instability. Interviewees described Stark Socken as helping to recreate a shared space where villagers could gather around common issues. Neighbours who had not previously interacted began meeting, talking, and planning together. Preparedness discussions also helped build a shared and realistic understanding of potential risks, such as long power outages or water shortages, reducing uncertainty and improving predictability.

Organisational level: Networks, complementarity, and local knowledge

From an organisational perspective, Stark Socken illustrates a publicly led initiative with shared ownership across multiple actors. Public authorities, emergency services, voluntary defence organisations, and civil society actors contribute according to their mandates and expertise rather than through a fixed hierarchy. Region Gotland and the County Administrative Board primarily act as facilitators and coordinators, while the police and rescue services contribute knowledge on safety, risks, and crisis response. Voluntary defence organisations play a key role in training and strengthening practical preparedness.

Civil society organisations are particularly important for mobilisation and trust‑building. In some of the villages, organisations for adult education, the Red Cross, and rural development organisations have supported engagement through meetings and study circles, often acting as intermediaries between authorities and residents. Faith‑based organisations and local associations have provided meeting spaces, social legitimacy, and access to networks that might otherwise be difficult to reach. Interviewees stressed that organisational involvement was largely responsive to local needs identified by the villages, reinforcing the locally driven nature of the initiative.

Cross‑level effects: Trust between communities and authorities

An important notion from the interviewed coordinators was the increased trust between residents and public authorities. Initial meetings were sometimes characterised by frustration or scepticism, reflecting broader tensions around communication, unmet expectations, and perceived distance between authorities and civil society. By remaining present, listening, and responding transparently, trust has been gradually building over time. Interviewees noted that this trust has since been translated into communities becoming more willing to contact and collaborate with authorities during real crises, such as recent forest fires on Gotland.

Capacities that enable success

Several enabling capacities were identified as central to Stark Socken’s effectiveness. These include strong local identity in many parts of rural Gotland, existing associations and meeting places, long‑term institutional support from Region Gotland and the County Administrative Board, the involvement of voluntary organisations with preparedness expertise, and committed local coordinators or community champions. Equally important is the initiative’s flexible design, which allows adaptation to local conditions rather than imposing a single model.

Throughout all levels, the Stark Socken initiative demonstrates how resilience is strengthened not only through plans and preparedness measures, but through relationships, participation, and shared responsibility. By mobilising both formal institutions and informal social structures, the initiative supports psychological resilience alongside practical preparedness in both everyday life and during crises. Interviewees also highlighted emotional and relational competence as a critical, though often implicit, capacity. The ability of organisers and public actors to meet people where they are, acknowledge scepticism, manage anxiety, and keep discussions constructive was described as essential for sustaining engagement and building trust over time.

Challenges in developing resilience

While Stark Socken demonstrates potential for building psychological resilience, the initiative faces several challenges. One of the coordinators expressed the recurring risk of overambition at the local level. Some villages may begin to take on responsibilities that exceed their capacity, particularly in relation to complex risks that require regional or national coordination. As one representative from the region stated: “When local communities come together, it’s very easy for them to start trying to solve world peace. [...] Here we need to gently steer things back to the fact that you can make a huge difference locally—but not take responsibility for everything.”

Closely related is the issue of uneven engagement: villages vary significantly in terms of social cohesion, organisational capacity, and local identity, resulting in different starting points and outcomes across communities. Interviewees also pointed to the challenge of reaching beyond those already engaged. Participation often attracts individuals who are already active in local associations or preparedness work, while involving residents with little prior engagement remains difficult. Although the initiative is built on voluntary engagement, long‑term continuity may fluctuate, and volunteer energy alone may not suffice over time. There is also a risk that Stark Socken could become symbolic rather than practical if activities are not sustained and embedded in everyday community life.

The model is currently being explored for adaptation to a more urban context, with the possibility of testing it in Gotland's largest town, Visby. However, coordinators emphasise that urban areas differ significantly from villages in both social and physical conditions. These differences would require adjustments to the approach, including alternative facilitation methods, to ensure it functions effectively in more urban, dense, or socially fragmented settings.

Beyond these operational issues, Stark Socken reflects broader tensions common to resilience‑oriented approaches. These include balancing the bottom‑up initiative with external support without undermining local ownership; building trust in contexts where there may be historical mistrust between communities and authorities; making preparedness motivating without amplifying fear; valuing social and psychological outcomes that are harder to measure; sustaining momentum after initial enthusiasm; and avoiding an unintended shift of responsibility onto local communities without adequate institutional support. As such, interviewees noted a need to maintain clear boundaries around what can reasonably be expected at the local level.

Where additional support is needed

Several forms of additional support could strengthen the initiative. From the regional and national level, needs include long‑term coordination funding, continued facilitation and communication support, platforms for peer-learning between villages, clearer structures for sustaining initiatives over time, and explicit recognition of psychosocial and relational work as a core component of preparedness. From public institutions, interviewees emphasised the importance of continued presence and dialogue beyond project launches, targeted support for reaching groups outside traditional association life, and clearer communication about which responsibilities lie locally and which must remain institutional. Finally, at the level of broader policy and funding systems, there is a need for resources that support maintenance and continuity rather than only start‑up phases, tools for evaluating social and psychological outcomes, and adaptation support for applying similar approaches in urban or less cohesive contexts.

Future opportunities for resilience

The Stark Socken case highlights several opportunities for strengthening resilience policy and practice. First, there is a need for more explicit recognition and support of social and psychological dimensions of resilience within national frameworks. This includes investing in local networks, meeting places, and community engagement. Second, tools for evaluating psychological resilience might be further developed. While difficult to measure, aspects such as trust, participation, and perceived safety are critical indicators of resilience. Third, the model could be adapted to other contexts, including urban areas. However, this would require identifying alternative social units and adapting methods to different conditions. Finally, interviewees emphasised the importance of long-term support, continued dialogue, and maintaining the initiative’s core principles of flexibility and local ownership.

Stark Socken demonstrates how psychological resilience can be built through everyday practices that strengthen trust, social cohesion, and collective agency. While not explicitly framed under the concept, the initiative operationalises key dimensions of psychological resilience in a way that complements Sweden’s existing preparedness system. By translating national security concerns into locally meaningful action, Stark Socken bridges the gap between policy and practice. It shows that resilience is not only about infrastructure and systems, but also about relationships, participation, and the capacity of communities to act together. As such, it offers valuable insights for developing more holistic and socially grounded approaches to resilience in Sweden and beyond.