Skip to Main Content

Table 7 presents the main available NBS assessment proposals, identifying the main characteristics, the RAF structure, the key information, and the main focus and assessment constraints. Table 8 presents a systematic characterization of the NBS assessment proposals based on the identified key components, regarding its scope and structure, the proposed metrics, and the feasibility of the application.

Table 7

Description of the main NBS assessment proposals published to date

Assessment proposal (reference)DescriptionStructureKey informationFocus and assessment constraints
Climate change and adaptation metrics system (Kabisch et al. 2016) 
  • Focuses on assessing the NBS effectiveness for climate change adaptation and mitigation and associated co-benefits.

  • Helps to understand (i) feasibility and opportunities for enhancing and implementing NBS; (ii) NBS effectiveness; (iii) potential barriers and opportunities.

 
  • Urban resilience is not the focus of the assessment.

  • Considers the social, environmental, economic, and governance dimension of urban resilience.

  • Objectives and criteria are not identified.

  • Proposed metrics are grouped in four areas, namely: (i) urban scale integrated environmental performance; (ii) health and well-being; (iii) transferability and monitoring; (iv) citizens’ involvement.

 
  • Proposes only an indicative list of some metrics.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

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

  • Does not allow for comparing NBS over time or between cities.

  • Does not allow for assessing the impact related to acute shocks and continuous/chronic events.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on related health, well-being, and citizen engagement aspects.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Several critical dimensions for an adequate NBS assessment (e.g., governance or infrastructure performance) are slightly considered.

 
EKLIPSE impact evaluation framework (Raymond et al. 2017a, 2017b) 
  • Focuses on climate resilience and NBS design, development, and implementation.

  • Establishes a base of metrics to support NBS planning and evaluation of projects, providing information about environmental, economic, and social challenges.

 
  • Urban resilience is not the focus of the assessment.

  • Proposed metrics are grouped in 10 climate resilience challenges, namely, (1) contribution of NBS to climate resilience; (2) water management; (3) coastal resilience; (4) green space management; (5) air quality; (6) urban regeneration; (7) participatory planning and governance; (8) social justice and social cohesion; (9) public health and well-being; (10) potential for new economic opportunities and green jobs.

  • For every challenge, examples of metrics for assessing the impact of climate mitigation actions along the macroscale, mesoscale, and microscale are proposed.

 
  • Does not provide a detailed definition of the metrics.

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

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Does not allow for comparing NBS over time or between cities.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on climate resilience.

  • Proposes an extensive list of examples of metrics and available methods for assessing each indicator.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Proposed metrics represent the first approach without a clear definition or reference values.

  • The framework application is not direct. The user has to construct its framework, selecting the impact in each city.

 
Nature4CIties integrated performance metrics system (Nature4Cities 2019; Bouzouidja et al. 2021) 
  • Focuses on climate, environment, resources, social, and economic aspects.

  • Proposes multiscale and multi-thematic performance metrics for assessing urban challenges and NBS.

  • Intends to be a comprehensive book of reference of performance metrics for assessing urban challenges and NBS.

 
  • Urban resilience is not the focus of the assessment.

  • Proposed metrics are structured around 5 topics and 11 urban challenges.

  • Every urban challenge is disaggregated into sub-challenges. Considered topics are climate, environment, resource, social, economy, and multi scales. The analysed challenges are: (1) climate issues; (2) water management and quality; (3) air quality; (4) biodiversity and urban space; (5) soil management; (6) resource efficiency; (7) public health and well-being; (8) environmental justice and social cohesion; (9) urban planning and governance; (10) people security; (10) people security; (11) green economy.

 
  • Does not provide a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Proposes qualitative and quantitative metrics.

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

  • Does not propose a final assessment.

  • Does not identify the resilience capabilities associated with the proposed metrics.

  • Does not propose different assessment levels.

  • Does not allow to compare NBS over time or between cities.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on climate, environment, resources, social, and economic aspects.

  • An extensive review of possible metrics, potential actions, and expected impacts in the urban context is provided.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Proposed metrics represent the first approach without a clear definition or reference values.

 
RAF for NBS (Beceiro et al. 2020) 
  • Focuses on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience, regarding stormwater management and control.

  • Supports the NBS diagnosis, decision-making, implementation, planning and management, and the identification of NBS with the potential to contribute to city resilience.

 
  • Urban resilience is the focus of the assessment.

  • Structured into resilience objectives and criteria. Proposed objectives are grouped in two dimensions (‘Integration of NBS in the city’ and ‘Operation and services of NBS’).

  • Objectives considered are: (1) governance and stakeholders’ involvement; (2) economic sustainability; (3) social involvement and co-benefits; (4) environmental resilience; (5) spatial planning; (6) service management; (7) resilience engaged to service; (8) infrastructure safety and robustness; (9) infrastructure preparedness; (10) infrastructure dependence and autonomy.

  • Proposes different analysis degrees according to the resilience maturity and available information in the city.

  • Includes a complementary profile to identify city and NBS characteristics.

  • Three metrics types were proposed regarding the information's complexity and metric determination.

 
  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Provides a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Proposes reference values for the metrics and a metrics classification, regarding the resilience development level.

  • Allows comparing cities or the same city over time.

  • Allows for assessing the contribution of all existing NBS in the city, of a group of NBS, or a specific NBS.

  • Allows to assess impact related to acute shocks and continuous/chronic events.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on governance, environmental, social, and economic concerns, and the NBS contribution to city, service, and infrastructure.

  • Focuses on hydraulic performance.

  • Predefined to assess flooding scenarios.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Focuses on specific NBS for stormwater management and control (e.g., infiltration basins, green roofs).

  • NBS water quality performance is evaluated in an aggregated and qualitative way.

 
Assessment proposal (reference)DescriptionStructureKey informationFocus and assessment constraints
Climate change and adaptation metrics system (Kabisch et al. 2016) 
  • Focuses on assessing the NBS effectiveness for climate change adaptation and mitigation and associated co-benefits.

  • Helps to understand (i) feasibility and opportunities for enhancing and implementing NBS; (ii) NBS effectiveness; (iii) potential barriers and opportunities.

 
  • Urban resilience is not the focus of the assessment.

  • Considers the social, environmental, economic, and governance dimension of urban resilience.

  • Objectives and criteria are not identified.

  • Proposed metrics are grouped in four areas, namely: (i) urban scale integrated environmental performance; (ii) health and well-being; (iii) transferability and monitoring; (iv) citizens’ involvement.

 
  • Proposes only an indicative list of some metrics.

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

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

  • Does not allow for comparing NBS over time or between cities.

  • Does not allow for assessing the impact related to acute shocks and continuous/chronic events.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on related health, well-being, and citizen engagement aspects.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Several critical dimensions for an adequate NBS assessment (e.g., governance or infrastructure performance) are slightly considered.

 
EKLIPSE impact evaluation framework (Raymond et al. 2017a, 2017b) 
  • Focuses on climate resilience and NBS design, development, and implementation.

  • Establishes a base of metrics to support NBS planning and evaluation of projects, providing information about environmental, economic, and social challenges.

 
  • Urban resilience is not the focus of the assessment.

  • Proposed metrics are grouped in 10 climate resilience challenges, namely, (1) contribution of NBS to climate resilience; (2) water management; (3) coastal resilience; (4) green space management; (5) air quality; (6) urban regeneration; (7) participatory planning and governance; (8) social justice and social cohesion; (9) public health and well-being; (10) potential for new economic opportunities and green jobs.

  • For every challenge, examples of metrics for assessing the impact of climate mitigation actions along the macroscale, mesoscale, and microscale are proposed.

 
  • Does not provide a detailed definition of the metrics.

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

  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Does not allow for comparing NBS over time or between cities.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on climate resilience.

  • Proposes an extensive list of examples of metrics and available methods for assessing each indicator.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Proposed metrics represent the first approach without a clear definition or reference values.

  • The framework application is not direct. The user has to construct its framework, selecting the impact in each city.

 
Nature4CIties integrated performance metrics system (Nature4Cities 2019; Bouzouidja et al. 2021) 
  • Focuses on climate, environment, resources, social, and economic aspects.

  • Proposes multiscale and multi-thematic performance metrics for assessing urban challenges and NBS.

  • Intends to be a comprehensive book of reference of performance metrics for assessing urban challenges and NBS.

 
  • Urban resilience is not the focus of the assessment.

  • Proposed metrics are structured around 5 topics and 11 urban challenges.

  • Every urban challenge is disaggregated into sub-challenges. Considered topics are climate, environment, resource, social, economy, and multi scales. The analysed challenges are: (1) climate issues; (2) water management and quality; (3) air quality; (4) biodiversity and urban space; (5) soil management; (6) resource efficiency; (7) public health and well-being; (8) environmental justice and social cohesion; (9) urban planning and governance; (10) people security; (10) people security; (11) green economy.

 
  • Does not provide a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Proposes qualitative and quantitative metrics.

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

  • Does not propose a final assessment.

  • Does not identify the resilience capabilities associated with the proposed metrics.

  • Does not propose different assessment levels.

  • Does not allow to compare NBS over time or between cities.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on climate, environment, resources, social, and economic aspects.

  • An extensive review of possible metrics, potential actions, and expected impacts in the urban context is provided.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Proposed metrics represent the first approach without a clear definition or reference values.

 
RAF for NBS (Beceiro et al. 2020) 
  • Focuses on assessing the NBS contribution to urban resilience, regarding stormwater management and control.

  • Supports the NBS diagnosis, decision-making, implementation, planning and management, and the identification of NBS with the potential to contribute to city resilience.

 
  • Urban resilience is the focus of the assessment.

  • Structured into resilience objectives and criteria. Proposed objectives are grouped in two dimensions (‘Integration of NBS in the city’ and ‘Operation and services of NBS’).

  • Objectives considered are: (1) governance and stakeholders’ involvement; (2) economic sustainability; (3) social involvement and co-benefits; (4) environmental resilience; (5) spatial planning; (6) service management; (7) resilience engaged to service; (8) infrastructure safety and robustness; (9) infrastructure preparedness; (10) infrastructure dependence and autonomy.

  • Proposes different analysis degrees according to the resilience maturity and available information in the city.

  • Includes a complementary profile to identify city and NBS characteristics.

  • Three metrics types were proposed regarding the information's complexity and metric determination.

 
  • Integrates qualitative and quantitative metrics.

  • Provides a clear definition of the metrics.

  • Proposes reference values for the metrics and a metrics classification, regarding the resilience development level.

  • Allows comparing cities or the same city over time.

  • Allows for assessing the contribution of all existing NBS in the city, of a group of NBS, or a specific NBS.

  • Allows to assess impact related to acute shocks and continuous/chronic events.

 
  • Main focus

  • Focuses on governance, environmental, social, and economic concerns, and the NBS contribution to city, service, and infrastructure.

  • Focuses on hydraulic performance.

  • Predefined to assess flooding scenarios.

  • Assessment constraints.

  • Focuses on specific NBS for stormwater management and control (e.g., infiltration basins, green roofs).

  • NBS water quality performance is evaluated in an aggregated and qualitative way.

 
Table 8

Systematic characterization of the main NBS assessment proposals regarding the key components

Assessment proposalScope and structure
Metrics
Application
Urban resilience focusUrban 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
Climate change and adaptation metrics system (Kabisch et al. 2016) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
EKLIPSE impact evaluation framework (Raymond et al. 2017a, 2017b) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Nature4CIties integrated performance metrics system (Nature4Cities 2019; Bouzouidja et al. 2021) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
RAF for NBS (Beceiro et al. 2020) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Assessment proposalScope and structure
Metrics
Application
Urban resilience focusUrban 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
Climate change and adaptation metrics system (Kabisch et al. 2016) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
EKLIPSE impact evaluation framework (Raymond et al. 2017a, 2017b) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Nature4CIties integrated performance metrics system (Nature4Cities 2019; Bouzouidja et al. 2021) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
RAF for NBS (Beceiro et al. 2020) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal