Real World Labs description and setup

D1.1 – Real World Labs description and setup Wednesday, 29 October 2025 Valeria Pancioli8, Dominik Hedderich9, Jana Löhrlein11, Paolo Mazzoli4, Max Steinhausen1, Janne Parviainen18, Lydia Cumiskey6, Joanna Mau1, Tobias Conradt2, Martin Drews3, Emilie Rønde Nielsen7, Amalie Laursen7, Stefano Bagli4, Francesca Renzi4, Pia-Johanna Schweizer5, Sandro Nanni13, Christopher Genillard9, Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler10, Julian Struck11, Levente Huszti12, Heiko Apel14, Benedikt Gräler15, Chahan Kropf16, Victor Wattin Håkansson16, Tracy Irvine17, Sukaina Bharwani18 1. TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET BRAUNSCHWEIG 10. INTERNATIONALES INSTITUT FUER ANGEWANDTE SYSTEMANALYSE 2. POTSDAM-INSTITUT FUR KLIMAFOLGENFORSCHUNG EV 11. ERFTVERBAND 3. DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET 12. ZALA KULONLEGES MENTOK ES ONKENTES TUZOLTO EGYSULET 4. GECOSISTEMA SRL 13. AGENZIA REGIONALE PER LA PREVENZIONE, L'AMBIENTE E L'ENERGIA DELL'EMILIA-ROMAGNA 5. RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABILITY 14. HELMHOLTZ ZENTRUM POTSDAM DEUTSCHESGEOFORSCHUNGSZENTRUM GFZ 6. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK – NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, CORK 15. 52 NORTH SPATIAL INFORMATION RESEARCH GMBH 7. REGION HOVEDSTADEN 16. EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZÜRICH 8. AGENZIA REGIONALE PER LA SICUREZZATERRITORIALE E LA PROTEZIONE CIVILE 17. OASIS HUB LIMITED 9. GENILLARD & CO GMBH 18. SEI OXFORD OFFICE LIMITED Real World Labs description and setup 2 Report overview Project number 101073978 Project acronym DIRECTED Project name Disaster Resilience for Extreme Climate Events providing Interoperable Data, Models, Communication and Governance Call HORIZON-CL3-2021-DRS-01 Topic HORIZON-CL3-2021-DRS-01-02 Type of action HORIZON Innovation Action Responsible service European Research Executive Agency Project starting date 01/10/2022 Project duration 4 Years Period covered 1 October 2022 - 30 September 2026 Deliverable due date 31 July 2023 Deliverable submission date 5 October 2023 Reviewed version Submission date 20 August 2024 Real World Labs description and setup 3 Document history Version Date Comment 1.0 11/08/2023 Initial Version 2.0 16/08/2023 For Internal Review 3.0 12/09/2023 Submission version 4.0 02/10/2023 Copy edit 5.0 04/10/2023 Final edit 6.0 20/08/2024 Revised for Internal Review 7.0 29/10/2025 Reworked version for upload to Zenodo Real World Labs description and setup 4 Executive summary This deliverable provides an overview of the Real World Labs (RWLs) established in different European regions for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), with focus on the stakeholder landscape, CCA and DRM challenges and setup process. Each RWL aims to address different challenges posed by climate change in its specific context and enhance resilience in the Study Area here identified and described. The report begins with an introduction, providing the background and context of the RWLs. It outlines the significance of DRM and CCA in mitigating climate-related risks and improving disaster preparedness. The RWL setup section is the core of the report and presents detailed information about each RWL. It covers four regions: the Capital Region of Denmark, Emilia-Romagna Region in Italy, the Danube Region (including Vienna, Austria; Budapest, Zala County, Hungary; Zala Region, Hungary; and Belgrade, Serbia), and the Rhine-Erft Region in Germany, and is structured in the following sections. For each RWL, the Study Area Definition and Stakeholder Landscape Analysis sections describe the geographical boundaries and characteristics (e.g., soil use and climatic conditions etc.), and involved stakeholders (including roles, responsibilities/influence in hazard governance and relations between them). The framing of CCA and DRM in each RWL section highlights observed climate change impacts and extreme events. It describes climate-related hazards in the study areas and identifies past recent events/experiences in CCA and DRR, furthermore it outlines the challenges faced in adapting to climate change impacts and reducing disaster risks and summarizes stakeholder expectations and improvements over the status quo. The RWL setup Process sections discuss the steps taken to initiate the RWLs, engage stakeholders (formally and informally to accommodate the heterogeneous landscape of organization involved), and analyses achievements and gaps in DRM and CCA. These processes are essential for improving communication, understanding among stakeholders, and enhancing existing governance structures. Finally, RWL’s Next Steps section outlines the plans for future actions, including summarizing results from stakeholder meetings, developing guidelines, conducting training sessions, and improving stakeholder’s panel. A recap of the key findings from this RWL setup activities is provided in the conclusions, together with a brief overview of the incoming activities that ground on this setup phase. This version of the Deliverable benefits forms internal review and from updates introduced with the Periodic Report up to M16, addressing up to that period received comments by review consolidated report received by mid July 2024 In the conclusions we will outline, beside progress achieved by the period covered in this report, also the timeline for the remaining WP 1 tasks, evidencing intermediate documents that will be used to track progresses along the way before the final report (D1.4) with Outcomes from RWL in multi-risk governance, expected in June 2026. Real World Labs description and setup 5 Table of Contents Report overview .................................................................................................................... 2 Document history .................................................................................................................. 3 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 4 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 5 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................... 7 Index of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 9 List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 10 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Background and context of the RWLs ................................................................... 11 2. The RWL Setup .............................................................................................................. 14 2.1 RWL 1 – The Capital Region of Denmark .................................................................. 14 2.1.1 RWL Study Area Definition and Stakeholder Landscape Analysis ................ 14 2.1.2 Framing CCA and DRR in the RWL ............................................................. 19 2.1.3 RWL setup Process, achievements and gaps .............................................. 20 2.1.4 RWL Next Steps ........................................................................................... 25 2.2 RWL 2 – The Emilia-Romagna Region ...................................................................... 27 2.2.1 RWL Study Area Definition and Stakeholder Landscape Analysis ....................... 27 2.2.2 Framing CCA and DRR in the RWL .................................................................... 35 2.2.3 RWL setup Process, achievements, and gaps .................................................... 37 2.2.4 RWL Next Steps.................................................................................................. 46 2.3 RWL 3 – Danube Region ........................................................................................... 47 2.1.5 2.3.1 RWL Study Area Definition and Stakeholder Landscape Analysis ....... 48 2.3.1.1 Vienna, Austria ................................................................................................. 49 2.3.1.2 Zala County, Hungary ...................................................................................... 53 2.3.1.3 Belgrade, Serbia .............................................................................................. 58 2.3.2 Framing CCA and DRR in the RWL .................................................................... 62 2.3.3 RWL setup Process, achievements and gaps ..................................................... 64 Real World Labs description and setup 6 2.3.4 RWL Next Steps.................................................................................................. 69 2.4 RWL 4 – The Rhine-Erft Region ................................................................................ 70 2.4.1 RWL Study Area Definition and Stakeholder Landscape Analysis ....................... 70 2.4.2 Framing CCA and DRR in the RWL .................................................................... 74 2.4.3 RWL setup Process, Achievements, and Gaps ................................................... 77 2.4.4 RWL Next Steps.................................................................................................. 78 2.5 RWLs summary table ................................................................................................ 78 4. Operationalization of RWLs ............................................................................................. 81 5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 89 Annex 1Stakeholders List ................................................................................................. 92 Annex 2 – letters ................................................................................................................. 93 Partners .............................................................................................................................. 94 Real World Labs description and setup 7 Table of Figures Figure 1:Overview map of the DIRECTED Real World Labs. .............................................. 11 Figure 2: Overview map of the Real World Lab 1 – The Capital Region of Denmark. .......... 14 Figure 3: The catchment area of Værebro Å. ...................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Map of municipalities and emergency management agencies around Værebro Å and Roskilde Fjord. .................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: The Flowchart shows the relations between the involved stakeholders. ............... 18 Figure 6: Example of the engagement process. .................................................................. 21 Figure 7: Overview map of the Real World Lab 2 – Emilia-Romagna Region. ..................... 27 Figure 8: Map of the Rimini coastline, showing the “linear city”. .......................................... 28 Figure 9: Shoreline setup during summer season. .............................................................. 29 Figure 10: Sea storm during tourist season along coastline. ............................................... 29 Figure 11: Fallen tree, during a summer storm event in Rimini in 2022. .............................. 30 Figure 12: Wildfire spreading nearby a region frequented by tourists in summer 2022. ....... 31 Figure 13: Relations between the involved stakeholders. .................................................... 35 Figure 14: First RWL 2 meeting in Bologna the 21st of March 2023. ................................... 38 Figure 15: Two moments of the Ferrara meeting with Stakeholders on the left the world cafè on governance, on the right the frontal presentations from partners on available data, networks, models, and tools. ............................................................................................... 40 Figure 16: Areas monitored by the Emilia-Romagna Civil Protection, activated on the SaferPlaces’ platform. ......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 17: Comparison between SaferPlaces simulation of high probability flooding areas and actual flooded areas in the "Borgo Durbecco" neighbourhood, Faenza. .............................. 44 Figure 18: Example of damage assessment through SaferPlaces platform. ........................ 45 Figure 19: Overview map of the Real World Lab 3 – Danube Region. ................................. 47 Figure 20: Rivers flowing to and through Vienna. ................................................................ 49 Figure 21: Main actors in the Austrian civil protection structure. .......................................... 50 Figure 22: Mudslides effect along roadways in the Zala Region. Photo courtesy of Zala Special Rescue Team...................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 23: Overview map of Zala County in Hungary. Depicting the regions river network and Lake Balaton. ...................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 24: Zala County engagement of civil defence organisations. .................................... 58 Real World Labs description and setup 8 Figure 25: Overview of Stakeholders involved in the Sector for Emergency Management in Serbia. ................................................................................................................................ 59 Figure 26: Map of Belgrade, Serbia. .................................................................................... 59 Figure 27: Overview map of the Real World Lab – Rhine-Erft Region. ................................ 71 Figure 28: Flowchart showing the relationships between the involved and contacted stakeholders. ...................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 29: Flood retention basin Horchheim before the flood in 2021. ................................. 75 Figure 30: Flood retention basin Horchheim during the flood in 2021. ................................. 76 Figure 31: The Erft region during the flood in 2021. ............................................................ 76 Figure 32: Example of the interactive Miro Board used to collect ongoing progresses of RWLs. ........................................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 33: A glimpse of the timeline for the next reporting activities in WP 1 linked to RWLs. ........................................................................................................................................... 91 Real World Labs description and setup 9 Index of Tables Table 1: Stakeholders involved organizations in the RWL 1. ............................................... 17 Table 2: Meetings calendar for RWL 1. ............................................................................... 23 Table 3: Stakeholders involved organizations in the RWL 2. ............................................... 33 Table 4: Meetings calendar for RWL 2. ............................................................................... 42 Table 5: Stakeholder overview Vienna. ............................................................................... 52 Table 6: Stakeholder overview Zala County. ....................................................................... 57 Table 7: Stakeholder overview Belgrade. ............................................................................ 61 Table 8: Meetings RWL 3 Vienna, Danube Region. ............................................................ 65 Table 9: Meetings RWL 3 Zala County, Danube Region. .................................................... 66 Table 10: Stakeholders involved and addressed in the RWL 4 Rhine-Erft Region. .............. 73 Table 11: Meetings RWL 4 Rhine-Erft Region. .................................................................... 77 Table 12: Gaps, difficulties, and expectations for each RWL. .............................................. 79 Table 13: Operationalization key points of each RWL. ........................................................ 83 Real World Labs description and setup 16 In Denmark, the primary responsibility for hazard governance lies within the municipalities and the emergency management agencies. To support their work—and in case of major disasters - there are the national emergency management as well as national governmental authorities who also enact laws and regulations. The regions (like Region Hovedstaden/the Capital Region of Denmark) are responsible for the health care sector in Denmark but do not have any other direct authority on CCA and DRR. However, the regions work with these matters through facilitation, coordination, and funding in regional development projects. There are also other stakeholders related to hazard governance which we elaborate on in section 2.1.4. Apart from the two partners – The Capital Region of Denmark and DTU—The following table points out the roles and responsibilities of each of the central stakeholders that have been involved in RWL 1 to date (as well as their primary interest in CCA or DRR). The subsequent flow chart in Figure 4 shows the relationships and interactions among all the stakeholders identified so far. As stakeholder engagement is an ongoing process the number of stakeholders will likely change during the project. Figure 4: Map of municipalities and emergency management agencies around Værebro Å and Roskilde Fjord. Real World Labs description and setup 17 Table 1: Stakeholders involved organizations in the RWL 1. ORGANIZATION GROUP PHASE OF DRM/CCA HAZARD COMMENTS Halsnæs Municipality Municipality CCA authority Sea-level rise, storm surges, pluvial flooding, heat/drought. Covers part of the coast towards Roskilde Fjord Frederikssund Municipality Municipality CCA authority Sea-level rise, storm surges, pluvial flooding, heat/drought. Covers part of the coast towards Roskilde Fjord Roskilde Municipality Municipality CCA authority Sea-level rise, storm surges, pluvial flooding, heat/drought. Covers part of the coast towards Roskilde Fjord Lejre Municipality Municipality CCA authority Sea-level rise, storm surges, pluvial flooding, heat/drought. Covers part of the coast towards Roskilde Fjord Egedal Municipality Municipality CCA authority Pluvial flooding, fluvial flooding, heat/drought, storm surges. Downstream of Værebro Å, no coast but can be affected by storm surges from Roskilde Fjord Frederiksborg Brand og Redning Emergency Management/Fi re Department First responders in DRM locally Floods and fire Covers five municipalities including Halsnæs, Frederikssund and Egedal. Roskilde Brand Emergency Management/Fi re Department First responders in DRM locally Floods and fire Covers only Roskilde Municipality Lejre Brandvæsen Emergency Management/Fi re Department First responders in DRM locally Floods and fire Covers only Lejre Municipality The Danish Emergency Management Agency National emergency management agency Responsible for DRR and DRM nationally “Disasters” Danish Meteorological Institute National weather and climate agency Meteorological knowledge, data and warnings on weather, climate, and sea. Both used in CCA/ DRM. All Is currently developing a new warning system for floods The Danish Coastal Authority National government agency for the coastal zone Regulation of the coastal zone in CCA Coast-related hazards Region Zealand Regional government No official role in CCA or DRM except for involvement of the health sector in DRM All Part of Roskilde Fjord and the municipalities are in Region Zealand. See flowchart below Real World Labs description and setup 18 Figure 5: The Flowchart shows the relations between the involved stakeholders. Real World Labs description and setup 19 2.1.2 Framing CCA and DRR in the RWL Climate related hazards and past events in the RWL Copenhagen and the surrounding Capital Region of Denmark are estimated to hold some of the highest flood damage risks amongst countries bordering the Baltic Sea. Due to climate change, changed rainfall patterns combined with a heightened frequency and intensity of cloudbursts are increasingly leading to overflows from streams and sewer systems, impacting densely populated and rural areas in the region. This was the case of the 2011 cloudburst event that caused insured losses of €655m in Copenhagen. Recently drought has emerged as another critical factor to consider (e.g., 2018) which CCA and DRR actors only have little experience with. The large and compound diversity of climate-related hazards combined with the exceptionally high concentration of people, valuable assets and critical infrastructure in the Capital Region of Denmark makes the challenges even greater. In 2013, storm Bodil (also known as storm Xavier, Sinterklaasstorm and Sven) caused the highest wind gusts ever recorded in Denmark hitting 135-153 km/h on the North Atlantic Coast and killing one person in Denmark and 19 people across Europe. It caused severe damage across the region due to winds, severe flooding, and coastal storm surges. The effect of Bodil was the strongest storm around Roskilde Fjord and the event required collaborations between many different actors. The event revealed several challenges, making a robust and adequate response harder to achieve. Some of the key points that challenged the emergency managements included uncertainty in data, dikes breaching, fires in flooded basements and communication barriers. The city of Roskilde experienced multiple cloud bursts in the summer of 2021 and 2022. The main challenges during these events included the lack of knowledge citizens have regarding who to contact in these types of situations. Both, the emergency management, Roskilde Brand, and Roskilde Municipality were getting a massive amount of phone calls from worried citizens, when in fact the right procedure would have been to phone the police. In both 2021 and 2022 the cloud bursts caused 100-year flood events, and hence it can be really challenging to explain to citizens how this type of event can happen two years in a row. As mentioned earlier the municipalities located downstream of Værebro Å have experienced floods from the river several times. One instance was in 2017 where the river had exceeded the riverbanks. This affected the local golf club and many landowners’ fields along the river. This had been a recurrent issue in the last ten or more years. Challenges in CCA and DRR in the RWL Through ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders and their participation in workshops, REGIONH and DTU have gathered initial inputs related to challenges regarding CCA and DRR in RWL 1.: ● In general, there is a need to enhance the alignment of data between the municipalities, including accessibility to each other’s measuring systems, preferably through one shared platform. ● Need for more precise prognoses/forecasts and warnings and including waves in such modelling. Other gaps and needs identified include: ● The lack of knowledge regarding risk areas in cities ● More political and public awareness is needed on CCA and DRM/DRR as the attention and memories from past events is quickly lost. ● Gap in communication directed towards the citizens regarding their own responsibility during an extreme event as well as how to best prepare before a storm hits. ● Limited focus on managed retreat as an option in CCA Real World Labs description and setup 20 ● Insufficient access to timely and precise data to support effective preparedness and response (e.g., vaccines of first responders, water-tubes being rolled out etc.) ● Need from both municipalities and emergency management agencies to have resources allocated to do (joint) preparedness drills. Summary of stakeholder expectations: The stakeholders have shown interest in several digital solutions that could enhance their work during extreme events. Both a common platform for data sharing and communication were among their wishes. But also, more locally specific, and precise data on forecasting would be beneficial according to the stakeholders. These are all factors DTU and REGIONH – in collaboration with the rest of the DIRECTED consortium – will continue to be in dialogue with the stakeholders about. An agreement was reached at the workshop on the 3rd of March on capacity building being essential. Hence, the idea of simulating an extreme weather event came up. All stakeholders have different levels of experience with emergency management and therefore being able to try it out in practice was highly praised. This is an idea that DTU and REGIONH will develop further, to strengthen local disaster resilience. 2.1.3 RWL setup Process, achievements and gaps Real World Lab 1 has apart from general mail and phone correspondence mainly engaged with its stakeholders in two ways; the workshop format and interview sessions with the stakeholders divided into smaller groups defined by their organisational connections. An initial two workshops were held in March 2023. It was originally planned as one but due to availability of the stakeholders involved the session had to be split in to two, with the smaller of those two due to the number of participants taking the shape of more of an interview than an actual workshop. The aim for both though was twofold. First, to get the stakeholders on board with the project, securing a willingness to use resources on participation and second, to gain an initial understanding of the stakeholders´ challenges and needs. The workshop had a fairly traditional agenda and setup with introductions to the aims and tools of DIRECTED followed by group sessions, where participants had the opportunity to debate the most pressing challenges with each other and the representatives from DIRECTED. The form was an open approach, giving the participants space to formulate any challenges or need according to their own view and then present them for group discussions. Real World Labs description and setup 21 Form wise, the second, smaller workshop was closer to a Q&A session given the fitted the number of participants better. The open form approach, with a personal reflection followed by group discussions to find the main challenges hands the participants a lot of room to form the outcome of the workshop. On one hand that ensures that the answers reflect what´s on (some of) the participants minds but on the other carries the risk that stronger or more passionate personalities will dominate the result. Later analysis of the answers received through the two sessions thus showed that the challenges and needs described mainly focused on the DRM side while challenges and needs around CCA and especially the connection between the two was less in focus. In order to get a fuller picture, the RWL has subsequently held a string of interview sessions built around the DRM´s and municipalities which are organisational tied to each other. To make sure to get around all sides of the collaboration between the entities and all possible challenges and needs a strict questionnaire addressing data/modelling, organisation and communication for each of the four parts of the DRM/CCA reaction cycle. Meetings with secondary stakeholders like The National Emergency Department following the same lines have also been held. Interviews were initially planned as face-to-face sessions but due to difficulties finding time for them, they were converted to online meetings. It did not however seem to hamper the engagement or minimize the value of the outcome. Hereafter a summary of the engagement process, encountered gaps, difficulties and first lessons learned is provided through short descriptions and bullet points. Stakeholder engagements Most of the engaged stakeholders were at first approached by email with a short description of the DIRECTED Project and why it was important for our work in RWL 1 to have them on board. In the same email stakeholders were invited to attend a short bilateral meeting. At these meetings REGIONH met up (online) with each individual stakeholder to give a more in-depth description of the project and what they could expect from the participation in the project. It was also at these bilateral meetings that the stakeholders were invited to the first official workshop in RWL 1. On the 3rd of March 2023 all stakeholders were invited to participate in a workshop held at the regional office of The Capital Region of Denmark. REGIONH facilitated the workshop together with DTU and supported by WP 3 and WP 4, focusing on mapping barriers and challenges in data/models, governance, and communication in both CCA and DRM. Other stakeholders to involve going forward were also mapped – see the flowchart above (Figure 4). After the workshop we sent out an email with meeting notes and letters of engagement for the stakeholders to sign. The letters are attached in Annex 1. Figure 6: Example of the engagement process. Real World Labs description and setup 22 As not all stakeholders were able to participate on the 3rd of March, we held a mini version of the workshop together with Roskilde Municipality and Roskilde Brand in May 2023 to be able to get their input as well. Gaps and Difficulties Scope of stakeholder engagement: When working in RWL 1 some gaps and difficulties have emerged, which we will have to address going forward. One of the dilemmas is the scope of stakeholder involvement. DRM and CCA are complex matters when it comes to who is involved. As mentioned earlier, we have engaged a variety of relevant actors and have also mapped out at least 16 more actors that could be relevant to include. The dilemma is how we make sure to include and invite all relevant stakeholders on board, while not making the scope way too big for the RWL. One approach is to keep the key stakeholders closely engaged while the more peripheral stakeholders will only be informed when relevant. We will also get support from WP 3 partners to guide us in limiting the broad stakeholder landscape within CCA and DRM in RWL 1. Time commitment from stakeholders: Another issue we are finding difficult is how much time we can ask for the stakeholders to put into the RWL 1 work. As they are not being financially supported and have other competing priorities. It is important that we find a good balance when it comes to the amount of work the stakeholders should put into this project. One way we have already addressed this, is by having a survey at the first RWL 1 workshop, where we asked about the desired or realistic level of participation. This gives us an idea about how much time we can plan for the stakeholders to engage. Translating between complex project and practice: Lastly, REGIONH wants to highlight the difficulty of being a non-technical practice orientated partner in a technical complex multidisciplinary project. This can be an issue when engaging with stakeholders, workshop facilitation and communication of the progress in RWL 1. To address this, ongoing “translation” is needed between the DIRECTED partners, so what is communicated to the stakeholders is aligned with what is possible within DIRECTED. Slowing down of activities: after the intensive work carried out with stakeholders around the Roskilde Fjord until summer 2023, we have not engaged that actively with them during the period of October 2023 to January 2024. This relative slowdown of activities in the fall-winter period was decided to use the time planning activities for 2024. The strategy follows the availability and the wishes of stakeholders, going through a three-step plan ranging from interviews with stakeholders over workshops to end up with a plan for a scenario play, enacting a potential disaster in the Roskilde Fjord area involving all relevant stakeholders in DRM and CCA. Real World Labs description and setup 23 Table 2: Meetings calendar for RWL 1. MEETING LOCATIO N/ ONLINE DATE (DD/MM/Y Y) PARTICIPANTS COMME NTS Bilateral introduction meetings with stakeholder s Online 05/01/23 - 20/01/23 The Danish Emergency Management Agency, Egedal Municipality, Frederikssund Municipality, Roskilde Brand, Halsnæs Municipality, Frederiksborg Brand og Redning, The Capital Region of Denmark RWL workshop Hillerød, Denmark (in person) 03/03/23 Egedal Municipality, Frederiksborg Brand og Redning, The Danish Emergency Management Agency, Frederikssund Municipality, Halsnæs Municipality, Region Zealand, Lejre Brandvæsen, REGIONH, DTU 17 participan ts in total Mini workshop Roskilde (in person) 02/05/23 Roskilde Brand, Roskilde Municipality, The Capital Region of Denmark, DTU Lessons learned. Some of the lessons we have learned so far and will make sure to incorporate going forward is to be open to future role play/scenario-based exercises for the next in-person workshop as well as be open to short online meetings (e.g., review stakeholder mapping, review models/data/tools) where we could use interactive platforms such as Miro 1 and Menti 2 . We also want to make sure to give space or probe participants who have no direct experience with emergency management, time to contribute and share at the workshops as they have the most to benefit/ learn from the process. It also important to be more precise about the relationship between extreme weather events and more longer-term CCA as some CCA stakeholders at the workshop were a bit unsure or hesitant to give input whenever the focus was high on extreme weather events. But this also reflects the value or importance of DIRECTED. We want to continue to promote that different stakeholders who would rarely be in the same room can have a space to interact and exchange knowledge at the RWL meetings. This is something we received positive feedback on at the first RWL 1 workshop.As summarized later on in chapter 2.5 hereafter we synthesize updated findings (by M16) on the main characteristics of RWL 1 on challenges to face, identified needs and specific remarks. Challenges and needs: Regarding challenges and needs the below are all identified in the area of Roskilde Fjord. Some are bigger and more complex than others and some hold more focus across the different stakeholders in the area than others. Not all of the challenges and needs will therefore necessarily be addressed in DIRECTED and if addressed not necessarily be addressed equally thorough. That will depend on a further process with the stakeholders. Data and Modelling Needs: 1. Emergency agencies rely on data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). There is a demand for more accurate forecasts given the high cost of mobilizing and 1 https://miro.com/ 2 https://www.mentimeter.com/ Real World Labs description and setup 24 deploying emergency resources. Specifically, the emergency services point towards a tendency to overestimate sea levels during events, which leads to unnecessary and costly measures in certain areas. 2. There is a desire for better models to assess the consequences of coupled events (high water levels in the Roskilde Fjord in combination with heavy rainfall and increased river discharge). In this scenario, the duration of the high-water levels in the fjord becomes important, as well as the capacity of pumps to pump water from the river to the fjord in areas where costal defence mechanisms such as sluice gates are in place. Additionally, there is a desire for waves height to be incorporated into warning systems. 3. Free models (Klimaatlas, GEUS nationale hydrologiske model) and private consultant mapping solutions like SCALGO are available to municipalities. More detailed and accurate models provided by consulting firms are generally more expensive, and thus not always used in climate adaptation plans. Collaboration with utility companies can be an option for municipalities to access more advanced models and data. 4. An accessible overview of climate tools and models, with a description of what they can do, where the data can be accessed, and from which source the data is retrieved from, would also be beneficial. 5. There is a desire among municipalities for additional local measuring points and weather stations to supply forecast information as an event unfolds. A common system enabling real-time data sharing across municipalities could be beneficial. 6. Not all the municipalities have designated GIS (Geographic Information System) employees. Some emergency agencies require pro-active maps sharing from municipalities. 7. Klimaatlas offers climate projections based on a low emissions scenario (RCP 2,6), a medium-high emissions scenario (RCP 4,5) and a high emissions scenario (RCP 8,5). It is not always clear which climate change scenario and time horizon should be considered for climate adaptation. There can be differences among municipalities. Organizational Needs: 1. Differing warning levels/systems among municipalities covered by the same emergency agency offer some potential for standardization. 2. Currently there’s no systematic coordination or communication mechanism in place between municipalities when formulating their emergency plans. Considering that storm surge and water course flooding impacts extend beyond administrative boundaries, it could make sense to promote dialogue and coordination among neighboring municipalities. 3. Roskilde Fjord is covered by two police districts (Nordsjællands Politi og Midt-og Vestsjællands Politi), emphasizing the coordination needs during a storm surge event impacting the whole fjord. In each of the country's 12 police districts, a local emergency response team (LBS) has been established under the leadership of the chief of police to coordinate emergency preparedness tasks. The police assume thus, the coordinating leadership when several authorities are involved in specific emergency response operations. To strengthen coordination between defence, police and other civilian authorities in the event of major crises in Denmark a national operational staff (NOST) was established in 2005. At the municipal level, it’s not always clear how coordination mechanisms across municipalities operate. A simulation event could be a useful preparedness exercise, which could be coordinated under the DIRECTED efforts, if an interest among the Real World Lab stakeholders exists. A preparedness exercise could help also mapping the resources required for such a simulation. 4. There can be to some extent a challenge when incidents occur on weekends and holidays when municipal employees may not be available. Some emergency agencies require pro-active information (updated contact lists, maps) sharing from municipalities during an emergency. 5. Some municipalities hope for new legislation addressing the distribution of protection responsibilities in vulnerable coastal areas highly exposed to storm surges. 6. To different extents municipalities carry out an evaluation after an emergency. There may be potential to develop a more systematic evaluation system among the actors involved in the recovery phase. Systematic data collection and analysis during the recovery phase can help guide future climate adaptation efforts. Real World Labs description and setup 25 7. A good dialogue between municipalities and emergency agencies is crucial. New climate adaptation interventions must be reported to the emergency services and reflected into emergency plans. Additionally, the experience on the ground from the emergency services should be capitalized in the municipality’s climate adaptation plans. Citizen involvement can also be used to gather experience and knowledge to guide climate adaptation measures at the municipal level. Communication Needs: 1. Since Bodil (2013) there have been training programs addressed to citizens on how to prepare themselves for the impacts of a storm (i.e., how to use sandbags to protect their homes). Additionally in June 2024, a water management centre opened in the Roskilde Fire Department to test new solutions and offer training to emergency services and volunteers. 2. Communication with citizens and adequately managing citizens' expectations during an emergency are crucial. It is important to ensure citizens understand their own responsibility during a storm as well as how they can best protect themselves, their properties, and assist their neighbours. In this sense, some municipalities believe they can strengthen their current communication systems and citizen guidance materials. 3. Municipalities could benefit from sharing good practices when elaborating communication materials addressed to citizens. Some emergency agencies have also valuable communication experience. 4. A common communication platform could be useful to gather information during emergencies impacting the whole fjord, alternatively, current communication systems and coordination could be strengthened to make sure everyone has access to the same knowledge and information at the same time. 5. Emergency agencies have a good cooperation but there might be opportunities to strengthen communication and dialogue during emergencies. This would require cooperation with the police districts. Other remarks: 1. Events and collective memory are essential regarding the amount of attention towards Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Management (DRM). It has been over ten years since the storm Bodil (2013), and hence people are starting to forget its impacts. Overall, there should be more political awareness and attention on Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management. 2. There is a lack of focus on retreat as a climate adaptation strategy. The focus is currently set on protective hard and mobile measures. An increase in the frequency and intensity of storms might however require alternative climate adaptation approaches. 3. Given the goal of Danish emergency services to reduce the use of clean water by at least 50% by 2030 it could be relevant to explore synergies with municipal climate adaptation plans. A possibility could be to consider whether there are potential locations for collecting rainfall surface water in reservoirs to be used by emergency agencies during, for example firefighting efforts. 4. Political priorities and economical restraints on both Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation are seen as factors restraining both municipalities and emergency services from addressing some of the needs described above. 2.1.4 RWL Next Steps A workshop will be held on the 20th of August 2024. The aim of it is to reach an agreement on which specific challenges and needs the stakeholders and DIRECTED should address in depth. The Storm surge of 2013 ‘Bodil’ is generally the reference point for any discussion on preparedness in the Roskilde Fjord area and for that reason the workshop will be kicked off with presentation of models made by DIRECTED simulating how a storm comparable to Bodil but plus the added consequences of climate change would play out in 2050. Along with the outcome of the interviews this will form the basis for a decision on what will specifically be worked with for the duration of DIRECTED. The workshop is also intended to be used to reach Real World Labs description and setup 32 prevention measures, fostering adaptation to changing risks of floods and wildfires, particularly regarding climate change. The following table points out the roles and responsibilities of each of the central stakeholder that we have involved in DIRECTED (as well as their primary task of either CCA or DRR) whereas the subsequent flow chart shows the relationships and interactions among all the stakeholders identified so far. Real World Labs description and setup 33 Table 3: Stakeholders involved organizations in the RWL 2. ORGANIZATI ON GROUP PHASE OF DRM/ CCA HAZARD COMMENTS Regional Protected Areas, Forests, and mountain areas development sector Regional Government CCA Forest Fire Regional Soil Defence Sector - Geology, Soils and Seismic Area Regional Government DRR Coastal Risk, hydrogeo logical Risk Covers the entire regional territory, uses data and models to support knowledge of hydrogeological risk and coastal risk Po Delta Parks and biodiversity management body National Government CCA Forest Fire Ferrara provincial civil protection voluntary coordination Provincial Government DRM ALL Supports emergency management in the province of Ferrara Rimini provincial civil protection voluntary coordination Provincial Government DRM ALL Supports emergency management in the province of Rimini Comacchio Municipality Municipal Government DRR/CC A ALL Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models Mesola Municipality Municipal Government DRR/CC A ALL Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models Riccione Municipality Municipal Government DRR/CC A ALL Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models Rimini Municipality Municipal Government DRR/CC A ALL Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the Real World Labs description and setup 34 ORGANIZATI ON GROUP PHASE OF DRM/ CCA HAZARD COMMENTS implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models Bellaria Igea Municipality Municipal Government DRR/CC A ALL Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models Misano Adriatic Municipality Municipal Government DRR/CC A ALL Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models Cattolica Municipality Municipal Government DRR/CC A ALL Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models HERA SPA Essential services Provider Municipal competent authority, is the first entity that responds to emergencies in competence and is responsible for the implementation of the municipal civil protection plan, uses data and models Biodiversity Police National Government DRR/CC A Forest Fire Romagna Reclamation consortium DRR/CC A Hydraulic Risk Manages the minor artificial hydraulic network of the plain in the Romagna area, supports emergency management, uses data and models Riviera del Conca Civil Protection operative centre Municipal Government DRM ALL Inter-municipal civil protection operations centre for the municipalities of Cattolica, Coriano, Misano Adriatico, Riccione, San Giovanni in Marignano Real World Labs description and setup 35 2.2.2 Framing CCA and DRR in the RWL The region is susceptible to a multitude of natural hazards including extreme rainfall events, marine ingressions, coastal erosion and wildfires. The dominant erosive phenomena and the morphological structure of the territory make a large part of the coastline prone to marine ingression, which is exacerbated by the rising sea levels and increasing frequency and intensity of extremes. The risk of flooding is widespread and particularly high during compound events and extreme marine-weather events. It is aggravated by the inefficiency and/or inadequacy of urban drainage systems in some places. Some data, in detail: ● FLOOD RISK: 45.7% areas with average danger of the regional total. ● COASTAL RISK: 135 km of coastline, 77 km of coastline protected by banks, works in progress. Likewise, the risk of wildfires is particularly high during summer as forests and densely populated residential areas are highly co-located along the coastline, 25% of the regional territory is covered by forests. About 95% of the forest areas of Emilia-Romagna are hilly and mountainous and are potentially at risk of forest fires. Looking at past recent events/experiences in CCA and DRR a short summary of relevant events identified with stakeholders is provided hereafter (Marine weather reference events related to marine ingression): Meteo-marine events ● February 2015, the entire coastline of the region was affected. ● September 17, 2022, the entire coastline of the region was affected. ● November 22, 2022, Provinces of Ferrara, Ravenna, and Forlì-Cesena ● 20-21 January 2023, the entire coastline of the region was affected. Figure 13: Relations between the involved stakeholders. Real World Labs description and setup 36 Particularly intense phenomena, some of which were prolonged events, caused critical conditions and damages on a large part of the regional coastal territory. These were events characterized by high water conditions with particularly significant values which caused damage to bathing facilities and flooding of the urban coastal strip. Windstorms ● 2 August 2019 and 17 September 2022, the entire coastline of the region was affected. These seasonally frequent events, reoccurring with distinct spatial and temporal patterns; are phenomena that develop above all in the summer season and have caused various damages especially to the bathing facilities. Thunderstorms/heavy rainfall ● June 24, 2013, several municipalities in the province of Rimini and in particular the city of Rimini The June 24, 2013, storm caused rainfall of over 120 mm in one hour and over 90 mm in half an hour with various damages in most of the City of Rimini, flooding canals and the sewage system. Several challenges are faced in adapting to climate change impacts and reducing disaster risks. For all events associated with weather phenomena such activity is assessed daily. In collaboration with the functional centre of Arpae, the portal ALLERTAMETEO https://allertameteo.regione.emilia-romagna.it/is guaranteed to operate 24 hours a day. It contains information on alerts and weather reports, real-time updates on the evolution of events, forecasts, data, and advice in case of risks. The campaigns against forest fires are planned and managed between the regional system (ARSTPC, Fire brigades, Law enforcement, Volunteers, ARPAE). A challenge for local governance of disaster risks is the limited ability to coordinate and support multiple stakeholders in both early warning and when planning climate change mitigation and adaptation. The lack of capacity building and cultural awareness among multiple stakeholders concerning climate change threats, currently seems to be a critical barrier in implementing integrated DRR and CCA strategies. Involved stakeholder expectations, as captured so far include: ● There is great interest in updating the Civil Protection Plan where benefits from the DIRECTED activities and data, models and tools may be useful. ● Providing interconnected observed data in real time, which is currently missing. ● Potential exploitation and integration of HERA Spa monitoring system (Rada and Sea Level station) To Strengthen emergency coordination a few potential actions have been identified: ● Share, among the various actors involved in the project (Hera, Reclamation Consortium, Municipalities), the gauging stations monitoring network and the forecast modelling network to evaluate them and possibly integrate them with the current forecasting and regional emergency management system. ● Develop platforms and tools for data acquisition. Being able to identify a protocol of actions that return information/data, through an automated tool or an App, a website by implementing Citizen Science actions, involving, for example, citizens and schools. ● Greater information, training and dissemination on the danger associated with risks through billboards also in bathing establishments. Prefer presence mode information and training activities. ● Organize exercises for coastal risk management. Real World Labs description and setup 37 To summarize identified CAA and DRR challenges in the 2 areas: -The Rimini coastline, forming a 'linear city,' faces significant marine ingression and erosion risks, especially during spring and summer seasons characterized by high tourism activities. The area experiences frequent heavy rains and high tides, leading to widespread flooding. -The Ferrara area, including the municipalities of Comacchio and Mesola, addresses significant wildfire risks due to dense forest areas and high tourist influx during the summer months. The “Bosco Mesola” forest represents a critical risk management point due to its proximity to residential and tourist zones. Key challenges include managing wildfire risks during peak tourist seasons and coordinating various stakeholders for effective emergency response and communication. 2.2.3 RWL setup Process, achievements, and gaps The first activity made to set up the RWL 2 Emilia-Romagna was an initial stakeholder mapping carried out together with the civil protection offices present in the provincial territories. Subsequently, direct contacts were made and after acquiring their affirmative answers we proceeded with the formal sending of a request to participate in the project. Following this first email exchange, we received formal acceptance of participation in the project and the engagement letter from the entities contacted, which we then forwarded to the project coordinator. We invited the stakeholders engaged to the first RWL 2 Meeting, organized in Bologna on 21 March 2023, with roughly 40 participants in presence online. In this context the Project was presented, introducing it to stakeholders thanks to the partners involved in the lab. We gained preliminary feedback on actual data, tools, policies, and models for DRR and CCA. In addition, we gained a first insight into users’ practical interests in the project, in a roundtable discussion. Real World Labs description and setup 38 Figure 14: First RWL 2 meeting in Bologna the 21st of March 2023. Real World Labs description and setup 39 The first meeting outlined some key aspects related to emergency management in EmiliaRomagna, focusing on specific case studies, forecasting models, and identified challenges. For Case Study 1Rimini Coast, attention was placed on emergency management identifying hazards (pluvial and coastal flooding), and how current masterplans map this hazard. For Case Study 2: Ferrara Coast - Comacchio and Mesola Municipalities –stress was put on the (wildfire) hazard characterization and prevention/information (to be enhanced) measures, outlining actual resources devoted to this activity and on existing datasets of past events. Discussion touched the actual availability of public datasets, forecasting tools, and models behind for weather and climate variables of potential interest publicly available. Pre-alarm, and alarm phases were discussed, also outlining the actions and resources involved in each phase. Before the roundtable, an overview was provided to participants on the variety of tools and models that the DIRECTED project can provide (e.g., SaferPlaces, RIMurban, CAIMAN, CLIMADA) and that are available for upstream services (e.g., Copernicus Climate Data Store). The roundtable identified the need to increase prevention activities for forest fires, integrating monitoring networks, and creating platforms for data acquisition. The importance of information and education for the population was emphasized. Interest raised for possible usage of innovative tools in the incoming Civil Protection Plan and for local activities across the emergency (see for example box 1). All in all, this meeting provided an in-depth look at emergency management related to coastal risks and forest fires in Emilia-Romagna. Discussions highlighted the importance of forecasting models, the need for integrated monitoring networks, and the urgency of information and education for an effective response to emergencies. Interesting proposals were also presented to address the challenges identified in the emergency management process. Hereafter a summary of gaps and difficulties and first lessons learned during the setup phase. Concerning gaps and difficulties, the setup phase was slower than expected given the high number of organizations involved, and some of them have not been involved so far. Particularly, now, it has not been possible to involve the Firefighters and Prefectures in the RWL for reasons related to priority activities that require the involvement of all their resources. During the first meeting a few practical challenges were raised such as difficulty in reaching the "last mile" in forecasting plans, delays in observed data during events, and a lack of data along the coast. Issues with instrument placement and data timing were also raised. Moreover, after the first meeting an extreme flood occurred in the Region (in May 2023) stopping de facto for months all the activities of the lab as most participants were involved in emergency and post event recovery actions. This delay of planned activities led to rescheduling the second meeting (initially planned before summer) to the end of September. By the time of this report a preliminary agenda and a place for physical meeting have been rearranged and invitation have been sent to the stakeholders. Besides that, the event offered a unique opportunity to test the SaferPlaces’ platform, one of the tools offered by DIRECTED for supporting real-time emergency management and post event operation of the Civil Protection Agency, further explained in box 1. Some lessons have been learned from this first round of interaction with stakeholders, despite mentioned difficulties and delays. The following key messages were identified for the incoming work in the RWL, both for local and regional level stakeholders: Local Stakeholders ● Support to Municipal Emergency Planning ● Improve the timing of data availability for real-time risk scenarios. ● Importance of informing and training citizens – more effective than present ● Importance of constant dialogue between all actors of the civil protection system ● Importance of good communication in early warning Real World Labs description and setup 40 Regional Stakeholders ● Interest in SaferPlaces real-time scenarios tool, need to use suitable input data. ● Importance of the historical event analysis, collection of information related to the events occurred from the various involved parties is fundamental, the need to improve the collection method. After this first introductory activity a second, in-person meeting with stakeholders has been organized after the summer break, to focus on both governance processes and available data, networks, models, and tools. It is a practical examples of the stakeholder engagement process and took place in Ferrara on 28 September 2023, it was organized by ARSTPC-ER and GECOSistema srl; Arpae was present as partners of the project, and the Municipalities of the test areas took part: Comacchio and Mesola (FE) for the risk of forest fires; Rimini and Riccione, on the Rimini coast, for coastal risk; the multi-services provider (Hera) and the Coordination of the voluntary civil protection associations of Ferrara and Rimini. Coordination of the voluntary civil protection is composed by a large number of civil associations as reported in ( 3 ). During the morning, the activity focused on the discussion between the subjects involved on the following topics: territorial context, governance (actors) of the alert and emergency management processes, technical tools available and communication procedures in use. To optimize sharing between participants, the world café participation technique was used. The work of "Analysis of the governance process of the Disaster Risk Reduction - DDR - and Climate Change Adaption CCA" was carried out in two tables coordinated by the officials of the Regional Agency, one table on the risk of forest fires and table two on the coastal risk. Furthermore, a webinar was organized on the 20th of November 2023, with the Stakeholders previously involved in the second Workshop of Ferrara. The webinar focused and deep dived further on data and tools for risk management and adaptation in the two pilots cases (Italian video record available here). These 2 events saw participation of stakeholders among which the municipalities and the citizens association of volunteers of civil protection of both Rimini and Ferrara plus the multiutility HERA and the Region Emilia-Romagna 3 https://coorprocivrn.it/associazioni/ ; https://www.cavpcfe.it/associazioni/ Figure 15: Two moments of the Ferrara meeting with Stakeholders on the left the world cafè on governance, on the right the frontal presentations from partners on available data, networks, models, and tools. Real World Labs description and setup 41 This and others examples of activities have been documented using Miro Board interactive tool (See) to access minutes, presentations and discuss outcomes inside WP 1 as done with other labs (full Miro accessible here ). Finally Box1 synthetizes the application, occurred between the first and the second meeting, of the SaferPLACES platform (one the tools available in Directed ) with Civil Protection Agency of Emilia-Romagna, to improve flood emergency management during and post event , showcasing the real world application during the extreme events that hit the Region between the 16th and 18th of May 2023. The complete, meeting calendar is reported in the following table. Real World Labs description and setup 48 2.1.5 2.3.1 RWL Study Area Definition and Stakeholder Landscape Analysis Due to the sheer size of the Danube River Basin, three test sites were initially selected to be analysed during DIRECTED for their disaster preparedness and measures to avert adverse climate change impacts. The focus is on the city of Vienna in Austria, the Zala Region in Hungary and (initially) also Belgrade in Serbia (although this last one has been excluded as described later on). Before diving into the description of the test sites, we provide hereafter a brief overview of EU Disaster Protection Regulations and Flood Protection Initiatives in the Danube Region. The European Union has established comprehensive disaster protection and flood management frameworks applicable to the Danube Region, aiming to enhance resilience against natural disasters, particularly flooding. Here's a succinct overview: 1. EU Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) The UCPM provides a coordinated response framework for disasters, including floods, across EU member states. It includes: ● Coordination and Support: The EU facilitates coordination among member states and provides financial assistance for disaster relief efforts. ● Disaster Response Modules: Specialized teams from member states that can be rapidly deployed to disaster zones. ● Early Warning Systems: Systems like the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) provide early warnings and forecasts for floods. 2. EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) This directive mandates member states to adopt a systematic approach to flood risk management, including: ● Risk Assessment: Countries must assess flood risks and identify areas prone to flooding. ● Flood Risk Management Plans: Plans that outline measures for risk reduction, preparedness, protection, and emergency response. ● Cross-border Cooperation: Encourages collaboration among countries, especially in shared river basins like the Danube. 3. International Cooperation: International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) The ICPDR is an intergovernmental organization that coordinates flood protection efforts among Danube basin countries, focusing on: ● Coordinated Flood Management: Developing and implementing joint flood management strategies. ● Data Sharing: Facilitating the exchange of hydrological and meteorological data. ● Flood Risk Management Plans: Formulating transnational flood risk management plans, aligning with the EU Floods Directive. 4. EU Funding Mechanisms The EU provides financial support for disaster and flood protection through various funds, including: Real World Labs description and setup 49 ● Cohesion and Structural Funds: These funds support infrastructure projects aimed at increasing resilience to floods. ● EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF): Offers financial assistance to member states following major natural disasters, including floods. These EU policies and initiatives emphasize a proactive and collaborative approach to managing flood risks. They are designed to protect people, the environment, and infrastructure across the Danube Region, fostering a more resilient and prepared community. 2.3.1.1 Vienna, Austria Vienna, which covers an area of 415 km2 in total, is traversed by the Danube River, the second largest river system in Europe. Climate change projections indicate an increase in temperature as well as shifts in precipitation patterns, with an increased risk of extreme weather events in the future. The City of Vienna lies on the banks of the Danube River and overlaps the downstream part of the Vienna River Basin, which contributes to the potential for significant water accumulation and run-off. Rapid snow melt or heavy rainfall events in the upstream mountainous region, mostly in spring or early summer, regularly cause a rise in water levels, potentially resulting in localized or even widespread flooding but are well controlled by dikes, retention basins as well as the Danube Channel to mitigate damage by flooding. In addition to flood risk, Vienna is vulnerable to droughts. The region regularly experiences periods of reduced precipitation as well as increased evaporation, which causes the levels of the Danube and tributaries to sink and potentially affect agriculture more strongly than fluvial and pluvial flooding. Figure 20: Rivers flowing to and through Vienna. Real World Labs description and setup 50 Vienna’s flood and drought risk management landscape is a diverse network of both public authorities and private institutions and organizations active at national, regional, and local levels. The government of Vienna is responsible for developing and implementing protection policies and infrastructure projects. Environmental agencies and water management authorities also collaborate closely to monitor water levels and implement warning systems. On a national level, various authorities such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology are involved in the development of comprehensive protection plans. Hereafter we provide an overview of Disaster Protection Structures in Austria with a Focus on Vienna, Including Civil Protection and Flood Management Austria's disaster protection system, which includes civil protection and flood management, is structured across multiple administrative levels. The system emphasizes prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery, coordinated by specific institutions. 1. National Level ● Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI): Manages overall coordination of disaster protection, including civil protection, at the national level. This includes policy development, emergency planning, and coordination of federal resources. ● Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management (BML): Responsible for flood management policies, water resource management, and related infrastructure. ● National Security Council: Advises the government on security-related matters, including civil protection. Figure 21: Main actors in the Austrian civil protection structure. Real World Labs description and setup 51 ● Disaster Relief Service (Katastrophenhilfsdienst, KHD): Operates within the Austrian fire brigades, focusing on disaster response, including search and rescue and technical assistance. 2. State Level ● State Governments: Each federal state, including Vienna, has its disaster protection structures, including civil and flood protection plans, coordinated by the state government. ● State Warning Centers: These centers are pivotal for disseminating information and coordinating responses during emergencies, including floods. ● State Disaster Relief Services: Coordinate local efforts, provide resources, and support municipalities in disaster response. 3. Local Level (Vienna City) ● City of Vienna's Magistrate, Department for Crisis Management and Disaster Protection (MA 68): Central agency responsible for the coordination and implementation of disaster protection, including civil and flood protection, in Vienna. The department develops emergency response plans and oversees their execution. ● Vienna Professional Fire Brigade (part of MA 68): Main operational unit for disaster response, including firefighting, technical rescue, and flood management. ● District Authorities and District Emergency Management: These local bodies support the implementation of disaster protection measures and ensure coordination within the city's districts. 4. Support from Organizations ● Austrian Red Cross, Workers' Samaritan Federation, Johanniter, Malteser, Malteser Hospitaldienst Austria, Mountain Rescue: Provide critical services such as medical care, emergency shelter, and logistical support during disasters. ● Volunteer Fire Brigades and other volunteer organizations: Play a crucial role, particularly in rural areas, offering additional manpower and expertise during largescale disasters. 5. Early Warning and Information Systems ● Katwarn, HORA and more: These systems are used to alert and inform the public to potential dangers, including natural disasters like floods, and provide guidance on protective actions. The disaster protection system in Austria, particularly in Vienna, is characterized by a wellcoordinated interplay of national, regional, and local authorities, with a clear focus on civil protection and flood management. The involvement of volunteer organizations and the public enhances the resilience and preparedness of communities across the country. Real World Labs description and setup 52 Table 5: Stakeholder overview Vienna. ORGANIZATION GROUP PHASE OF DRM/CCA HAZARD Viadonau.org Regional DRM Flood Red Cross Austria National DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake Disaster Risk Management - Salzburg Regional DRM Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake VVÖ – Insurance Association Austria National DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake, Hail Uniqa – Insurance National DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake, Hail VIG - Insurance Internation al DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake, Hail GeneraliInsurance Internation al DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake, Hail University of Natural Resources and Life SciencesBOKU National DRM/CCA Flood, Drought European Commission/ JRC Internation al DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake, Hail Central Institute for Meteorology and Geothermal Energy (ZAMG) National DRM Flood, Drought, Storm, Earthquake, Hail Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions, and Water Management National CCA Drought, Flood, Hail, Storm Real World Labs description and setup 53 2.3.1.2 Zala County, Hungary Zala County, situated in the southwestern region of Hungary, exhibits a diverse and intriguing geographical composition. The terrain is characterized by undulating hills and low mountains, creating a visually captivating landscape. The topography is a result of tectonic and erosional processes over geological time scales, shaping the county's distinct features. The county has very significant agricultural cropping and production. The road network is of average quality. The region has a very scattered village structure: Zala County has one of the highest proportions of settlements in terms of territory: it is made up of a fragmented number of small villages, with a few towns that have been established as major regional hubs. There are almost 300 settlements in the county. Many of the small settlements are spread over a large area of intensively farmed land with varied topography. This is where extreme rainfall caused by climate change has hit: in recent years, unprecedented mudslides have developed in the county: floods wash muddy soil from agricultural land into the public areas, residential yards, and road networks of small, populated settlements, causing significant erosion of agricultural land and a constant challenge for water and disaster management professionals involved in the cleaning up and remediation of damage. The mud blocks drains, floods ditches and damages paving and asphalt roads. The water authority's staff have not yet devised a permanent solution to this new type of threat: it is likely that protective structures and changes in cultivation methods will have to be introduced in several areas of the county to reinforce natural water retention and thus slow down the speed and flow of the water, and to divert floodwater away from populated areas. Figure 22: Mudslides effect along roadways in the Zala Region. Photo courtesy of Zala Special Rescue Team. Real World Labs description and setup 54 To the southwestern edge of Zala County lies the renowned Lake Balaton, a large freshwater lake formed during the Quaternary period. The presence of Lake Balaton has a significant influence on the local climate, creating a moderating effect on temperature and fostering unique ecological conditions in the surrounding areas. The county is traversed by the meandering Zala River, which has played a vital role in shaping the fluvial landscape of the region. The river's hydrological dynamics have contributed to the formation of fertile floodplains and wetland habitats, supporting diverse flora and fauna. Kis-Balaton, an expansive wetland area, is situated to the south of Lake Balaton, designated as a protected nature reserve of high ecological importance. This wetland ecosystem provides a sanctuary for various bird species, making it a site of interest for ornithologists and conservationists. The county's thermal springs and geothermal activity can be attributed to its location within the Pannonian Basin, known for its geological subsidence and heat flow. These natural hot springs have led to the development of numerous thermal spas, making Zala County a popular destination for wellness tourism. Lake Balaton, situated in the western part of Hungary, is a large shallow lake with a surface area of 605 km2 (official data) and an average depth of 3.6 m. The shape of the lake is slender with a length of 77.8 km and a width of 7.7 km on average. The narrowest point is the Tihany Strait. Here the accelerated lake current erodes the bottom sediment to more than 10 m depth. The catchment area of the lake is 5,188 km2 excluding the surface of the lake itself. Out of the Figure 23: Overview map of Zala County in Hungary. Depicting the regions river network and Lake Balaton. Real World Labs description and setup 55 many water courses that enter the lake River Zala is the most significant, contributing 45 % of the catchment area. The southern shore is characterised by a gently deepening, velvety quicksand due to its lotic conditions. Reed belts cover major parts of the southern shore and the area around Keszthely Bay. Due to its shallow waters the lake responds quickly to changes in air temperature and solar radiation. During the summer it is not rare that the water temperature exceeds 25  C, while in winter the lake freezes. For management purposes the lake is usually subdivided into four basins, namely Keszthely-, Szigliget-, Szemesand Sifok, from west to east. The Sió or Sió-csatorna (Sió-Channel) is a fully regulated river in midwest Hungary. It is the eastward outlet of Lake Balaton at Siófok. It flows into the river Danube near the city of Szekszárd. Sió flows through the Hungarian counties Somogy, Fejér and Tolna, its main tributaries are Kapos from the right and Sárvíz from the left. It is 124 km long and its basin size is 14,693 km2. The drainage basin of Sió (including Balaton) covers more than a third of Transdanubia. Its average discharge at the mouth is 39 m3/s (1,400 cu ft/s). Two major areas can be distinguished in terms of the importance and the tasks of the RWL: the intensification of excessive water and flooding, storms, and the more prolonged drought in winter, spring and summer, the lack of water and the resulting forest and bush fires. Zala County, located in southwestern Hungary, possesses diverse and fascinating hydrogeographical features. The county is traversed by several important rivers, with the Zala River being the most significant. This river is a tributary of the Danube and plays a crucial role in the regional hydrological system. Additionally, smaller streams and creeks crisscross the county, contributing to the overall drainage network. Wetlands and Lakes: The region is home to various wetlands and shallow lakes, which support a rich diversity of plant and animal species. These wetlands act as essential habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife, making Zala County a significant ecological hotspot. Karst Landscapes: In some parts of the county, karst landscapes are prevalent. Karst refers to a topography formed by the dissolution of soluble rocks, such as limestone, resulting in unique landforms like sinkholes, caves, and underground rivers. Groundwater Resources: Zala County's hydrogeological conditions are favourable for groundwater accumulation. As a result, groundwater plays a crucial role in supplying water for various human activities, including agriculture and public consumption. Monitoring and addressing the impacts of drought and flood events in Zala County require a combination of sustainable water management practices, Climate Change Adaptation strategies, and community awareness. Local authorities and stakeholders need to work together under the umbrella cooperation of the RWL to develop resilience against these natural hazards and protect the well-being of the region's inhabitants and ecosystems. The development of a county climate strategy, and even more so its implementation, requires a broad county-wide cooperation, which is primarily due to two reasons. Firstly, climate change affects almost the whole of the county's society, economy, natural environment, and infrastructure, thus requiring the involvement of representatives of the institutions concerned, and secondly, the Zala Regional Council, as the developer and adopter of the climate strategy, does not have the powers to fully implement the planned measures. Action and adaptation to climate change must therefore be a shared concern of the people, farmers, entrepreneurs, and workers in the county. It cannot be denied that the tasks relating to climate change, their content, and the order of priority between them may be perceived differently by the various stakeholders, institutions, and organisations in the county. This fact underlines the importance of dialogue and professional debate, which is one of the key challenges for the future. In 2017, the Zala County Climate Change Platform was established as a forum for countylevel discussions and debates on climate change. The Platform was a result of previous grant funding that has already addressed climate change at county level through a short-lived collaboration. Based on the minutes that have been preserved, it is envisaged that we will recontact the partners that were previously involved in the Climate Change Platform because they initiated a dialogue that could not go further due to the level of expertise available, beyond the production of a written document. As a result, the meetings and the professional forum ceased. Real World Labs description and setup 56 At the end of the paragraph a list of higher education and public administration institutions, scientific, advocacy and civil society organisations represented is provided. Furthermore, as climate change is a wider issue, more organisations have been consulted in addition to the members of the Climate Change Platform in the development of the climate strategy (full list at the end of the paragraph). Current flood protection measures A total of six protection depots are maintained and operated on the territory of the Directorate. A yearly revision of security stocks and security equipment is carried out. The materials and equipment stored in the warehouse are available in the quantities required for flood protection in the protection sections. In total, around 238,000 bags are stored in emergency warehouses and 11 large and 22 small mobile pumps with generators are available in case of flood events. A group of 56 dam guards, 13 machine operators and 30 technical managers are involved in the protection. In the event of major floods, the Directorate cannot deploy enough of its own staff to deal with the major protection works in its area of operation, and may therefore need to call on external resources, technical equipment, and transport vehicles. The availability of external forces and equipment will be ensured through cooperation agreements. Due to the topography of the area in which it operates, flood events occur quickly, so mainly partners, civil engineering companies and transport companies operating in the region are expected to help with the protection work, which is made possible by cooperation agreements. List of consulted organizations The following higher education and public administration institutions, scientific, advocacy and civil society organisations represented: University of Pannonia Nagykanizsa Campus; Pannon University Mechatronics Training and Research Institute, Zalaegerszeg; Budapest University of Economics, Faculty of Business Administration, Zalaegerszeg; University of Pécs, Faculty of Health Sciences; Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for Economics and Regional Sciences (MTA KRTK), Institute of Regional Studies, West-Hungary Department, Győr; Social and Child Protection Directorate General, Zala County Branch; National Chamber of Agriculture, Zala County Directorate; Zala County Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Hungarian Agri-Environmental Association; Green Zala Nature Protection Association; Kaán Károly Environmental Protection Association; Alternatíva Naturbarát Egyesület; IMRO-DDKK Nonprofit Ltd. Keszthely Environmental Protection Association; Association of Climate Friendly Settlements. Organisations consulted in addition to the members of the Climate Change Platform in the development of the climate strategy: Balaton-Highlands National Park Directorate; Balaton Integration Ltd.; Délzalai Vízés Csatornamű Zrt.; Hévíz Spa and Szent András Rheumatology Hospital; Lenti Gygyfürdő Kft.; Nyugat-Dunántúli Vízügyi igazgatóság; National Hungarian Hunting Association of Zala County; Ernő Sos Water Technology Research and Development Centre; Zalaerdő Zrt.; Zala County Care Unified Social Institution; Zala County Disaster Management Directorate; Zala County Government Office, Public Health Department; Zala County St. Rafael Hospital; Zalavíz Zrt. Real World Labs description and setup 57 Table 6: Stakeholder overview Zala County. ORGANIZATION GROUP PHASE OF DRM/CCA HAZARD West Transdanubia Water Directorate water treatment and management DRM/CCA Flood, Drought Association of Volunteer Firefighters Fire prevention, fire rescue, etc. – Regional DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Hail Zala County Territorial Protection Committee Territorial protection and administration – Regional DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm MouldTech Systems Tech-company – Regional DRM/CCA Flood, Drought City of Nagykanizsa Local municipality – Regional DRM Flood, Drought, Storm, Hail Municipality of Zala County County municipality – Regional DRM Flood, Drought, Storm, Hail Hungarian Road Department Road Operator – Regional DRM Flood, Drought, Storm, Hail City of Zalaegerszeg Local municipality - Regional DRM Flood, Drought, Storm, Hail Zalaerdö PLc. Forest Management, Woodwork – Regional DRM/CCA Drought National Association for Radio Emergency and Info communications professional activity -related to the enhancement of road traffic and water safety – National DRM Flood, Drought, Storm, Hail EDER STT Special Tank Transport hazardous material transfer, ADR – National DRM Flood, Drought, Storm Zala County Disaster Management Directorate Disaster management – National DRM/CCA Flood, Drought, Storm, Hail Town of Keszthely Local Municipality – Regional DRM Flood, Drought, Storm Real World Labs description and setup 64 2.3.3 RWL setup Process, achievements and gaps The development of the RWL Danube Region started with a basic analysis of the structures of disaster management dealing with potential consequences of climate change on the national level of the country. Here, major differences between the Danube riparian states were identified. Stakeholders were primarily contacted by phone and email and then informed about DIRECTED whenever possible in person or by video call. The focus regions of the analysis regarding the level of disaster management and adaptation for adequate climate change management are Vienna, Austria, the Zala Region near Budapest. However, all countries located in the Danube basin shall be analysed within the next months that a basic understanding of their preparedness for the consequences of climate change and Disaster Risk Management can be given. The Future Danube Model 4 will serve as central tool for the analysis and communication of climate change impact on hydrological extremes in the region. The main difficulty in stakeholder recruitment was and is the language barrier, as speaking English as a second language is not as common in the Eastern European countries of the Danube River Basin as it is in the Western European countries. This results in the need to either obtain the necessary information via an external native speaker in each country or to work with an interpreter. Both options are time-consuming and costly compared to communication in English. Since our project partner Levente Huszti is a native Hungarian, it was natural to analyse disaster management in Hungary in more detail. Likewise, our existing contacts in the research and insurance industry in Serbia were used to gain insights into the management situation there. Despite these locally, regionally, and nationally well-connected contacts, it turned out to be more difficult than expected to get the requested information in the desired time frame. On the one hand, we were told that the time it takes to receive a response from state institutions in Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Moldova, Serbia, and Romania are sometimes weeks and that patience, and a lot of time are necessary. On the other hand, the public and political awareness of the necessity to deal with climate change and its consequences tends according to initial research to not be as distinctive as in more western countries like Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, and Hungary. In the western Danube riparian countries there is high awareness of the need to understand climate change and to preventively combat negative consequences, pronounced and promoted by a variety of EU initiatives. The awareness and access to financial resources provided by the countries for these measures decreases steadily, the further one analyses the Danube states towards the east. As such, experiences of managing risk can be exchanged between eastern and western Danube countries. According to initial research, reasons for this fundamentally different perception of climate change may also be related to the level of technological development, political system, and general level of education of the population. This divergence will enable learning through exchange of knowledge around models/ tools, governance, and communication processes to develop contextually appropriate DRR/ CCA solutions. 4 Hattermann, F. F., Wortmann, M., Liersch, S., Toumi, R., Sparks, N., Genillard, C., Schröter, K., Steinhausen, M., Gyalai-Korpos, M., Máté, K., Hayes, B., del Rocío Rivas López, M., Rácz, T., Nielsen, M. R., Kaspersen, P. S., & Drews, M. (2018). Simulation of flood hazard and risk in the Danube basin with the Future Danube Model. Climate Services, 12, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018.07.001 Real World Labs description and setup 65 Vienna Meetings Table 8: Meetings RWL 3 Vienna, Danube Region. MEETING LOCATION/ ONLINE DATE (DD/MM/YY) PARTICIPANTS COMMENTS Insurance industry (Vienna test site) Cologne, Germany 20/09/23 CCG, Andrea Carlesi (Generali) Sharing update about Danube test site Vienna and Danube Model, discussing further improvements, general discussion about role of CCA and DRM in insurance industry Insurance industry (Vienna test site) Vienna, Austria 20/11/23 CCG, Christian Eltner, Karin Kobald (Austrian Insurance Asssociation) Sharing update about Danube test site Vienna and Danube Model, discussing further improvements, general discussion about role of CCA, DRM and risk modelling in insurance industry Reinsuranc e Industry (Vienna test site) Online 07/11/23 CCG, Dr. Thomas Hlatky Sharing update about Danube test site Vienna and Danube Model, discussing further improvements, general discussion about role of CCA and DRM as well as risk modelling in insurance industry Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs Online 04/01/24 Dominik Hedderich, Nieves Kautny DIRECTED Update, discussion of role of BMI in international, national and regional DRM and CCA with focus on gaps and opportunities BOKU Online 05/12/23 Christopher Genillard, Prof. Dr. Josef Eitzinger, Prof. Dr. Harald Rieder (Boku) Sharing DIRECTED update with focus on Danube test site Vienna and Danube, discussing state of the art modelling to capture and adress climate change Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Online 29/11/23 Christopher Genillard, Clemens Neuhold Sharing DIRECTED update with focus on Danube test site Vienna and Danube. Discussion on existing flood protection plans at the state level and EU-wide Real World Labs description and setup 66 Manageme nt in the Danube Region, as well as state-of-the-art models for flood modeling and their limitations. The Zala Region Meetings Table 9: Meetings RWL 3 Zala County, Danube Region. ORGANIZATION GROUP DATE COMMENTS Zala County Territorial Defence Committee Local Authority 04/12/2022 Presentation of the DIRECTED project's overall operations emphasizing its focus on improving disaster resilience through interoperable data, models, communication, and governance. Stakeholders expressed a strong interest in utilizing digital models to better understand and prepare for potential disaster scenarios, offering their data and expertise to support the project's goals in the Zala Region. Zalaegerszeg City Council Municipali ty 08/01/2023 Online meeting to discuss the DIRECTED project's goals and objectives, with a focus on how the project can support the city council's efforts in disaster preparedness and response, as well as long-term Climate Change Adaptation planning. Stakeholders emphasized the need for increased collaboration and knowledge sharing between different actors involved in disaster management. Zala County Vocational Training Center Education 13/02/2023 In-person meeting to introduce the DIRECTED project and its potential to enhance disaster resilience education and training programs. Discussion of how the project's tools and resources can be integrated into the vocational training curriculum to better prepare students for future climate-related challenges. The school is responsible for the regional cadet training, and the military is one of the pillars of civil protection. Lenti Municipality Municipali ty 20/03/2023 Online meeting with the mayor's secretariat to present the DIRECTED project's approach to community engagement and resilience building. Stakeholders from Lenti Municipality expressed their interest in participating in the project's coproduction process and utilizing the Data Fabric to access and share relevant data for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, especially smart-city related options and best practices Zala County Disaster Local Authority 17/04/2023 In-person meeting to discuss the integration of DIRECTED's Risk-Tandem Framework into the directorate's existing risk management practices. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of data Real World Labs description and setup 67 Management Directorate interoperability and accurate forecasting for effective decision-making in preparation. Keszthely City Council Municipali ty 09/05/2023 Online meeting to present DIRECTED's work on enhancing early warning systems and improving communication between different actors involved in disaster management. Stakeholders from Keszthely City Council expressed interest in utilizing the project's tools and resources to better prepare for and respond to extreme weather events. Zalaegerszeg Secondary School Education 26/06/2023 In-person meeting to introduce the DIRECTED project to teachers and students, highlighting the importance of disaster resilience education. Discussion of potential collaborations between the school and the project, such as workshops and presentations on climate change and disaster preparedness. Zalaszentgrót Municipality Municipali ty 11/07/2023 Online meeting to discuss the DIRECTED project's potential to support the municipality's Climate Change Adaptation efforts. Stakeholders expressed interest in utilizing the project's tools and resources to assess vulnerability and develop adaptation strategies. West Transdanubia Water Directorate Regional Authority 16/10/2023 Presentation of the DIRECTED project's overall operations, emphasizing its focus on improving disaster resilience through interoperable data, models, communication, and governance. Stakeholders expressed a strong interest in utilizing digital models to better understand and prepare for potential disaster scenarios, offering their data and expertise to support the project's goals in the Zala Region. Association of Volunteer Firefighters First Responde rs 22/11/2023 Overview of DIRECTED's goals and objectives, highlighting the importance of collaboration between first responders, researchers, and policymakers. Participants emphasized the need for accurate forecasting and risk assessment tools to enhance preparedness and response efforts. They expressed willingness to contribute local data and participate in training programs to improve their understanding of climate-related risks. Zala County Territorial Protection Committee Local Authority 04/12/2023 Introduction to DIRECTED's multi-risk governance framework and its potential to enhance disaster resilience at the county level. Stakeholders expressed a strong interest in the project's potential to improve data integration and the accuracy of predictions, offering their support and collaboration in developing tailored solutions for the Zala County. Real World Labs description and setup 68 MTech Systems Climate Research Division Private Sector/Ind ustry 12/01/2024 Overview of DIRECTED's focus on data interoperability and the development of the Data Fabric. MouldTech Systems' meteorologists and researchers expressed their interest in exploring how the project's outcomes can be integrated into their existing systems to enhance precision forecast analytics in prevention efforts and contribute to long-term Climate Change Adaptation strategies. City of Nagykanizsa Municipali ty 01/02/2024 Presentation of DIRECTED's approach to enhancing community engagement and resilience building. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of involving local communities in disaster preparedness and response planning. They expressed their willingness to participate in the project's co-production process and share local knowledge and data to inform the development of tailored solutions. Similarly, they are interested in city-level modells, flash flood and everything that is related to municipality operations. Municipality of Zala County Local Authority 29/02/2024 Introduction to DIRECTED's focus on integrating Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) strategies. Stakeholders showed keen interest in utilizing the project's tools and models to assess multi-hazard risks and develop effective preventive measures on regional level. They expressed their commitment to collaborating with DIRECTED to enhance the region's resilience to extreme climate events. Hungarian Road Department National/R egional Authority 15/03/2024 Overview of DIRECTED's work on improving the interoperability of data and models for Disaster Risk Management. Stakeholders highlighted the need for resilient infrastructure and transportation systems in the face of climate change. They expressed interest in the project's potential to provide data-driven insights for infrastructure planning and adaptation. ZalaZONE Test Centre Other 18/12/2023 Press event covered by Zaol discussing ZSRT's involvement in the DIRECTED project and their commitment to disaster resilience. The event highlighted the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in preparing for and responding to extreme climate events. Lessons learned ● The awareness of DRM and CCA is very heterogeneous in the different countries of the Danube River Basin, which can be explained by cultural, social, political, and technological aspects. The stakeholder engagement approach should be individually Real World Labs description and setup 69 adapted to the needs of each entity in the country to increase the chance for fruitful cooperation. ● Start actively engaging stakeholders, ask for concrete contributions as soon as possible because response periods may be significantly longer than anticipated. ● Patience and perseverance in explaining benefits to stakeholders is very important, especially in the eastern countries of the Danube River Basin ● Target the benefits that can accrue to stakeholders based on their individual needs. Benefits that are attractive to one stakeholder group may be unattractive to another stakeholder group. 2.3.4 RWL Next Steps • Completion of the engagement for test sites Vienna and Zala County by collecting formal letters of support. • Achieve the goal to get direct access for Zala county to the disaster database on a country and national level. This will allow the laboratory to provide an additional historical baseline with all the relevant information and tendencies related to mitigation and adaptation, plus a Data Fabric exercise. • Leverage on municipalities communication channels to reach out to citizens • Finalize the design of the Interoperability and Taxonomy Survey already been shared with the main stakeholders. • Stakeholder Workshop in Vienna @ BOKU Vienna • Present the status of the DIRECTED Project at the 45th meeting of the expert group on flood protection of the ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River) • Irregular, needs-based meetings with stakeholders to gather information and promote the exchange between different stakeholder groups (insurance sector, private sector, public sector, research). For Zala Region Next Steps include a detailed roadmap of planned meetings to foster furtherstakeholder engagement, reported hereafter: Real World Labs description and setup 70 2.4 RWL 4 – The Rhine-Erft Region 2.4.1 RWL Study Area Definition and Stakeholder Landscape Analysis The Real World Lab (RWL) Rhine-Erft Region is in the federal state of North RhineWestphalia, Germany. At the present time the RWL includes the districts of Euskirchen and Rhine-Erft, comprising 21 municipalities in total. The RWL area can be divided into the northern and the southern part. The northern part is characterized by a less pronounced relief, which belongs to the North German Lowlands [ 5 ] [ 6 ]. The land use of the northern area is predominantly shaped by agriculture and open-pit lignite mining [ 7 ]. There are minor scattered forested areas as well as oxbow lakes [8]. Besides visible mining-pits, the mining activities have caused a lowering of the groundwater table, due to dewatering activities of up to 509 million m³ per year. Around 270 million m³ per year are discharged into the river system. Accordingly, the rivers of the northern basin have been steadily adapted over the past decades, being relocated, straightened, and expanded for higher capacity. With the planned termination of lignite mining activities soon and thus, reduced dewatering activities, the hydrological situation in the northern part will again change [9]. By comparison, the southern part comprises the Middle Mountain Range Eifel with a more pronounced relief and steep valleys around rivers and creeks [8]. The Eifel is part of the Central European Uplands [7] and is characterized by both forests and agricultural land. In the west, the study area also includes a slightly hilly heath landscape [8]. Almost the entire area of the Rhine-Erft RWL is part of the ~1.900 km² large Erft river catchment. The Erft rises south of Bad Münstereifel, has a length of about 100 km and flows into the Rhine in Neuss, near Dusseldorf [ 8 ]. In the German federal system, the civil protection is divided into civil defence and disaster control. The task of civil defence, which is the defence of the population against water related hazards, lies with the federal government. The districts within the counties are responsible for disaster control [ 9 ]. After defining the spatial distribution of the RWL area, the first step for the setup of the Rhine-Erft Region RWL was to involve the districts within the study area (district of Euskirchen and Rhine-Erft). Those are organized in different departments such as water authority and hazard prevention. For the bottom-up principal of the DIRECTED-project, the municipalities, which organize e.g., first responders in case of extreme events, also need to be involved. This will be carried out by involving the inter municipal flood protection corporation (FPC) the Erftverband has initialized after the flood in western Germany in 2021 [ 10 ]. The aim of the FPC is to support the municipalities in the creation of protection concepts and to coordinate those concepts across municipal borders. The DIRECTED project was already presented to the members of the FPC, but the engagement process is still ongoing. 5 Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Germany (2023): Biogeografische Regionen und naturräumliche Haupteinheiten Deutschlands. https://www.bfn.de/daten-und-fakten/biogeografische-regionen-undnaturraeumliche-haupteinheiten-deutschlands (05/2023) 6 Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Germany (2015): Landschaften in Deutschland. https://geodienste.bfn.de/landschaften?lang=de (05/2023) 7 Erftverband (2014): Der Erftverband stellt sich vor. https://www.erftverband.de/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/erft_imagebrosch-2014_web.pdf (05/2023) 8 Erftverband (2021): Die Erft. https://www.erftverband.de/die-erft/ (05/2023) 9 Federal Office for Civil Protection (2023): Zivilschutz versus Bevölkerungsschutz. https://www.bbk.bund.de/DE/Infothek/Presse/Pressedossiers/_documents/pressedossier-artikel_zivilbevoelkerungsschutz.html (07/2023) 10 Erftverband (2023): Hochwasserschutz Kooperation Erft. https://hws-kooperation.erftverband.de/ (07/2023) Real World Labs description and setup 71 The district of Euskirchen is part of a project funded by the federal Ministry of Interior and Home Affairs with the topic of the protection of critical infrastructures through resilience governance. This project, called KRITIS, is also involved as stakeholder in RWL 4. To benefit from knowledge and previous analysis of the situation in the study area, first exchanges with an insurance company, also providing e.g., workshops on the assessment of organization and risk management strategies for flood events, as well as with a scientific working group specialized in the field of hydraulic engineering, water management, and operative flood protection has taken place. The latter focuses on resilience in flood risk management, evaluation of extreme scenarios (e.g., dam-failure), and the development and improvement of trainings for e.g., first responders. The inclusion of other districts, lying within the catchment area of the Erft, is also planned for the further development of the RWL (district of Rhine-Sieg, district of Düren and district of Rhine-Neuss). The following flowchart gives an overview of the already obtained and contacted stakeholders within RWL 4. By now, between the districts of Euskirchen and Rhine-Erft there are only few communication patterns and defined communication pathways. The stakeholders outside the districts have had no contact with each other or the districts yet. The focus has been particularly on the extreme flooding event in July 2021, which has prompted ongoing revisions and discussions with stakeholders to improve flood resilience. Stakeholder engagement has expanded significantly, with new participants identified during the three stakeholder meetings held until November 2023. This includes a diverse range of actors who have shown interest but (for some of them) are yet to formalize their engagement. Figure 27: Overview map of the Real World Lab – Rhine-Erft Region. Real World Labs description and setup 72 Figure 28: Flowchart showing the relationships between the involved and contacted stakeholders. Real World Labs description and setup 73 Table 10: Stakeholders involved and addressed in the RWL 4 Rhine-Erft Region. ORGANIZATION GROUP PHASE OF DRM/CCA HAZAR D COMMENTS Environment and Planning Department District of Euskirche n Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA regionally All - Civil Protection District of Euskirche n Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA regionally All - Department of Rescue, Fire and Civil Protection District of Rhine-Erft Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA regionally All - Department for Technical Environment Protection District of Rhine-Erft Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA regionally All - District of Rhine-Sieg District Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA regionally All has shown interest in participating in DIRECTED, but no signed letter of engagement yet District of Rhine-Neuss District Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA regionally All has shown interest in participating in DIRECTED, but no signed letter of engagement yet District of Düren District Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA regionally All has shown interest in participating in DIRECTED, but no signed letter of engagement yet Municipalities of the district of Euskirchen (Bad Münstereifel, Blankenheim, Dahlem, Euskirchen, Hellenthal, Kall, Mechernich, Nettersheim, Schleiden, Weilerswist and Zülpich) Municipali ties Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA locally All have shown interest in participating in DIRECTED, but no signed letter of engagement yet Municipalities of the district of Rhine-Erft (Bedburg, Bergheim, Brühl, Elsdorf, Erftstadt, Frechen, Hürth, Kerpen, Pulheim and Wesseling) Municipali ties Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA locally All have shown interest in participating in DIRECTED, but no signed letter of engagement yet Municipalities of the district of Rhine-Sieg (Alfter, Bad Honnef, Bornheim, Eitorf, Hennef, Königswinter, Lohmar, Meckenheim, Much, Neunkirchen Seelscheid, Niederkassel, Rheinbach, Ruppichteroth, Sankt Augustin, Siegburg, Swisttal, Troisdorf, Wachtberg, Windeck) Municipali ties Responsible for DRR, DRM and CCA locally All have shown interest in participating in DIRECTED, but no signed letter of engagement yet Real World Labs description and setup 80 RWL GAPS DIFFICULTIES EXPECTATIONS - Handling - Variability in the quality and resolution of data from different sources. based on high-resolution, local data. - Implementation of comprehensive training programs for all stakeholders to enhance preparedness and response capabilities (capacity building). RWL 3 – Danube Region - Major differences in disaster management structures among Danube riparian states. - Language barriers impacting stakeholder recruitment and communication. - Slow response times from state institutions in Eastern European countries. - Lower public and political awareness of climate change and its consequences in some regions. - Need for a highresolution, localized risk assessment. - Language barriers requiring external native speakers or interpreters. - Difficulties in stakeholder engagement led to skip the in Serbia test site - Variability in disaster management preparedness among countries. -Coordination and communication of first responders during a catastrophic event - Detailed, localized risk assessments and adaptation strategies for regional and municipal levels. - Development and use of infographics, tables, and visual assessments to communicate risks. - Improved communication and understanding among different DRM and CCA actors. − Awareness raising and influence basic education, create practical teaching materials for teachers in local schools. − Integrate and synthesize information from different public and private stakeholders (e.g. between insurance industry and municipalities) RWL 4 – The RhineErft Region - Difficulty finding the interface between water board and disaster control in the region - Limited knowledge about stakeholders concrete responsibilities and tasks in Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation. - Lack of capacity building and awareness among stakeholders regarding climate change impacts. - Need for improved communication and enhanced risk awareness. - Need for analysis and improvement of existing governance structures. - Initial identification and engagement of important actors in DRM and CCA. - Defining concrete aims and results at the beginning of the project. - Ensuring continuous exchange and communication within the project. - Stakeholders hesitate to disclose sensitive information - Improved communication and understanding among different DRM and CCA actors, especially among different municipalites - Development of concrete and feasible results and measures for hazard prevention and resilience building. - Analysis and improvement of governance structures, understanding and assigning clear responsibilities - strengthening the interface between water board and disaster control Real World Labs description and setup 81 4. Operationalization of RWLs In this section we provide summary details on the operationalization of each RWL, including the purpose of each RWL, hosts and stakeholders in each region. Furthermore, we synthetize nature and frequency of stakeholder engagement and focus on the role (if foreseen) of citizens in RWLs. Finally, we resume the situational assessment in each region covered by the RWL to set the baseline for the project to track the impact of co-creation on governance. To keep track of the ongoing activities and progressed of the Lab, beside the official deliverables expected in the next years from 2024 to 2026 (namely D1.3 - Case studies of DRR/ CCA processes to date - forensic examination of real-world process and events management, and D1.4 Outcomes from RWL in multi-risk governance) we will make use of the Miro board setup from the beginning for internal usage. This board effectively helps the Lab Leaders to organize meetings, collect outcomes and documents (like agenda and minutes) keep track of the involved people and prepare interactive sessions. The Board serves them to exchange ideas, and templates with other WPs as well, which, the other way round, use it as canvas to monitor progressed of RWL between different reporting periods and activities. An Example of the Miro board, which can be accessed here, is reported for RWL 2 in the following figure: Following summary table resumes the operationalization key points of each RWL achieved by the first reporting period, while subsequent sections explain the role of citizens, when envisaged, and a synthetic situational assessment derived from this initial setup activity, for the labs that provided this detail up to the first reporting period. Real World Labs description and setup 82 . Figure 32: Example of the interactive Miro Board used to collect ongoing progresses of RWLs. Real World Labs description and setup 83 Table 13: Operationalization key points of each RWL. RWL PURPOSE OF EACH RWL HOSTS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN EACH REGION NATURE AND FREQUENCY OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT RWL 1 – The Capital Region of Denmark To address flood damage potential due to climate change and improve governance strategies. Stakeholders: Municipalities, emergency management agencies, national agencies, regional government. Host: The Capital Region of Denmark Contact: Jacob Pedersen jacob.pedersen.01@regionh. dk Regular meetings and workshops; formal and informal engagement. Stakeholders have from the beginning of the project indicated that they are willing to engage through a couple of workshops a year and occasional online meetings. The RWL have so far operated from that premises. The August the 20th workshop will however determine whether or not that frequency will increase as a consequence of more focus work on problem solving in specific areas. RWL 2 – The EmiliaRomagna Region To address multiple natural hazards, including extreme rainfall events, coastal flooding, and wildfires. Enhance Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) through stakeholder engagement, forecasting tools, and real-time data integration. Hosts: Civil Protection of the Emilia-Romagna Region (ARSTPC-ER) and the Hydro Meteo Climate Structure of Arpae. Contact: Valeria Pancioli valeria.panciol[email protected] ia-romagna.it Clarissa Dondi [email protected] a-romagna.it Stakeholders: Regional and municipal governments, protected areas, Essential service providers. Land Reclamation consortia, Citizen associations of volunteers Stakeholders are engaged through regular workshops, webinars, and training/collaborative sessions. (currently march23, Sept.23, Nov23) Engagements focused on coordination, data sharing, and model integration. Frequency varies from quarterly to bi-annual, depending on the activity and stakeholder needs. RWL 3 – Danube Region To manage diverse impacts due to the size and international nature of the Authorities, citizens, volunteers, business sectors Hosts : Genillard&Co , Zala Special Rescue, Contacts: Vienna test site -Biannual conferences and continuous but irregular online communication and meetings, as well as one-on-one in person Real World Labs description and setup 84 Danube River Basin. Christopher Genillard [email protected]; Dominik Hedderich [email protected]; Levente Huszti [email protected] Stakeholders are from the Austrian and international insurance industry, research focused on climate change and modeling, disaster management, and the public sector. meetings and discussions Zala county focused on the letters of engagement rather than phone calls, online meetings and events that led to the sign-ing of the letters. RWL 4 – The RhineErft Region To address varied hydrological conditions and climate change and improve risk awareness, Disaster Risk Management and communication. District departments (e.g. emergency response, water & soil conservation), fire department, flood protection experts, water board. Host: Erftverband Am Erftverband 6 50126 Bergheim, Germany Contact: Jana Löhrlein Jana.Loehrlein@erftverband. de Dr. Julian Struck [email protected] Approximately Quarterly stakeholder meetings - it was agreed on setting dates for stakeholder meetings every two months (on the condition that these are cancelled if they are not necessary; the purpose is to make it easier to find appointments) - it was decided that there will be a biannual newsletter on DIRECTED for the stakeholders of RWL 4 - further engagement with (specific) stakeholders if and when needed The Role of Citizens RWL 1: The Capital Region of Denmark Citizens have at least three different roles in the DRM/CCA circle. They form the nucleus of the resources available to the DRM´s during events. Many of them have the expertise of professionals rather than just volunteers, with connections to the DRM tools and formal training on response. But increasingly on the spot volunteers are used wherever possible. The latter are people who show up during events to ask if they can lend a hand for a few hours or days. Since most don’t have prior knowledge related to disaster management, they are often used for less complex task like sandbag filling and carrying. Nonetheless their contribution is increasingly seen as valuable since they free up skilled personnel for more complex operations. For that reason, DRM operators are beginning to focus on ways not just to coordinate their contribution better but also show more appreciation of it. Citizens are or generally should be involved when bigger adaptation projects are being planned. Decisions will have consequences for people which will either benefit from the protection or for those that for some reason feel they miss out or oppose the solutions. Municipalities are increasingly aware about the necessity of having a fruitful dialogue with the Real World Labs description and setup 85 public in these cases. There is also a rising awareness about aligning measures across municipality boards since citizens are looking at the service levels in neighbouring municipalities and making comparisons. Finally, citizens are recipients of information from both DRM´s and municipalities during events and there is a growing appreciation that it needs to be better than it is at the moment. It is for that reason one of the major focus points in the RWL’s is Citizen involvement in all these cases also echoes the need for meaningful and inclusive participation throughout the decisionmaking process surrounding Disaster Risk Management processes, both for the sake of feasibility and coordination, but also for questions of justice and equity (see further D3.1 on the importance of participation). RWL 2: The Emilia-Romagna Region In RWL 2, citizens in Ferrara and Rimini play key roles as volunteers through civil protection associations, mobilizing for emergency responses, training, and prevention. Efforts to engage diverse stakeholders include initial mapping, workshops, and webinars to enhance communication and wildfire alerts are ongoing. Recent activities aim to improve risk communication to the general public as well, via real-time data tools and models for weather and coastal conditions, shared on platforms like AllertameteoER, Twitter, and Telegram, with the aim to provide timely alerts. Improving risk communication is further a central pillar for the engagement of otherwise often ignored and marginalized groups. RWL 3: Danube Region Zala County: Concerning the Zala County test site, the activities have yet to focus on citizens. This can be done in the next phase of activities. Up to the period covered by this report the focus was on involving stakeholders directly related to risk management and data donors, mainly associations, municipalities and research institutions within Zala County. Particularly the focus was on municipalities (that have direct communication channels to reach out to citizens). We plan to prepare more common-sense communication materials so municipalities) can communicate with a broader public forum to educate, raise awareness, engage citizens, and initiate actions from the ground. There are 280 municipalities in Zala, an excellent example of an RWL/Central Europe that shows the challenges of a rather fragmented local government structure, less centralized than in the other RWLs. Vienna: The citizens of Vienna play a crucial role in disaster management, particularly in the context of prevention, preparedness, and response to emergencies. Their involvement can be summarized in several areas: Awareness and Personal Responsibility: Citizens are responsible for staying informed about potential risks and disaster scenarios, whether through public information campaigns, training, or personal research. Awareness of hazards, such as flooding, heatwaves, or storms, is crucial for being able to respond appropriately in an emergency. Emergency Preparedness: Residents are encouraged to take personal preparedness measures, such as creating emergency supply kits, developing evacuation plans, and securing their homes against flooding or other potential dangers. Assistance During Emergencies: In the event of a disaster, citizens play a key role through self-protection measures, neighbourhood assistance, or volunteering with organizations like the fire brigade or the Red Cross. This civic engagement strengthens the community’s resilience. Overall, the citizens of Vienna significantly contribute to the city’s resilience to disasters through their engagement, preparedness, and willingness to collaborate. The population of Vienna is increasingly taking climate change and the associated risks, such as flooding, heatwaves, and hail, seriously. Surveys by the Federal Environment Office and National Statistic System of Austria indicate that awareness of the dangers of climate change has risen in recent years. Many Viennese are aware of the potential damage that ex-treme Real World Labs description and setup 86 weather events can cause, particularly in relation to flooding, which poses a significant risk due to the city's proximity to the Danube. Additionally, heatwaves in the urban environment, which have become more frequent and intense in recent years, are causing growing concern. There is also increasing awareness of the need for adaptation measures, such as improved flood protection, more green spaces to mitigate heat, and insurance against weather-related damages. Overall, it is evident that the people of Vienna perceive climate change as a real threat and recognize the need for action at both local and political levels to mitigate its impacts and enhance protection. Through our stakeholders in the Austrian insurance industry, we plan to conduct our own surveys to gain a clearer understanding of the public's perception of climate change and its impacts. RWL 4: Rhine-Erft Region Citizens are important in RWL 4 because they are the ones directly affected by the effects of extreme events and are therefore also affected by changes in procedures and overall Disaster Risk Management. An exchange with citizens takes place in the workshops of the intermunicipal flood protection cooperation (FPC) in which they can make suggestions and share ideas for flood protection measures in their place of residence. As the inter-municipal FPC is a stakeholder in RWL 4 we are working closely together. These workshops are also a platform to exchange with citizens and listen to their voices. This format has also shown us how complex and challenging it is to involve citizens, especially because the experiences of the flood in 2021 are still so fresh and the mood is often emotionally charged. An example for this is that the expectations regarding the duration of the implementation of measures differ greatly from reality. We experienced that after suggestions are made, first reproachful requests were already made, after a few months. This is despite of the fact that we are already explaining the implementation periods of different measures. We seek to communicate the project, our approach and progress to citizens and are open to any suggestions and ideas they may have. Platforms we use for that are also other events in which the Erftverband participates. For example, there is an event at the end of September in a municipality in the Erft catchment area for citizens to inform themselves about floods and heavy rain. The Erftverband will have an information stand there where the DIRECTED-project is presented (supported by a poster) and we’ll offer the opportunity to ask questions. This kind of integration will also take place in the further course of DIRECTED, but we do not consider it feasible to go beyond this with the many challenges at district and municipal level in the region. Situational assessment RWL 1: The Capital Region of Denmark RWL 1 was initially focusing on two adjacent areas. The Roskilde Fjord complex and the Værebro Å catchment. Focus has now been narrowed to Roskilde Fjord with Værebro Å now mainly being seen as a contributing factor to events going on in this area. The main threat in Roskilde Fjord are floods due to storm surges, which primarily threaten urban areas and tourism in the form of highly developed but low-lying areas of summer cottages. The increased amounts of dykes and water locks built in these areas do however raise the focus on compound events and the trouble of flooding due to back water. Potential improvements with DIRECTED are envisaged in modelling giving better understanding of the effects of single and compound events. Furthermore, better coordination of response and adaptation planning combined with a more uniformed communication internally among stakeholders and externally with the public is also an expected field for improvement. Real World Labs description and setup 87 RWL 2: The Emilia-Romagna Region Rimini Province The coastal municipalities, including Rimini and Riccione, face risks like marine ingression, coastal erosion, windstorms, and flooding from heavy rainfall. Challenges include managing high tourist numbers and dense urbanization which require robust early warning systems. Current measures involve forecasting models and public alerts via AllertameteoER. Improvements with DIRECTED Outcomes include enhancing forecasting model accuracy, improving real-time monitoring tools, and expanding community education campaigns for better disaster preparedness. Ferrara Province In Comacchio and Mesola, wildfires are a primary risk due to dense forests and tourism. Challenges include coordinating stakeholders and raising public awareness. Current efforts focus on real-time data integration and proactive alerts. Improvements with DIRECTED Outcomes include better stakeholder coordination through unified data platforms, enhanced real-time monitoring systems, and broader public awareness campaigns on wildfire prevention and response. RWL 3: Danube Region The focus areas within the Danube Basin are the federal state of Vienna, with an emphasis on Vienna City in Austria, and the Zala Region in Hungary. For instance, if severe rainfall occurs in Germany, as seen in June 2024 in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, leading to a significant rise in local water levels, this can result in flooding and associated damages hundreds of kil-ometers downstream due to the direct connection of the Danube. It is therefore important to view the entire Danube Region as a system with varying levels of resilience across different areas. Resilience depends on various factors, such as the perception of the respective na-tional governments regarding the risk of flooding. Past negative experiences often play a role and have contributed to the development of resilience over time. In Vienna, awareness of the risks associated with climate change is relatively high, and protection against dangerous im-pacts such as flooding and heatwaves is also well-established. Two decades of intensive ef-forts by the City of Vienna to enhance flood protection have led to the establishment of a well-functioning disaster management system. One goal is to transfer the success factors of this concept to other countries in the Danube Region in an adapted form that matches the individu-al demand. Compared to Vienna´s highly advanced disaster protection systems, which use state-of-theart technologies like Near Forecasting based on remote sensing data and the latest weather models for early warning, and the dissemination of warnings through various channels such as radio, mobile networks, and television to potentially affected populations, disaster protection in this context is technologically less developed in Hungary. This presents a clear opportunity to facilitate knowledge transfer from the Test Site Vienna to other Countries and regions in den Danube RiverBasin like the Zala Region through the DIRECTED project. The situation to improve on is comprehensive risk assessment for floods, droughts, and climate change impacts across different countries involved in the 2 areas. Particularly on Zala there is a need for county-level risk map(s) that are accurate (based on scientific models) and localized the adaption and mitigation tasks needed for preparedness. RWL 4: Rhine-Erft Region The current impact of climate change in the Rhine-Erft Region remains unclear, posing significant challenges to effective Disaster Risk Management. There is an incomplete understanding of the existing structures and procedures in place for disaster management, Real World Labs description and setup 88 and the role of the water board in supporting decision-makers during disaster control has not yet been fully established. Governance structures present additional challenges, as their effectiveness is still uncertain. The application of data and models in Disaster Risk Management is not well-defined, and there is a lack of knowledge regarding Climate Change Adaptation strategies within the region. Room for Improvement To address these gaps, several opportunities for improvement have been identified: ● Acquiring detailed knowledge of existing procedures and structures could significantly aid decision-makers in disaster management. ● The water board possesses valuable information and expertise that, if utilized effectively, could greatly benefit disaster control efforts. ● The DIRECTED project has the potential to gather crucial information from stakeholders, enhancing the overall understanding of the region's needs. ● By clarifying how available data is used and improving data accessibility, DIRECTED can help optimize Disaster Risk Management strategies and support Climate Change Adaptation efforts in the Rhine-Erft Region. Real World Labs description and setup 89 5. Conclusions This report has provided a detailed exploration of the Real World Labs (RWLs) established in four European regions, highlighting both the setup processes and the early engagement with stakeholders. These labs serve as collaborative environments designed to foster a bottom-up approach in Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA). The RWL activities form the foundation for stakeholder engagement and inclusive risk governance that will be amplified through the knowledge co-production processes and application of the Risk-Tandem Framework. The analysis across all RWLs reveals significant commonalities in DRM and CCA challenges across these diverse regions. Despite distinct geographical and socio-economic contexts, several shared challenges and opportunities have emerged, particularly in the areas of vulnerabilities and areas for improvement. The implementation of the RWLs has highlighted critical challenges such as data alignment, stakeholder coordination, and varying levels of risk awareness. These challenges, particularly those related to the identification of silos and barriers (as detailed in Chapter 3), are being actively addressed through structured engagement guided by the Risk-Tandem Framework (see Deliverable 3.1). In terms of governance structures and stakeholder expectations, the RWLs demonstrate the importance of strong leadership and clear roles and responsibilities. Data standards, models, and methodologies used in the RWLs, along with along with the interoperability challenges they present, are covered by WP 2 with first outcomes expected by M24 with D2.1 - Compendium on data standards for interoperability in DRR and CCA. However, the emphasis within this deliverable has been on understanding the governance challenges and aligning stakeholder expectations. Through the Study Area Definition and preliminary stakeholder landscape analysis, we gained insights into the peculiar geographical features and stakeholder dynamics, roles, and responsibilities in each RWL. Interoperability challenges, particularly in the integration of diverse data standards and methodologies, have emerged as a significant concern across all RWLs Stakeholders from diverse organizations such as municipalities, civil protection agencies, and research institutions have been indeed involved in the Labs to start a collaborative journey towards more effective, synergic, and multi risk-based governance DRM and CCA. The RWLs have also highlighted both strengths and weaknesses in multi-risk and Climate Change Adaptation strategies. Challenges such as increasing temperatures, extreme (e.g., heavy rain) events, and evolving hydrological conditions are common across RWLs, as well as some stakeholder expectations to improve communication pathways, enhance risk communication and awareness as well as stakeholder involvement, and facilitate flexible governance models to tackle the urgency of climate adaptation and disaster preparedness. Transdisciplinary collaboration between governmental bodies, research institutions, municipalities, and civil protection agencies has emerged as a critical success factor across all RWLs. To address these issues, WP 1 is focusing on creating detailed situational assessments for each RWL, which will establish a baseline for tracking the progress and effectiveness of implemented governance strategies. Significant progress has been achieved by M16, including the successful establishment of the RWLs and the initiation of critical stakeholder engagements. It should be noted that each Real World Lab has differing challenges, particularly in the case of Labs where recently extreme events have occurred with severe damage and loss of life, therefore in these cases a more sensitive and gradual approach has to be followed. In the Danube Region slow traction has occurred that needs evaluating further by the DIRECTED Steering Group in how this situation can be improved. On the other hand, strong progress has been made in some of the regions where there appears to be stronger cooperation and organisation. Of course, these are things that are being assessed through the project and therefore will be examined through both a practical perspective via the steering group and through the governance Work Package. In