The overall findings of this phase were then validated by conducting five practical case studies. Some parameters, especially in the field of Earth observation, are technically but not operationally compliant, which could be improved by better data handling and delivery. In the field of meteorology, the current non-compliance is due to the inability to satisfy very localised needs covering areas of just a few kilometres. Some parameters, such as frozen soil depth, cannot be obtained from space using available or currently planned techniques. The main shortfalls during the prevention and crisis phases are the lack of risk-area cartography and models, and of accurate local weather forecasts.
Coverage is better for flood plains and snow-melt flooding than for torrential floods.
The non-compliant items are mostly in the crisis phases, for alert monitoring and damage cartography. The degree of compliance also varies with the type of space resource. Current telecommunications and localisation systems can already fully cover user needs. The overall conclusion to be derived from Phase 3, therefore, is that there is still a real need to bridge the gap between the space data and service providers on the one hand and the 'users' - civil and governmental authorities involved in risk management on the other. These authorities need to be both informed and convinced of the usefulness of space techniques for supporting risk management.