Designing new ways of risk awareness and enhanced disaster preparedness

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO4), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “Building on the whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach, this topic should contribute to enhancing risk awareness and disaster preparedness through the development of innovative tools, methodologies, and frameworks.”
• “A key focus should be on integrating diverse societal and resilience perspectives considering people in a vulnerable situation, ensuring inclusive participation in risk communication strategies, and leveraging accessible advanced technologies and processes to improve public understanding of hazards and vulnerabilities (such as gender, disabilities and others social factors. and capabilities.”
• “Efforts should aim at designing and validating novel approaches to risk perception, communication, including digital platforms, immersive technologies, and participatory tools that foster citizen engagement and behavioural change, as well as wildlife protection.”
• “Behavioural insights should inform the projects on effective methods in population’s preparedness including the risk communication.”
• “Special attention should be given to marginalized or vulnerable groups in a vulnerable situation ensure equitable access to risk information and preparedness resources.”
• “Such a solution should facilitate seamless collaboration between public authorities, civil society, local communities, and the private sector.”
• “It must support the co-creation of comprehensive preparedness plans that ensure a coordinated, robust, resilient, and effective response to a wide range of disaster scenarios.”
• “Central to this approach should be the integration of a command-and-control system that allows for centralized information management, efficient coordination among all stakeholders, and rapid, data-driven decision-making in emergency situations.”
• “For example, efforts to guarantee early action from early warning should be taken into account.”
• “Furthermore, proposals should work towards the creation of comprehensive, multi-stakeholder preparedness plans that involve all levels of governance, civil society, the private sector, and local communities.”
• “These plans should establish mechanisms for cross-sectoral coordination, efficient resource allocation, and effective decision-making in crisis situations and the development of solutions and tools to ensure a greater culture of safety and societal resilience in the communities.”
• “Research should also explore innovative governance models that enhance interoperability and cooperation between different entities.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• TRL: the topic expects TRL 5 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “Subject to restrictions for the protection of European communication networks.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “Due to the scope of this topic, relevant international organisations with headquarters in a Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country are exceptionally eligible for funding.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: This topic requires the active involvement, as beneficiaries, of at least 3 organisations from at least 3 different EU Member States or Associated Countries as follows: (i) at least one civil society organisation (CSO); (ii) at least one authority in charge of…”

Impact pathway and traps

• Users or citizens are part of the scope. Show how they take part in the design and testing, not only that they are informed.
• International cooperation is part of the scope. Explain what the non-EU partners add and how the cooperation is organised.
• The topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• Link your outcomes to the destination's expected impacts in the Work Programme. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.