Multi-hazard approach and cumulative / cascading impacts

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO9), 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.

• “A key focus should be on early and anticipatory action, improving the understanding of interactions between meteorological, geophysical, and technological hazards, including their compounding impacts on societies, economies, and critical infrastructure.”
• “Proposals should aim to develop and validate integrated forecasting models, that enhance the prediction and management of multi-hazard scenarios, supports flexibility and extensibility, and coordination of responses by incorporating real-time data, AI-driven analytics, and remote sensing technologies.”
• “These models should facilitate improved hazard forecasting by addressing challenges in platform interoperability and data exchange, ensuring that diverse hazard monitoring systems at local, national, and global levels can effectively communicate and operate in synergy.”
• “Efforts should also explore the interoperability of regional and national hazard warning systems, enhancing global forecasting capabilities for hazards such as landslides triggered by extreme weather events, or cumulative damage modelling for earthquakes and their aftershocks.”
• “Research should address gaps in loss estimation models by considering the cascading and long-term impacts of disasters on infrastructure, the built environment, supply chains, and diverse needs of communities.”
• “Furthermore, proposals should contribute to the development of advanced tools and methodologies to assess the combined effects of multiple hazards on critical infrastructure, ensuring that disaster risk management strategies account for interdependencies across sectors This should include scenario-based stress testing, digital twins for risk modelling, and AI-powered decision-support systems, taking into account existing biases, to enhance…”
• “A holistic, systemic, and cross-cutting approach should be applied to disaster risk management, taking into consideration climate change trends, environmental degradation, and vulnerabilities such as gender, age, disabilities and others social factors.”
• “The topic should lead to the creation of comprehensive Risk and Resilience Metrics, integrating physical, economic, and social dimensions to support decision-makers in designing effective prevention and adaptation strategies.”
• “Projects should conduct a stakeholder or market analysis and a roadmap or plan for uptake of the developed methodologies, findings, and technologies to the industry, the research and innovation community, and/or the relevant authorities.”
• “Projects should contribute to strengthening risk governance at multiple levels by fostering collaboration between scientific communities, policymakers, emergency responders, and infrastructure operators.”
• “Efforts should be made in leveraging citizens-generated content in social media and decentralised digital platforms for citizen-driven early warning and situational awareness.”
• “Alignment with EU policies, international risk reduction frameworks, and best practices in resilience planning should be ensured, maximizing the applicability and impact of the developed solutions.”

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 6 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• 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 2 authorities in charge of disaster risk or crisis communication[[Authorities in charge of disaster risk or crisis communication entail public bodies operating at the national level that hold…”

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.
• The topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
• Open science or data practices are named. Make the data management plan concrete: which data, which repository, when.
• 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.