The Nordic Region is typically characterised by high quality of life, democratic values, stable and healthy living conditions, and innovation. Despite such accolades, Nordic residents also face risks due to their geographic location, geopolitical history, and other economic and social challenges. In recent decades, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, extremism, and the COVID-19 pandemic have revealed that the Nordic Region is not immune to crisis. This is not to mention other challenges faced by Nordic populations in the form of housing and financial crises, the climate crisis, and social tensions and injustices. Furthermore, recent geopolitical events have brought societal security “top of mind of all Nordic governments” (Nordic Co-operation, n.d.-a). Such ongoing and potential crises threaten the shared Nordic vision towards becoming a sustainable and integrated region (Nordic Co-operation, n.d.-b).
Crises come in many forms. As described in a joint statement from the Nordic Prime Ministers, the Nordic governments are “committed to further intensifying cooperation for increased civil preparedness and resilience in our region,” particularly now as we live in an “era marked by an increasing frequency and complexity of crises” (Prime Minister's Office, 2025). This combination of multiple and overlapping disruptions to societies is known as “polycrisis” (Keinänen et al., 2025). Crises can be layered (one building off or exacerbating another) and are often regionally interconnected, resulting in diverse impacts. And it is not always possible to identify a specific point of origin or singular cause. As inherently disruptive phenomena, both recent and anticipated crises have influenced the way in which Nordic governments organise their societal security. And since challenges to societal security are often “transboundary” in nature, greater international collaboration across the Nordics, as well as with the Baltic countries and the rest of Europe, is crucial (Nordic Co-operation, n.d.-a). For the Nordic and Baltic regions specifically, building upon the foundations of a “shared security culture” could enable greater interaction, cooperation, and resilience for these nations (Wrange et al., 2024).
Recently, Finnish security policy has referred to the concept of psychological resilience to describe “the ability of individuals, communities, and society to withstand the stress caused by crisis situations and to recover from their impacts” (Finnish Government, 2025). While the Nordic Region has “endorsed a comprehensive security model” to enhance resilience (Prime Minister's Office, 2025), psychological resilience as a term is not directly applied in national policy discourse outside Finland. However, alternative notions of resilience in relation to preparation for, response to, and recovery from crises are found in Nordic national security strategies, risk assessments, and other preparedness documents. The extent and expression of this varies considerably and involves a range of concepts combining resilience with notions of civil preparedness, societal security, crisis management, and even the will to defend. These related ideas help us to situate psychological resilience in the wider discourse of societal security. However, as presented in Finnish security policy, the idea of psychological resilience adds nuance and defines a type of resilience rooted in something deeper than the material preparations and actions for managing crises. While the concept has been prevalent in the Finnish context for many years, it is not always clear to grasp in practice as it is related to both national security efforts as well as local and regional community building, social cohesion, and trust. Nevertheless, its unique value is in its emphasis on shared values, identity, and trust, and the concept offers an analytical lens through which similar practices can be identified in the other Nordic countries.
In response to a Finnish initiative of the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2025, this report describes and analyses the concept of psychological resilience in the Nordic Region. Through an academic literature review, policy review, and case study interviews across five Nordic countries, the findings shed light on how local and regional actors support psychological resilience, by what means they currently do so (or expect to in the future), and how other public actors may be involved. The report was developed as an output of the project Recognising and supporting psychological resilience: Regional approaches across the Nordic countries, conducted by research institute Nordregio and funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Methods
To learn how local and regional actors support psychological resilience, we first needed to understand the concept of resilience—and specifically psychological resilience—through its use in Nordic-based academic literature and within national level security policy in the Nordic Region. We used the definition of psychological resilience from the Finnish security strategy to determine a set of keywords, including psychological resilience, societal resilience, preparedness, governance, civil society, crisis, culture, and trust. In autumn 2025, we conducted a literature review using the Scopus database. Due to the range of concepts and explorative nature of the project, this phase followed the methodology of a scoping review (rather than a systematic review), with the aim of “identifying gaps” and “mapping fields of study where it is difficult to visualise the range of material that might be available” (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The review was limited to open-access articles published between 2015 and 2025, excluding irrelevant subject areas (e.g., medicine, nursing, mathematics). The geographical scope was limited to Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
To complement the literature review, we reviewed the current national security strategies and national risk assessments in the Nordic countries (see Appendix A). Guiding the review were two questions: Do the national security strategies and national risk assessments discuss psychological resilience (or a related idea), and if so, how? And do the national security strategies and national risk assessments discuss the key components of psychological resilience (as described by the Finnish comprehensive security strategy), and if so, how?
While we focused on the discourse used in these two policy documents in each country, we also noted if there were aspects of psychological resilience referenced in additional preparedness and security documents (e.g., Norway’s 2025 total preparedness publication, Totalberedskapsmeldigen, produced by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, and the 2021 publication Kraftsamling—för en stärkt civil beredskap, from Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency, MSB, which reformulates the national risk assessment for a public readership; see Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet, 2025; MSB, 2021).
The literature review and policy review were followed by interviews with national level agencies in five countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden; Appendix B). The purpose of these interviews was twofold: (1) to gain insights and clarity about how national-level agencies understand and work with the concept of psychological resilience or its various components, and (2) to understand how the national level views the role of civil society organisations, cultural institutions, and other voluntary associations within its wider preparedness efforts. National-level interviews took place between November 2025 and January 2026.
These insights were further tested and explored in the form of a game-based workshop organised in December 2025, the learnings of which are composed in a working paper (Salonen & Rohrer, 2026).
While psychological resilience may be conceptualised by, or else loosely familiar to, national-level actors, it is worked out within the context of local and regional communities. Therefore, the research team identified local/regional case studies in each of the countries to explore the operationalisation of psychological resilience among specific communities. The process of identifying case studies involved first understanding the different components of psychological resilience and the kinds of organisations and communities where it is fostered. We also followed leads from national-level interviews regarding bottom-up civil society initiatives. The case studies—illustrative rather than representative in nature—involved qualitative interviews with a combination of public and civil society organisations (Appendix B). Informed by insights from the academic literature and policy review, the aim of these interviews was to gain insights and clarity about how local/regional actors work with resilience, particularly with regards to building trust among the community, instilling values, and/or supporting the will to prepare for or act in times of crisis. The interviews used the concept of resilience as the ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from crisis. The primary interest was to understand people’s self-organising activities related to resilience. This could include ways in which citizens initiate action and network to help each other, building trust along the way. The interviews took place between February and April 2026 in local languages. After all interviews were complete, the results were summarised into case study chapters within the context of the corresponding policy context of each country. These results were then synthesized with the project’s growing scope of research material, organised into overlapping themes, and articulated into key findings.
The research was restricted to a particular time frame and budget. New publications or knowledge may have been produced between the time of interviews and the publication of this report. Furthermore, the five case studies presented in this report do not provide a comprehensive representation of how communities in each country develop psychological resilience. Rather, they illustrate relevant themes while highlighting several different spheres where psychological resilience is at work among various actors and communities. As there are many actors involved in security, resilience, and preparedness efforts, the report is inherently limited by its engagement with only some of these actors and should not be assumed as reflecting all angles or expressions.
Report structure
The current state of resilience in general, and psychological resilience in particular, has emerged from a specific set of ideas and in a unique geographic and geopolitical context. Therefore, this report follows the format of the project’s research methods, beginning with a review of psychological resilience as a concept within theory and policy in the Nordic Region.
Part I of the report showcases results of the literature review and policy reviews. It develops and applies a descriptive framework for understanding Nordic resilience. Psychological resilience is situated within this framework as something that is developed, supported, and facilitated within communities, organisations, local institutions, and individuals. It is these areas where societal values are operationalised, and trust is established.
Following this, Part II provides case studies of how psychological resilience is practiced at the local/regional level. We include one illustrative case study per each Nordic country. The results demonstrate a range of methods, initiatives, successes, and learnings where efforts are made for communities to prepare for, withstand, and recover from crises while also developing trust, maintaining a local identity, and instilling democratic values.
Part III discusses main findings from the case studies with reference to the literature, thereby providing a synthesis of psychological resilience within the Nordic Region. Situating psychological resilience within the broader context of theory and practice can help clarify its relevance for regional policy and the ways in which it may be supported. The report thus concludes with several points of interest and future possibilities for local, regional, and national actors.