Skip to Main Content

Table 2 presents the main available RAF related to the water sector, identifying the more relevant information, the RAF structure, the key information, and the approach for NBS assessment adopted. Moreover, Table 3 provides a systematic characterization of the RAF, identifying the key components considered in every assessment approach, regarding the scope and structure, metrics, and application.

Table 2

Main available urban RAFs related to the water sector

RAFsDescriptionStructureKey informationNBS assessment
ARUP and Rockefeller City Resilience Framework (ARUP 2014, 2016) 
  • Focuses on risk management.

  • Enables cities to assess resilience at a city scale.

  • Allows identifying strengths, weaknesses, and priorities for action.

 
  • Structured in 4 categories and 12 goals, which are complemented by resilience qualities.

  • Proposes a final assessment, CRI.

  • Considered categories: health and well-being, economy and society, infrastructure and environment, leadership and strategy.

  • Considered goals: minimal human vulnerability; diverse livelihood and employment; effective safeguards to human health and life; collective identity and community support; comprehensive security and rule of law; sustainable economy; reduced exposure and fragility; effective provision of critical services; reliable mobility and communications; effective leadership and management; empowered stakeholders; integrated development planning.

 
  • Allows comparing the city's resilience over time.

  • Does not allow for comparison between cities.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Includes a final assessment.

  • Proposed metrics are not available for public access.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific category or goal focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Effectively managed and protective ecosystems (NA) metric in the reduced exposure and fragility goal.

  • Note: Metrics are no access publicly, so, metric units are unknown.

 
Disaster Resilience scorecard for cities (UNISDR 2015) 
  • Focuses on disaster risk reduction.

  • Allows local governments to monitor and review progress in the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.

 
  • Structured around Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient.

  • Proposes two assessment levels: preliminary and detailed level.

  • Considers three dimensions: governance and financial capacity; planning and disaster preparation; disaster response and post-event recovery.

  • The Ten Essentials are: organize for resilience; identify, understand and use current and future risk scenarios; strengthen financial capacity for resilience; pursue resilient urban development; safeguard natural buffers to enhance strengthen the institutional capacity for resilience; strengthen the institutional capacity for resilience; understand and strengthen societal capacity for resilience; increase infrastructure resilience; ensure effective disaster response; expedite recovery and build back better.

 
  • Does not allow for comparison of cities over time or between cities.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Proposes reference values for the metrics.

  • Scores are not standardized.

  • Proposed metrics are available for public access.

  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific Dimension or Essential focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Integration of green and blue infrastructure into city policy and projects (–)’ metric in the Safeguard Natural Buffers to Enhance the Protective Functions Offered by Natural Ecosystems Essential (Essential 05).

 
RESCCUE Resilience Assessment Framework (Cardoso et al. 2020) 
  • Focuses on climate change.

  • Focused on the water cycle, at the city, services, and infrastructure level.

  • Evaluates and identifies opportunities to improve the city's resilience.

 
  • Structured into objectives, criteria, and metrics.

  • Metrics assign a development level to each criterion, supporting the setup of clear targets and the monitoring of the results.

  • Proposes three assessment levels: essential, complementary, and comprehensive

  • Includes a city profile and a service profile.

  • Based on UNHABITAT resilience dimensions: organizational (focus on the city, governance relations, and stakeholders), spatial (focus on urban space and environment), functional (focus on the strategic services in the city), physical dimension (focus on the assets and infrastructures).

 
  • Allows comparing cities or the same city over time.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Proposes reference values for the metrics.

  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific Objective or Criteria focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Availability of green and blue infrastructures (m2/inhabitant)’ metric in the provision of protective infrastructures and ecosystems Objective.

 
UNHABITAT III SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (United Nations General Assembly 2017) 
  • Focuses on sustainable development.

  • Proposes a set of metrics and targets for SDG 11.

 
  • Structured in SDG, targets, and indicators.

  • The SDG 11 is desegregated in seven target, which are detailed for the horizon year 2030, from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

  • For every target, some metrics are proposed, without a clear definition of the metrics.

 
  • Does not allow for comparison between cities.

  • Does not provide a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Indicators do not provide a judgement of the results, a threshold, or a target numerical value.

  • Does not assess acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Does not evaluate any NBS aspect.

 
  • A specific Objective or Criteria focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Proposed metrics do not assess any NBS aspects.

 
UNHABITAT City Resilience Profiling Tool (UN-Habitat 2018) 
  • Focused on sustainable development (natural disasters and manmade threats).

  • Provides a transversal diagnosis and pathway to resilience-based sustainable urban development.

 
  • Considers five critical and interdependent dimensions, common to all human settlements, namely, Spatial, Organizational, Physical, Functional, and Time abilities.

  • Data collection is divided into four SETs that, collectively, provide an in-depth picture of the city and its stakeholders and provide the basis of the Actions for Resilience.

  • There is no specific public information regarding the resilience assessment.

 
  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • It was not possible to analyse the main key information.

 
  • Not possible to be analysed due to metrics definition is not public access.

 
U.S. EPA resilience assessment framework (U.S. EPA 2017) 
  • Focuses on climate resilience.

  • Establishes a base for metrics needed for assessing resilience and its evolution.

  • Considers exposure, sensitivity, and response capacity of urban vulnerability, across sectors.

 
  • Indicators are structured around the following eight municipal management sectors: water, energy, transportation, people, economy, land use and land cover, natural environment, and telecommunications.

  • Includes qualitative and quantitative indicators, which are weighted depending on the resilience relevance.

 
  • Allows comparing the city's resilience over time.

  • Not allow comparing between cities.

  • The RAF does not provide a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Proposes qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific management sector focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Does zoning encourage green roofs or other practices that reduce urban heat? (–)’ in the municipal sector Land use and Land cover.

 
ISO 37120:2014 (ISO 2014) 
  • Focused on sustainable development, regarding city services and quality of life.

  • Allows monitoring city progress performance, measuring the city services performance and life quality over time.

 
  • Indicators are divided into core indicators (required) and supporting indicators (recommended).

  • Includes profile indicators (basic statistics and background information).

  • The indicators are structured around themes.

  • The 17 themes are: economy, education, energy, environment, finance, fire and emergency response, governance, health, recreation, safety, shelter, solid waste, telecommunication and innovation, transportation, urban planning, wastewater, water and sanitation.

 
  • Does not allow for comparison of cities over time or between cities.

  • Proposes only an indicative list of some indicators.

  • Indicators do not provide a judgement of the results, a threshold, or a target numerical value.

  • Metrics are available for public access.

  • Does not assess acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Does not evaluate any NBS aspect.

 
  • A specific Objective or Criteria focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Proposed metrics do not assess any NBS aspects.

 
RAFsDescriptionStructureKey informationNBS assessment
ARUP and Rockefeller City Resilience Framework (ARUP 2014, 2016) 
  • Focuses on risk management.

  • Enables cities to assess resilience at a city scale.

  • Allows identifying strengths, weaknesses, and priorities for action.

 
  • Structured in 4 categories and 12 goals, which are complemented by resilience qualities.

  • Proposes a final assessment, CRI.

  • Considered categories: health and well-being, economy and society, infrastructure and environment, leadership and strategy.

  • Considered goals: minimal human vulnerability; diverse livelihood and employment; effective safeguards to human health and life; collective identity and community support; comprehensive security and rule of law; sustainable economy; reduced exposure and fragility; effective provision of critical services; reliable mobility and communications; effective leadership and management; empowered stakeholders; integrated development planning.

 
  • Allows comparing the city's resilience over time.

  • Does not allow for comparison between cities.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Includes a final assessment.

  • Proposed metrics are not available for public access.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific category or goal focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Effectively managed and protective ecosystems (NA) metric in the reduced exposure and fragility goal.

  • Note: Metrics are no access publicly, so, metric units are unknown.

 
Disaster Resilience scorecard for cities (UNISDR 2015) 
  • Focuses on disaster risk reduction.

  • Allows local governments to monitor and review progress in the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.

 
  • Structured around Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient.

  • Proposes two assessment levels: preliminary and detailed level.

  • Considers three dimensions: governance and financial capacity; planning and disaster preparation; disaster response and post-event recovery.

  • The Ten Essentials are: organize for resilience; identify, understand and use current and future risk scenarios; strengthen financial capacity for resilience; pursue resilient urban development; safeguard natural buffers to enhance strengthen the institutional capacity for resilience; strengthen the institutional capacity for resilience; understand and strengthen societal capacity for resilience; increase infrastructure resilience; ensure effective disaster response; expedite recovery and build back better.

 
  • Does not allow for comparison of cities over time or between cities.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Proposes reference values for the metrics.

  • Scores are not standardized.

  • Proposed metrics are available for public access.

  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific Dimension or Essential focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Integration of green and blue infrastructure into city policy and projects (–)’ metric in the Safeguard Natural Buffers to Enhance the Protective Functions Offered by Natural Ecosystems Essential (Essential 05).

 
RESCCUE Resilience Assessment Framework (Cardoso et al. 2020) 
  • Focuses on climate change.

  • Focused on the water cycle, at the city, services, and infrastructure level.

  • Evaluates and identifies opportunities to improve the city's resilience.

 
  • Structured into objectives, criteria, and metrics.

  • Metrics assign a development level to each criterion, supporting the setup of clear targets and the monitoring of the results.

  • Proposes three assessment levels: essential, complementary, and comprehensive

  • Includes a city profile and a service profile.

  • Based on UNHABITAT resilience dimensions: organizational (focus on the city, governance relations, and stakeholders), spatial (focus on urban space and environment), functional (focus on the strategic services in the city), physical dimension (focus on the assets and infrastructures).

 
  • Allows comparing cities or the same city over time.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Proposes reference values for the metrics.

  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific Objective or Criteria focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Availability of green and blue infrastructures (m2/inhabitant)’ metric in the provision of protective infrastructures and ecosystems Objective.

 
UNHABITAT III SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (United Nations General Assembly 2017) 
  • Focuses on sustainable development.

  • Proposes a set of metrics and targets for SDG 11.

 
  • Structured in SDG, targets, and indicators.

  • The SDG 11 is desegregated in seven target, which are detailed for the horizon year 2030, from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

  • For every target, some metrics are proposed, without a clear definition of the metrics.

 
  • Does not allow for comparison between cities.

  • Does not provide a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Indicators do not provide a judgement of the results, a threshold, or a target numerical value.

  • Does not assess acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Does not evaluate any NBS aspect.

 
  • A specific Objective or Criteria focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Proposed metrics do not assess any NBS aspects.

 
UNHABITAT City Resilience Profiling Tool (UN-Habitat 2018) 
  • Focused on sustainable development (natural disasters and manmade threats).

  • Provides a transversal diagnosis and pathway to resilience-based sustainable urban development.

 
  • Considers five critical and interdependent dimensions, common to all human settlements, namely, Spatial, Organizational, Physical, Functional, and Time abilities.

  • Data collection is divided into four SETs that, collectively, provide an in-depth picture of the city and its stakeholders and provide the basis of the Actions for Resilience.

  • There is no specific public information regarding the resilience assessment.

 
  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • It was not possible to analyse the main key information.

 
  • Not possible to be analysed due to metrics definition is not public access.

 
U.S. EPA resilience assessment framework (U.S. EPA 2017) 
  • Focuses on climate resilience.

  • Establishes a base for metrics needed for assessing resilience and its evolution.

  • Considers exposure, sensitivity, and response capacity of urban vulnerability, across sectors.

 
  • Indicators are structured around the following eight municipal management sectors: water, energy, transportation, people, economy, land use and land cover, natural environment, and telecommunications.

  • Includes qualitative and quantitative indicators, which are weighted depending on the resilience relevance.

 
  • Allows comparing the city's resilience over time.

  • Not allow comparing between cities.

  • The RAF does not provide a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Proposes qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Assesses acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Evaluates some NBS-specific aspects (not a NBS comprehensive assessment).

 
  • A specific management sector focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Some proposed metrics assess NBS aspects.

  • Example of NBS-related proposed metric:

    • ‘Does zoning encourage green roofs or other practices that reduce urban heat? (–)’ in the municipal sector Land use and Land cover.

 
ISO 37120:2014 (ISO 2014) 
  • Focused on sustainable development, regarding city services and quality of life.

  • Allows monitoring city progress performance, measuring the city services performance and life quality over time.

 
  • Indicators are divided into core indicators (required) and supporting indicators (recommended).

  • Includes profile indicators (basic statistics and background information).

  • The indicators are structured around themes.

  • The 17 themes are: economy, education, energy, environment, finance, fire and emergency response, governance, health, recreation, safety, shelter, solid waste, telecommunication and innovation, transportation, urban planning, wastewater, water and sanitation.

 
  • Does not allow for comparison of cities over time or between cities.

  • Proposes only an indicative list of some indicators.

  • Indicators do not provide a judgement of the results, a threshold, or a target numerical value.

  • Metrics are available for public access.

  • Does not assess acute shocks and continuous events.

  • Does not evaluate any NBS aspect.

 
  • A specific Objective or Criteria focused on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience is not included.

  • Proposed metrics do not assess any NBS aspects.

 
Table 3

Systematic characterization of the main RAF related to water sector regarding the key components

RAFScope and structure
Metrics
Application
Urban scaleUrban resilience dimensionsObjectives and criteriaContext informationPublic accessClear definitionQualitative and quantitative informationPerformance, risk and cost analysisReference valuesFinal assessmentResilience capabilitiesAssessment levelsEvolution over timeCity benchmarkingAcute shocks and continuous eventsNBS assessment and benchmarking
ARUP and Rockefeller City Resilience Framework (ARUP 2014, 2016) ✓ ✓ Partially – – – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – Some NBS aspects 
Disaster Resilience scorecard for cities (UNISDR 2015) ✓ ✓ Partially ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Some NBS aspects 
RESCCUE Resilience Assessment Framework (Cardoso et al. 2020) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Some NBS aspects 
UNHABITAT III. SDG 11: Sustainable communities and cities (United Nations General Assembly, 2017) ✓ ✓ Partially ✓ 
UNHABITAT City resilience Profiling Tool ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – – – – – – ✓ – 
U.S. EPA resilience assessment framework (RAF) (U.S. EPA 2017) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Some NBS aspects 
ISO 37120:2014 (ISO 2014) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
RAFScope and structure
Metrics
Application
Urban scaleUrban resilience dimensionsObjectives and criteriaContext informationPublic accessClear definitionQualitative and quantitative informationPerformance, risk and cost analysisReference valuesFinal assessmentResilience capabilitiesAssessment levelsEvolution over timeCity benchmarkingAcute shocks and continuous eventsNBS assessment and benchmarking
ARUP and Rockefeller City Resilience Framework (ARUP 2014, 2016) ✓ ✓ Partially – – – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – Some NBS aspects 
Disaster Resilience scorecard for cities (UNISDR 2015) ✓ ✓ Partially ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Some NBS aspects 
RESCCUE Resilience Assessment Framework (Cardoso et al. 2020) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Some NBS aspects 
UNHABITAT III. SDG 11: Sustainable communities and cities (United Nations General Assembly, 2017) ✓ ✓ Partially ✓ 
UNHABITAT City resilience Profiling Tool ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – – – – – – ✓ – 
U.S. EPA resilience assessment framework (RAF) (U.S. EPA 2017) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Some NBS aspects 
ISO 37120:2014 (ISO 2014) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 

✓ – Considered in the RAF; X – Not considered in the RAF; (-) – Not possible to be analysed due to documents are not public access.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal