Nature-based solutions (NBS) are being promoted as adaptive measures against predicted increasing hydrometeorological hazards (HMHs), such as heatwaves and floods which have already caused significant loss of life and economic damage across the globe. However, the underpinning factors such as policy framework, end-users' interests and participation for NBS design and operationalisation are yet to be established. We discuss the operationalisation and implementation processes of NBS by means of a novel concept of Open-Air Laboratories (OAL) for its wider acceptance. The design and implementation of environmentally, economically, technically and socio-culturally sustainable NBS require inter- and transdisciplinary approaches which could be achieved by fostering co-creation processes by engaging stakeholders across various sectors and levels, inspiring more effective use of skills, diverse knowledge, manpower and resources, and connecting and harmonising the adaptation aims. The OAL serves as a benchmark for NBS upscaling, replication and exploitation in policy-making process through monitoring by field measurement, evaluation by key performance indicators and building solid evidence on their short- and long-term multiple benefits in different climatic, environmental and socio-economic conditions, thereby alleviating the challenges of political resistance, financial barriers and lack of knowledge. We conclude that holistic management of HMHs by effective use of NBS can be achieved with standard compliant data for replicating and monitoring NBS in OALs, knowledge about policy silos and interaction between research communities and end-users. Further research is needed for multi-risk analysis of HMHs and inclusion of NBS into policy frameworks, adaptable at local, regional and national scales leading to modification in the prevalent guidelines related to HMHs. The findings of this work can be used for developing synergies between current policy frameworks, scientific research and practical implementation of NBS in Europe and beyond for its wider acceptance.

This study considers the overall uncertainty affecting river flow measurements and proposes a framework for analysing the uncertainty of rating-curves and its effects on the calibration of numerical hydraulic models. The uncertainty associated with rating-curves is often considered negligible relative to other approximations affecting hydraulic studies, even though recent studies point out that rating-curves uncertainty may be significant. This study refers to a ~240 km reach of River Po and simulates ten different historical flood events by means of a quasi-twodimensional (quasi-2-D) hydraulic model in order to generate 50 synthetic measurement campaigns (5 campaigns per event) at the gauged cross-section of interest (i.e. Cremona streamgauge). For each synthetic campaign, two different procedures for rating-curve estimation are applied after corrupting simulated discharges according to the indications reported in the literature on accuracy of discharge measurements, and the uncertainty associated with each procedure is then quantified. To investigate the propagation of rating-curve uncertainty on the calibration of Manning's roughness coefficients further model simulations are run downstream Cremona's cross-section. Results highlight the significant role of extrapolation errors and how rating-curve uncertainty may be responsible for estimating unrealistic roughness coefficients. Finally, the uncertainty of these coefficients is analysed and discussed relative to the variability of Manning's coefficient reported in the literature for large natural streams.

Flood risk management generally relies on economic assessments performed by using flood loss models of different complexity, ranging from simple univariable models to more complex multivariable models. The latter account for a large number of hazard, exposure and vulnerability factors, being potentially more robust when extensive input information is available. We collected a comprehensive data set related to three recent major flood events in northern Italy (Adda 2002, Bacchiglione 2010 and Secchia 2014), including flood hazard features (depth, velocity and duration), building characteristics (size, type, quality, economic value) and reported losses. The objective of this study is to compare the performances of expert-based and empirical (both uni- and multivariable) damage models for estimating the potential economic costs of flood events to residential buildings. The performances of four literature flood damage models of different natures and complexities are compared with those of univariable, bivariable and multivariable models trained and tested by using empirical records from Italy. The uni- and bivariable models are developed by using linear, logarithmic and square root regression, whereas multivariable models are based on two machine-learning techniques: random forest and artificial neural networks. Results provide important insights about the choice of the damage modelling approach for operational disaster risk management. Our findings suggest that multivariable models have better potential for producing reliable damage estimates when extensive ancillary data for flood event characterisation are available, while univariable models can be adequate if data are scarce. The analysis also highlights that expert-based synthetic models are likely better suited for transferability to other areas compared to empirically based flood damage models.

Comprehensive flood risk assessment studies should quantify the global uncertainty in flood hazard estimation, for instance by mapping inundation extents together with their confidence intervals. This appears of particular importance in the case of flood hazard assessments along dike-protected reaches, where the possibility of occurrence of dike failures may considerably enhance the uncertainty. We present a methodology to derive probabilistic flood maps in dike-protected flood prone areas, where several sources of uncertainty are taken into account. In particular, this paper focuses on a 50 km reach of River Po (Italy) and three major sources of uncertainty in hydraulic modelling and flood mapping: uncertainties in the (i) upstream and (ii) downstream boundary conditions, and (iii) uncertainties in dike failures. Uncertainties in the definition of upstream boundary conditions (i.e. design-hydrographs) are assessed through a copula-based bivariate analysis of flood peaks and volumes. Uncertainties in the definition of downstream boundary conditions are characterised by uncertainty in the rating curve with confidence intervals which reflect discharge measurement and interpolation errors. The effects of uncertainties in boundary conditions and randomness of dike failures are assessed by means of the Inundation Hazard Assessment Model (IHAM), a recently proposed hybrid probabilistic-deterministic model that considers three different dike failure mechanisms: overtopping, piping and micro-instability due to seepage. The results of the study show that the IHAM-based analysis enables probabilistic flood hazard mapping and provides decision-makers with a fundamental piece of information for devising and implementing flood risk mitigation strategies in the presence of various sources of uncertainty.

Flood loss models are one important source of uncertainty in flood risk assessments. Many countries experience sparseness or absence of comprehensive high-quality flood loss data, which is often rooted in a lack of protocols and reference procedures for compiling loss datasets after flood events. Such data are an important reference for developing and validating flood loss models. We consider the Secchia River flood event of January 2014, when a sudden levee breach caused the inundation of nearly 52 km² in northern Italy. After this event local authorities collected a comprehensive flood loss dataset of affected private households including building footprints and structures and damages to buildings and contents. The dataset was enriched with further information compiled by us, including economic building values, maximum water depths, velocities and flood durations for each building. By analyzing this dataset we tackle the problem of flood damage estimation in Emilia-Romagna (Italy) by identifying empirical uni- and multivariable loss models for residential buildings and contents. The accuracy of the proposed models is compared with that of several flood damage models reported in the literature, providing additional insights into the transferability of the models among different contexts. Our results show that (1) even simple univariable damage models based on local data are significantly more accurate than literature models derived for different contexts; (2) multivariable models that consider several explanatory variables outperform univariable models, which use only water depth. However, multivariable models can only be effectively developed and applied if sufficient and detailed information is available.