Next Article in Journal
The Coupling Coordination Relationship between Tourism Competitiveness and Economic Growth of Developing Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
The Contribution of NBS to Urban Resilience in Stormwater Management and Control: A Framework with Stakeholder Validation
Previous Article in Journal
The Corporate Shared Value for Sustainable Development: An Ecosystem Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigating the Effects of Pluvial Flooding and Climate Change on Traffic Flows in Barcelona and Bristol
Article

RAF Resilience Assessment Framework—A Tool to Support Cities’ Action Planning

1
Urban Water Unit, National Civil Engineering Laboratory, LNEC, Av. Brasil 101, 1700–066 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Barcelona City Council, Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona Torrent de l’Olla 218–220, 4a planta, 08012 Barcelona, Spain
3
Bristol City Council, 100 Temple Street, Bristol P.O. Box 3176, UK
4
Lisbon City Council, Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, CML, Praça José Queirós, n.º1–3º piso–Fração 5, 1800–237 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(6), 2349; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062349
Received: 31 January 2020 / Revised: 7 March 2020 / Accepted: 13 March 2020 / Published: 17 March 2020

Abstract

Urban areas are dynamic, facing evolving hazards, having interacting strategic services and assets. Their management involves multiple stakeholders bringing additional complexity. Potential impacts of climate dynamics may aggravate current conditions and the appearance of new hazards. These challenges require an integrated and forward-looking approach to resilient and sustainable urban development, being essential to identify the real needs for its achievement. Several frameworks for assessing resilience have been developed in different fields. However, considering the focus on climate change and urban services, specific needs were identified, particularly in assessing strategic urban sectors and their interactions with others and with the wider urban system. A resilience assessment framework was developed directing and facilitating an objective-driven resilience diagnosis of urban cities and services. This supports the decision on selection of resilience measures and the development of strategies to enhance resilience, outlining a path to co-build resilience action plans, and to track resilience progress in the city or service over time. This paper presents the framework and the main results of its application to three cities having diverse contexts. It was demonstrated that the framework highlights where cities and urban services stand, regarding resilience to climate change, and identifies the most critical aspects to improve, including expected future impacts.
Keywords: resilience assessment; urban resilience; climate change; urban services; cities resilience assessment; urban resilience; climate change; urban services; cities

1. Introduction

Urban areas are complex, vulnerable and continuously evolving systems. In these dynamic areas, the existence of interacting strategic services and of interdependent services and assets, as well as the involvement of a multiplicity of stakeholders, adds complexity to their management. Besides, the significant impacts of climate dynamics (such as intense precipitation events, tidal effects, droughts or heat waves) in the urban strategic services, people, natural environment and economy, as well as the aggravation of current conditions and the emergence of new hazards, also need to be considered in their management [1,2].
As referred to in [3], following the World Economic Forum 2014, by 2050, exposure of city dwellers to various hazards, including earthquakes, tsunamis, urban floods, cyclones and storm surges, is expected to double. These challenges require an integrated and forward-looking approach to resilient and sustainable urban development, incorporating the interdependencies between systems as well as including stakeholders and citizens perceptions and needs. In order to achieve this, several long-term agendas have been adopted as parts of the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, the Sustainable Development Goals, the New Urban Agenda and the Paris Agreement [3]. A relevant consideration in all of these agendas is the incorporation of assessment steps for tracking their implementation [4].
The resilience concept has evolved over time and among disciplines [5,6]. Herein, urban resilience refers to the ability of human settlements to withstand, recover quickly and adapt from any plausible hazards. Resilience to disruptive events not only refers to reducing risks and damage from disasters, but also the ability to quickly bounce back to a stable state. Besides addressing disaster risk reduction, resilience includes changes in circumstances [7,8,9,10].
In order to identify the real needs for enhancing urban resilience, as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of planned or implemented measures, a resilience assessment is essential. Therefore, assessing the current and expected future status of resilience is a basis for cities to know where they are, helping to identify strengths and weaknesses, thus supporting the decision on strategies, actions and measures to be taken, planning for the long-, medium- and short-terms and assessing the progress.
Since the cities are dynamic systems with evolving hazards, it is essential to regularly carry out the assessment of their resilience, considering the principle of continuous improvement [11], and to have tools to support this. Several tools and frameworks for assessing resilience have been developed in different fields of study by a wide variety of stakeholders, such as those created by Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) 2010, UN-Habitat City Resilience Profiling Tool (UN-Habitat CRPT) 2013, Rockefeller and Arup 2014, World Bank 2015, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, former UNISDR) 2017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017, among others [5,7,8,9,12,13,14,15,16]. Within the scope of the current work, i.e., climate change with a focus on water, relevant resilience assessment frameworks are presented in Table 1. It synthetizes the themes, urban sectors and metrics considered in each framework [5,7,13,16,17].
Taking into account the mentioned scope, the need of a framework (Table 1) that is freely available to be usable by cities and urban services managers was identified, allowing, on the one hand, a structured and objective-driven assessment of their city’s resilience considering the integration of all themes and sectors simultaneously and, on the other hand, an assessment of resilience of a single sector considering its interdependencies with other sectors and its contribution to the city resilience.
Grounded in the analysis of these existing frameworks, and in order to bridge the additional gaps and needs identified, particularly in the assessment of strategic urban sectors and their interactions with both other sectors and in the wider urban system, the Resilience Assessment Framework (RAF) was developed—a resilience assessment framework with focus on climate change and the water cycle, herein described.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. RAF—Resilience Assessment Framework Aims, Assumptions and Development Approach

Considering the challenges of urban areas related to the potential effects of climate dynamics, enhancing urban resilience requires: (i) identification of the real needs, (ii) sustainable action planning and (iii) assessing progress. In order to support the mentioned requirements, bridging the gaps and the abovementioned needs identified, a Resilience Assessment Framework (RAF) was developed with the main purpose of contributing to the referred requirements, namely:
(i)
Directing and facilitating a structured resilience diagnosis of the cities and of the strategic urban sectors, following an objective-driven approach [11] with defined assessment criteria and identifying data gaps, opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses, highlighting the areas for improvement.
(ii)
Outlining a path for the development of cities’ resilience action plans by supporting decision-making in the selection of resilience measures and the development of strategies to enhance resilience.
(iii)
Monitoring the resilience progress of a city or service over time, by applying it periodically, and facilitating communication among stakeholders.
The RAF described herein considers the following assumptions:
  • The scope is urban resilience to climate change (CC), with a focus on the water cycle, meaning that other diverse resilience drivers such as earthquakes, economic crises and cyberattacks, are not taken into account.
  • The emphasis is on the city, services and infrastructure resilience, meaning that resilience aspects such as social and political are not developed for diagnosis, but they are incorporated whenever significant for city, services’ and infrastructures’ resilience.
  • The services within the RAF scope are those comprised in the urban water cycle, water supply, wastewater and storm water and those having interconnections and interdependencies, closely related with the water services: waste management, electrical energy supply and mobility.
  • The external context of the city and services is considered by a standard characterisation profile of the city and of the services, since it is fundamental to identify the main threats and to support the assessment, particularly the interpretation of results.
  • The city and services multi-scale, multi-sectoral, multi-hazards and interdependencies are addressed, meaning that the RAF incorporates: different scales—city, services and infrastructure, the diverse sectors presented above, assessment of several hazards and of aspects related to interdependencies between different services and infrastructures.
  • The continuous improvement principle [11] is followed and, since cities are dynamic, it addresses the progress of the strategies’ implementation and considers their effect, before, during and after an event and changes in circumstances.
  • The long-, medium- and short-terms are incorporated considering three different and aligned assessment levels for the city, services and infrastructures (strategic—overlooking a long-term planning horizon and requiring the involvement of the entire organisation, addressing the overall city and considering its vision; tactical—overlooking a medium-term planning horizon and addressing departmental or sectoral activities in the city, services and infrastructure; and operational—referring to short-term horizon, addresses the actions to be taken in the effective implementation of measures in the city, services and infrastructure) while, as an integrated assessment, addresses the two first.
  • A flexible structure is used, based on assessment metrics, allowing it to be expanded to other resilience drivers, dimensions or services.
The development and implementation of the assessment process, in collaboration with different stakeholders, promotes their empowerment and enhance their role in the decision-making process [26], as well as in the implementation of improvement solutions. To consider this, the RAF development was carried out in a stepwise process (Figure 1), comprising the analysis of existing assessment frameworks and related recommendations, and the definition of a preliminary proposal, which was validated to produce the final version.
The validation process included an external and an internal validation [26]. The external validation involved different stakeholders, representatives of research organisations, city departments and urban service utilities, allowing for incorporating their concerns as well as their own context and reality through collaborative workshops. Three workshops were implemented in each city, Barcelona (Spain), Lisbon (Portugal) and Bristol (UK), to obtain the stakeholders’ opinion on the RAF relevance, structure and applicability, as well as their concerns, own context and reality. Overall, 24 to 38 stakeholders attended each of the sessions, from 13 to 24 different organisations, answering individually and by sector to several surveys.
To ensure coherence, feasibility and effectiveness of the approach, the internal validation was carried out in the abovementioned cities, having different characteristics and contexts, which applied this framework involving the respective stakeholders. Each city and respective services provided their own data and answers to all applicable metrics. From the external and internal validation analysis, it was possible to identify the RAF components that benefited from additional improvements and those that less fitted the cities’ available information, thus supporting the development of the final framework herein presented. It is important to take into account that cities are multi-dimension entities and, therefore, urban resilience needs to consider multidisciplinary insights. Additionally, resilience of a city is determined by diverse interacting systems and their relationships. For this reason, resilience also depends on the overall performance, interactions and capacity of its systems in their everyday operation, not solely on its ability to cope with specific natural hazards or to adapt targeted areas to the impacts of climate change [27]. Thus, it is essential to address interdependencies and cascading effects [28]. Another relevant aspect is that it needs to include both sudden crises as well as interacting long-term stressors, address multiple hazards, characterise the specific geographic extent, consider physical dimensions, involve community members and be adaptable and scalable to different communities and changing circumstances [24]. These requirements were considered in the RAF development.

2.2. RAF—Resilience Assessment Framework Description

RAF sought alignment with international frameworks for resilience assessment, particularly with UNDRR Disaster Resilience Scorecard, both preliminary and detailed levels [6,7], and UN-Habitat, and made significant developments with regard to its scope and focus on urban services. The RAF considers the UN-Habitat resilience dimensions [29]: organisational (integrates top-down governance relations and urban population involvement, at the city level), spatial (referring to urban space and environment), functional (resilience of strategic services) and physical (resilience of services infrastructure). Time dimension is implicitly integrated as part of the analysis. The RAF (Table 2) has a hierarchical tree structure (Figure 2) meaning that, for each dimension, resilience objectives are defined, representing the ambitions to be achieved in the medium–long term by the city and services. For those dimensions related to the urban services, they firstly unfold into sub-dimensions, where each sub-dimension represents one service to be assessed. Each objective is described by a set of criteria that translate the different points of view associated with it. Each criterion assembles the respective assessment metrics, through which it is possible to classify the resilience development level by comparison with reference values. Metrics are then defined consisting in questions, parameters or functions used to assess the criteria. Some of the RAF metrics correspond to or were adapted from existing frameworks, mainly from UNDRR framework (former UNISDR)—found to be highly relevant for the scope of the RAF, and others were newly developed. In Appendix A, the complete structure is presented. As an example, Table 3 illustrates the metrics definition to assess, within the spatial dimension, the objective of spatial risk management from the perspective given by the criterion impacts of climate-related events, showing the hierarchical tree structure mentioned above.
The framework considers past, existing and future conditions in the assessment. To incorporate the uncertainties associated to expected variations in climate-related variables, some metrics are specific to CC assessment scenarios, namely those that address preparedness for CC, and that anticipate the city and services’ exposure or vulnerability to future scenarios. Besides, the consideration of reference values allows to generally address uncertainties in the assessment.
A relevance degree is assigned to each metric, namely: essential, corresponding to all metrics with higher relevance, required to integrate the resilience assessment of any city or service, complementary, additional metrics to be considered whenever integration of city or service specific aspects is sought, corresponding to a more detailed resilience assessment and comprehensive, additional metrics recommended whenever a more in-depth assessment is aimed, for a city or service with higher maturity in its resilience path. Accordingly, depending on the resilience maturity, the city or service aiming to apply the RAF may select a given set of metrics, according to their relevance.
Additionally, every city or urban service needs to operate in its own specific political, economic, geographical, climatic and cultural context. Considering the context information is fundamental in interpreting any assessment. Following this, city and services’ characterisation profiles were developed to integrate the RAF framework, regarding its scope and focus. These profiles require information on geographical characteristics, climate, population, economy and governance, built environment and infrastructures, for the city. Regarding each service, it considers information on context characterisation, climate and infrastructure assets.

2.3. Research Sites

2.3.1. General

In order to test and validate the RAF to assess the cities’ resilience to climate change with a focus on the water cycle, it was applied to Bristol (UK), Barcelona (Spain) and Lisbon (Portugal) by the respective cities and strategic services managers. These three cities represent diverse context characteristics as well as different climate change-related concerns. The application was undertaken using the RAF App, a web-based application tool reproducing the RAF structure that allows selection of applicable dimensions and services to assess and allows private submission of answers to the metrics. The results may be visualised graphically (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) and reports are also provided [30].

2.3.2. Bristol

Located in the south-west England, predominantly on a limestone area, Bristol is one of the most densely populated parts of the UK and, after London, the second largest city in the southern region. Most of the urban extent of Bristol is based around the watercourses and river network, with two major rivers flowing through the city (Avon and Frome rivers), resulting in a characteristically hilly landscape. It is one of the warmest cities in the UK and there is a relatively even distribution of rainfall throughout the year, although the autumn and winter seasons tend to be the wettest. Within this context, Bristol has been investing in plans to create and improve resilient systems to tackle its various urban challenges. Based on the analyses conducted by local and international actors working on resilience, the main urban challenges in Bristol can be profiled firstly in terms of natural and environmental hazards and secondly with regards to broader socio-economic issues. Bristol has suffered from significant flooding in the past, with the floating harbour and low-lying city centre being identified as key areas vulnerable to tidal, fluvial and groundwater flooding. The flood of 1968 was one of the most significant and damaging flooding events in the city, caused by both surface water and fluvial flooding that resulted in high damages and impacts to the city and its inhabitants. The construction of large interceptor tunnels in response to this, to divert exceedance flows higher up in the catchment, reduced fluvial flood risk in the city. In 2012, significant flooding occurred across most of the UK due to some of the highest rainfall events since record collection began. During this time, the most notable single flood event lasted two days, with 30 houses internally flooded and many more suffering flooding of gardens, garages and driveways. In order to better manage flood risks in Bristol area, a ‘Local Flood Risk Management Strategy’ was produced and released in early 2018. The Strategy sets out the Bristol City Council vision for managing flood risk in the city, together with other organisations that have a role in flood-risk management [29]. Bristol City Council has already developed an intensive work towards resilience, and it is proactively committed to increase Bristol’s resilience: from social cohesion to economic stresses and by enhancing resilience to all sources of flooding. The resilience of the city to climate change (CC) can be highly related to its urban services’ resilience, their interdependencies and cascade effects. For Bristol, the resilience assessment was undertaken for the flooding hazard related to rainfall and sea level variables, by its importance regarding Bristol resilience to CC.

2.3.3. Barcelona

Located on the northeast coast of the Iberian Peninsula facing the Mediterranean Sea, Barcelona is the capital city of the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain. The city is situated on a plain spanning and is bordered by the mountain range of Collserola, the Llobregat river in the southwest and the Besòs river in the north. Barcelona is the second most populous municipality within Spain. However, the population increased slowly but steadily until the 1970’s, when the city reached its maximum population, thereafter, it stabilized and even decreased at the beginning of the 21st century, reaching the average population of 1.6 million inhabitants. Barcelona’s physical expansion has been limited by the mountains and the sea, resulting in a relatively high population density, among the highest in Europe. Within this context, Barcelona’s major vulnerabilities are mainly attributable to the natural and environmental threats faced by the wider Catalonia region. Barcelona’s past and recent history has been punctuated with recurrent water crises but also with rainfall events with very strong intensity over short time frames. The most severe and recent disruptive event hitting the urban area was between 2004 and 2008. During that period, four years of scarce precipitation in the Llobregat and Ter rivers’ headwaters, coupled with an increased evaporation rate due to high temperatures, culminated in the Spring 2008 water crisis affecting over 5.5 million people in the broader Catalonia. In that context, the Regional Government had to adopt exceptional procedures to minimise water waste, while the City of Barcelona was simultaneously forced to introduce restrictive measures over water use. Since then, several structural measures to ensure water supply have been implemented [29]. In January 2018, the city declared the pre-alert level of the Drought protocol after three consecutive years of low rainfall. The city is affected every year by an average of three intense rainfall events and one extreme flooding event every five years, although these frequencies have been increasing in the last years. Barcelona also has records of one heat wave every four years, a trend that has been increasing notably in the latest years. In 2003, a heatwave that lasted 13 days increased in more than 40% the average mortality. The last heat wave event was in summer 2018, it was 7 days long and caused up to 10 direct deaths. The resilience of the city to climate change can be highly related to its urban services’ resilience, their interdependencies and cascade effects. The Barcelona Municipality has already developed an intensive work towards resilience, and it is proactively committed to increase Barcelona’s resilience: from social exclusion to economic stresses, flooding, drought and heat waves. For Barcelona, the resilience assessment was carried-out for flooding, combined sewer overflows, drought and heat waves, considering the variables related to rainfall, sea level and temperature.

2.3.4. Lisbon

Located on the northern bank of the Tagus River’s estuary, one of the 18 municipalities of the biggest Portuguese metropolitan area, Lisbon is the capital of Portugal and the second largest European port on the Atlantic Ocean. The city has a Mediterranean Climate (Csa), characterised by dry and hot summers and wet and fresh winter periods with a relatively low precipitation rate compared to other Portuguese cities. Lisbon Metropolitan Area, with a population of 2.8 million inhabitants, stretches on both sides of the Tagus River, contributing to 37% of the national economic output. Today, Lisbon is a complex system with more than 1.0 million citizens who live, work, study, circulate and visit the city, Portuguese in the majority, with different ages, cultures, religions, ethnicities, education levels, knowledge and languages. Based on the analyses conducted by both local public stakeholders and international actors working on resilience in Lisbon, one of the urban challenges is related to a combination of contextual environmental, emergency, civil protection and urban planning threats with the contingent impacts of climate change crisis [29]. Since 1950, about 43 relevant events of extreme weather occurred in Lisbon. From these, nine events were related to hot weather, including heat waves, with a maximum temperature of 42 °C recorded in August of 2003, 13 events related to cold weather, including cold waves, with a minimum temperature of −1.2 °C recorded in February 1956, two strong wind and gusts events, with a maximum wind velocity of 108.4 km/h, recorded in January 2014 and 10 rainfall-induced flood events, with a maximum return period of 500 years, recorded in November 1983. The resilience of the city to climate change can be highly related to its urban services’ resilience, their interdependencies and cascade effects. Lisbon Municipality has already developed an intensive work towards resilience, and it is proactively committed to increase the resilience of the city: from social exclusion to economic stresses and from seismic shocks to flooding, combined with 17 Sustainable Development Goals’ achievement. For Lisbon, the resilience assessment was undertaken for the flooding hazard, related to rainfall and sea level variables.

3. Results

3.1. Bristol

The RAF was applied in Bristol in order to assess the current level of city resilience to flooding. Some results are presented in Figure 3. This could then subsequently identify where the gaps lie and what particular aspects are lacking to help formulate plans to improve or enhance upon the existing status, based on this resilience diagnosis. It went into a great level of detail investigating many aspects of city resilience quite thoroughly. The overall resilience development in the city was deemed as advanced in nearly half of the aspects assessed (Figure 3a). In this same respect, around a quarter were shown as progressing and the remainder incipient, unanswerable or not applicable. Various city services were given consideration including storm water, wastewater, energy, mobility and solid waste management operations.
The analysis highlighted the advancement in organisational areas more so over physical areas (Figure 3b), which were deemed more absent. Infrastructure resilience to climate change is therefore the main concern on reflection of this. In their own respect, the individual services seem resilient to a point, due to a focus on building resilience to historical events in the city and in response to national flood-risk issues. There is, however, susceptibility in the realms of reliance upon inter-related services and a lack of understanding of the cascading impacts and interdependencies between them.
The results from the analysis highlight the coordination between governmental organisations that is not always experienced to the same level externally with all privately run organisations. Engagement with communities is also a dynamic that is not completely to its maximum sufficiency. Availability of service resources is good, since diverse energy sources are used in the city, but the reliance on electricity without alternative provisions is a notable limitation (Figure 3c). Resilience standards to adhere to as well as the position of a Chief Resilience Officer being eliminated make for more areas lacking in Bristol. Learning from past events is a commendable action performed well in Bristol, but the running of emergency scenarios and drills does not appear to be simulated enough to gain its full benefit (Figure 3d). The known threats of a significant proportion from sea level rise and increased rainfall present an extreme level of vulnerability to the city and its inhabitants. There are, however, also opportunities presented, though through the declaration of a climate emergency in Bristol, they require drastic action implemented via a climate strategy. The chance for properly applying climate adaptation measures utilising the knowledge developed of high-risk areas in the city therefore has greater prospect for recognition and the enablement for realisation.

3.2. Barcelona

The RAF enables to highlight where Barcelona and its urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved, taking into account both the reference situation and the expected impacts of future climate change scenarios. The diagnosis allowed for understanding those aspects that are being tackled properly from the city and was also to determine gaps and areas of improvement thanks to the great level of detail of the different dimensions that make up the assessment. Some results are presented in Figure 4. The exhaustive analysis led the city to an intense and deep level of self-knowledge about its level of resilience in different ways of approach (Figure 4a). In this sense, the organisational and spatial dimensions yielded good results about the level of response to the metrics considered, reaching a response level of almost 100% (Figure 4b). Regarding the physical and functional dimensions, several services of the city were assessed, namely water, wastewater, storm water, energy, waste management and mobility. The assessment showed those services that are well managed and monitored as waste or water services, but it also highlighted the need of improvement in the energy sector, storm and wastewater and mobility services (Figure 4c,d). For Barcelona, most data gaps can be blamed on the definition of the metrics to be applied and the differences in the way how these metrics are calculated. Most of the time, the indicators did not fit with the ones the city already determines and it would entail a noteworthy effort to address the asked specifications. Without assuming harm, this identification of gaps means an opportunity to improve a new approach to measuring the different aspects of resilience in the city.
The RAF enabled the ability to be realistic with the resilience level of city services. It shed light on the state-of-the-art of urban resilience in Barcelona, highlighting those areas where the city works properly and progresses positively to a high degree of preparedness. At the same time, it has helped to determine those aspects where there is still room for improvement and has also given the chance of applying a methodology capable to reach the deepest areas that make up the operation of a city.

3.3. Lisbon

The RAF was applied in Lisbon in order to assess the current level of city resilience to flooding. The application of a structured resilience assessment framework enables the identification of the resilience criteria, objectives, services and city dimensions with major accomplishments, setbacks or opportunities for improvement. Therefore, it supports identification of resilience measures and development of strategies. Some results are presented in Figure 5. The overall resilience development in the city is advanced in nearly one third of the aspects (Figure 5a). Globally, around a quarter shows progress, meaning that significant steps were already taken, and the city and services are still developing specific aspects. The remainder correspond to incipient, unanswerable or not applicable metrics. Various city services were assessed with more detail, including stormwater, wastewater, energy, mobility and solid waste management.
The analysis highlighted a significant advancement in spatial areas more so over physical areas, which were deemed more absent (Figure 5b). The organisational dimension as well as all the services and infrastructures present aspects already having an advanced development level, while still having significant opportunities for improvement. In the mobility service, considering the significant percentage of metrics that were not answered, data may be not be easily applicable to the metrics provided or some lack of information may exist. This is also applicable to the infrastructure assessment of the stormwater, waste and energy services (Figure 5c). Infrastructure resilience to climate change is therefore the main concern on reflection of this. For all services, the contribution of infrastructure to city resilience needs to be more exploited.
The results from the organisational analysis highlight that citizens and communities’ awareness and training is one of the aspects that needs further development, followed by the city preparedness for disaster response and for recovery and build back. Engagement with communities is also a dynamic that is not completely to its maximum sufficiency as well as the coordination of financial plans and budgets for resilience.
Concerning the spatial analysis, the provision of protective infrastructures and ecosystems is well developed, while the knowledge on climate change hazard and exposure as well as impacts are highlighted as opportunities to be further developed (Figure 5d).
Generally, there is strong development of strategic planning and there is limited preparedness in the wastewater service for climate change, as well as limited autonomy for the majority of the services, with the exception of the stormwater service. There are, however, some susceptibilities in the realms of reliance upon inter-related services and a lack of understanding of the cascading impacts and interdependencies between those for climate change.
This diagnosis of the main strengths and weaknesses supports the identification of the adequate measures for resilience enhancement to climate change. This assessment is a step up in Lisbon’s Climate Change Resilience Process and one diagnosis to be integrated in the ongoing Climate Action Plan of the city.

4. Discussion

By applying the RAF (Section 2.1 and Section 2.2) to Bristol, Barcelona and Lisbon (Section 2.3), from the results obtained (Section 3.1, Section 3.2 and Section 3.3), it was possible to validate that it provides information on the assessment of the current level of the cities’ resilience to climate change with a focus on the water cycle. The framework delivers a structured assessment clearly identifying the work already carried out, translating the strengths of the cities’ resilience and which dimensions of resilience they fit into most. This is illustrated by the advanced or progressing values in Figure 3a,b, Figure 4a,b and Figure 5a,b. Besides the assessment of the organisational and spatial dimensions of the city, one particular aspect to emphasize is the identification of the contribution of the urban services to cities’ resilience, as evident in Figure 3b, Figure 4b–d and Figure 5b,c. At the same time, the framework highlights the gaps, including limitations on data related to unanswered metrics. It also indicates particular aspects that are lacking, as can be seen by incipient values in Figure 3c,d and Figure 5d, as well as those in more need of further development, given by progressing values in the same figures.
It is evident that the RAF enables to highlight where the cities and respective urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved. It should, however, be noted that results of unanswered metrics, corresponding to limitations on data, may be due both to a lack of information or to the alignment in the way existing information is processed in the city with the way the metrics are calculated, as in the Barcelona case (Section 3.2). This last case is likely to occur in cities already using other assessment frameworks. Whenever the framework in use allows to assess the same concerns, i.e., the resilience objectives and criteria corresponding to those of the RAF, they may be used instead. Nevertheless, this provides the challenge to align the RAF with other existing frameworks in this scope. In these circumstances, it is fundamental to clearly identify actual data gaps in the cities and services that need to be filled.
Considering the assignment of a relevance degree described in Section 2.2, it is possible to undertake a stepwise process going into a gradually deeper assessment, depending on the resilience maturity of a city, allowing replicability of the methodology to other cities and services. The framework allows to go into a considerable level of detail investigating many aspects of city resilience quite thoroughly. The whole assessment provides a resilience diagnosis that helps with formulating plans to improve or enhance upon the existing status.
It is feasible to use the RAF to assess diverse hazards such as flooding, combined sewer overflows, drought and heat waves, as it was in the case of Barcelona (Section 2.3.2). The framework may be applicable to provide an overall response regarding the cities’ resilience assessment or it may be applied to assess a certain urban service within its scope (Section 2.1).

5. Conclusions

The resilience assessment framework (RAF) herein presented enables to highlight where the cities and respective urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved, taking into account both the reference situation and the expected impacts of future climate change scenarios. The diagnosis allows for understanding those aspects that are being tackled properly and also to determine gaps and areas of improvement thanks to the great level of detail of the different dimensions that make up the assessment. It also provides a means to assess resilience progress, therefore contributing to an integrated and forward-looking approach to resilient and sustainable urban development. Additionally, it may facilitate communication among different stakeholders and between different decision levels.
The application of this framework to Bristol, Barcelona and Lisbon cities have demonstrated that the RAF is a tool that provides support to a structured assessment of urban resilience to climate change with a focus on water. Even though it was developed within the scope of climate change and with a focus on the water cycle, replication to other hazards and services is considered on its foundation. Given its different assessment levels, it may be used by any city, service or organisation that intends to undertake a resilience assessment with this scope and focus, regardless of their resilience maturity. The RAF allows to align with the resilience path and integrate the work already in place in the cities and services, as well as to consider the information provided by diverse analysis approaches and tools, already in use or to be used by the city and service managers. Given the adopted structure, an effective and robust implementation requires the involvement of multiple parties, in a collaborative process allowing incorporation of the best available information.
The RAF is a flexible framework allowing further inclusion of additional dimensions, such as social or economic, and of other objectives, criteria and metrics, for the services already addressed. Moreover, it may be strengthened with the incorporation of other services, such as telecommunication, education or health. Other development opportunities are the consideration of other hazards, such as earthquakes, or of other risks.

Author Contributions

M.A.C. supervised this entire study, co-developed the methodology, the framework and the validation, co-analysed the results, drafted manuscript and finalised it. R.S.B. co-developed the methodology, the framework and the validation, co-analysed the results and provided suggestions on the draft manuscript. C.P. co-developed the framework and the validation, co-analysed the results, contributed to the draft manuscript. A.G. coordinated the framework application in Barcelona and contributed to the draft manuscript. J.S. coordinated the framework application in Bristol and contributed to the draft manuscript. M.J.T. coordinated the framework application in Lisbon, provided suggestions on the framework and contributed to the draft manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by EUROPEAN UNION’S HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH AND INNOVATION PROGRAM, under the Grant Agreement number 700174.

Acknowledgments

The work presented was developed within the EU H2020 RESCCUE project—Resilience to Cope with Climate change in Urban areas. Acknowledgment is due to all RESCCUE partners, particularly from UN-Habitat and Luís Mesquita David and Maria do Céu Almeida from LNEC regarding contributions to the framework development, as well as to all participants of the Bristol, Barcelona and Lisbon workshops, particularly the external contributors, the organisers and facilitators fundamental for the validation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Resilience Assessment Framework Including Metrics Overview
Table A1. Organisational dimension.
Table A1. Organisational dimension.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
COLLECTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND AWARENESS
Citizens and communities’ engagement
O01Community or “grassroots” organisations, networks and training(-)
Are grassroots or community organisations participating in pre-event planning and post-event response for each neighbourhood in the city? (UNISDR Scorecard P7.1)
O02Civil society links(-)
Are civil society organisations engaged? (UNISDR Scorecard D4.1.4 (adapted))
O03Engagement of vulnerable groups of the population(-)
There is evidence of disaster resilience planning with or for the relevant groups of vulnerable population, and there is a confirmation from those groups of effective engagement. (UNISDR Scorecard D7.2.2 (adapted))
O04Citizen engagement techniques(-)
How effective is the city at citizen engagement and communications in relation to disaster risk reduction (DRR)? (UNISDR Scorecard P7.4)
O05Use of mobile and e-mail “systems of engagement” to enable citizens to receive and give updates before and after a disaster(-)
Use of mobile and social computing-enabled systems of engagement. All information before, during and after an event is supported by email, available on mobile devices, supported by alerts on social media, used to enable an in-bound “citizen to government” flow allowing crowd sourcing of data on events and issues. (UNISDR Scorecard D7.4.2 (adapted))
Citizens and communities’ awareness and training
O06Public education and awareness(-)
Existence and reach of a co-ordinated public relations and education campaign, with structured messaging and channels to ensure hazard, risk and disaster information is disseminated to the public. (UNISDR Scorecard P6.2)
O07Training delivery(-)
Existence and reach (to all sectors) of training courses covering risk and resilience issues. (UNISDR Scorecard P6.4)
O08Drills(-)
Do practices and drills involve both the public and professionals? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.7)
O09Social networks(-)
Are there regular training programmes provided to the most vulnerable and at need populations in the city?
O10Validation of effectiveness of education(-)
Knowledge of “most probable” risk scenario and knowledge of key response and preparation steps is widespread throughout city. Tested by sample survey. (UNISDR Scorecard D7.4.3 (adapted))
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
Government decision-making and finance
O11Consultative planning process(-)
Existence and characteristics of formal planning consultative process?
O12Planning approval process(-)
Characteristics of the planning approval process?
O13Public finances(-)
Are the objectives of the city Strategy and/or Planning portfolio matched by adequate public finances?
O14Financial plan and budget for resilience, including contingency funds(-)
Does the city have in place a specific ‘ring fenced’ (protected) budget, the necessary resources and contingency fund arrangements for local disaster risk reduction (DRR) (mitigation, prevention, response and recovery)? (UNISDR Scorecard P3.2)
Coordination and communication with stakeholders
O15Co-ordination with other government bodies(-)
Does the city have a formal mechanism (e.g., Office, Committee, National/Regional Platform) to coordinate actions between city and other international, national, regional or local governments, which ensures integrated and flexible communication and collaboration between them?
O16Multi-stakeholder collaboration(-)
Does the city have a formal stakeholder engagement programme (including the most socially vulnerable and at need populations)?
O17Access and use of digital services(-)
In its stakeholder engagement programme, does the city encourage access and use of digital services?
O18Collaboration mechanisms(-)
In its stakeholder engagement programme, does the city have mechanisms to ensure: a) regular, proactive and inclusive multi-stakeholder collaboration (including the most socially vulnerable and at need populations) (…)
Resilience-engaged city
O19City Master Plan making and implementation(-)
Does the city master plan (or relevant strategy/plan) include and localise and/or implement objectives of Agenda 2030?
O20City Master Plan monitoring and review(-)
Is the City Master Plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and is properly operational?
O21Hazard Assessment(-)
Existence of hazard assessment(s) (knowledge of key hazards that the city faces, including likelihood of occurrence)? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.1 (adapted))
O22Damage and loss estimation(-)
Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss from potential disasters, based on current development and future urban and population growth? (UNISDR Scorecard D2.2.2 (adapted))
O23Shared understanding of infrastructure risk(-)
Is there a shared understanding of risks between the city and various utility providers and other regional and national agencies that have a role in managing infrastructure such as power, water, roads and trains, of the points of stress on the system and city scale risks? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.2)
O24Plan for resilience(-)
Does the city have a municipally approved resilience plan (strategy or action plan)? And what is its timeframe?
O25Plan for resilience and Climate Change(-)
Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)?
O26Plan integration in the City Master Plan(-)
Is the resilience plan integrated with the City Master Plan?
O27External support for the resilience plan(-)
Is the document being developed by the city alone or with support from INGOs/UN bodies working on the subject?
O28Robustness of resilience plan(-)
How robust is the resilience plan?
O29Resilience Plan monitoring and review(-)
Is the resilience plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational?
O30Knowledge of resilience scenarios(-)
Are there agreed scenarios for resilience (with relevant background information and supporting notes, updated at agreed intervals), setting out city-wide exposure and vulnerability from each hazard, or groups of hazards? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.3 (adapted))
O31Data sharing(-)
Extent to which data on the city’s resilience context is shared with other organisations involved with the city’s resilience. (UNISDR Scorecard P6.3)
O32Integration(-)
Is resilience properly integrated with other key city functions/portfolios? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.3)
O33Organisation, coordination and participation(-)
Is there a multi-agency/sectoral mechanism with appropriate authority and resources to address resilience?
O34Critical infrastructure as a priority(-)
Is critical infrastructure resilience a city priority? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.1 (adapted))
O35Critical infrastructure plan overview(-)
Does the city own and implement a critical infrastructure plan or strategy? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.1 (adapted))
O36Cascading impacts(-)
Is there a collective understanding of potentially cascading failures between different city and infrastructure systems, under different scenarios, and a mapping of such cascading effects is available? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted))
O37Learning from others(-)
Is the city proactively seeking to exchange knowledge and learn from other cities facing similar challenges? (UNISDR Scorecard P6.6 (adapted))
CITY PREPAREDNESS
City preparedness for disaster response
O38Early warning(-)
Existence of Early Warning System for monitoring, forecasting and doing predictions on hazards (including climate change-related events) (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted))
O39Reach of warning(-)
Percentage of population reachable by early warning systems (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1.1.1 (adapted))
O40Communications(-)
Would a significant loss of service be expected for a significant proportion of the city in the ‘worst case’ scenario event? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.6)
O41Event management plans(-)
Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining city mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2)
O42Staffing/responder needs(-)
Does the responsible disaster management authority have sufficient staffing capacity to support first responder duties in surge event scenario? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.3)
O43Equipment and relief supply needs(-)
Are equipment and supply needs, as well as the availability of equipment, clearly defined? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.4)
O44Definition of human resources, equipment and supply needs, and availability of equipment(-)
Has an estimated shortfall in human resources and equipment been identified?
O45Existence of agreements(-)
If yes, have MOUs - or several ones - been signed, regarding mutual agreements with other cities or private sector resources, in order to cover the detected shortfall?
O46Health care(-)
Would there be sufficient acute healthcare capabilities to deal with expected major injuries in ‘worst case’ scenario? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.7)
O47Food, shelter, staple goods and fuel supply(-)
Would the city be able to continue to feed and shelter its population post-event? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.5)
O48Interoperability and interagency working(-)
Is there an emergency operations’ centre, with participation from all agencies, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with “most probable” and “most severe” scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6)
O49Existence of civil society focal points for citizens(-)
Existence of volunteers and civil society organisations acting as focal points for citizens after an event, and regularly thereafter, to confirm safety issues, needs etc.
O50Social connectedness and neighbourhood cohesion(%)
What is the estimated percentage of population that would be contacted by volunteers, within the 12 hours following an event and regularly thereafter? (UNISDR Scorecard D7.2.1 (adapted))
City preparedness for climate change
O51Management plans for climate-related events(-)
Does the city have a plan addressing climate-related events, either consisting of a specific document or integrated into the city’s planning portfolio?
O52Implementation of management plans for climate-related events(-)
If existing, is this document being implemented through defined standard operational procedures?
O53Management plans for climate-related events monitoring and review(-)
If existing, is this document being monitored and reviewed in less than a 5-year interval?
O54Knowledge of exposure and vulnerability for climate change scenarios(-)
Are there agreed climate change scenarios setting out city-wide exposure and vulnerability from each hazard, or groups of hazards? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.3 (adapted))
O55City status when addressing contribution to climate change(-)
Comparing to the mean GHG emission per inhabitant that was considered to elaborate the official RCP scenarios, what are the current city’s emissions?
O56City commitment with mitigation of climate change effects(%)
Has the city signed any formal agreement in order to reach an established mitigation target for GHG reduction by 2050, when comparing to 1990 values?
O57Planning for mitigation of climate change effects(-)
Are the mitigation targets for GHG (emission reduction by 2050) being considered in the city plans and being enforced in new projects?
City preparedness for recovery and build back
O58Post event recovery planning—pre event(-)
Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event recovery and reconstruction, including economic reboot, societal aspects etc.? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1)
O59Coordination of post event recovery(-)
Is the coordinating body for all post-disaster processes identified and structured, including the distribution of roles and responsibilities between relevant organisations? (UNISDR Scorecard D9.6.3 (adapted))
O60Lessons learnt(-)
Do post-event assessment processes include failure analysis?
O61Learning loops(-)
If yes, does this process allow to capture lessons learned, which then feed into design and delivery of rebuilding projects? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.2 (adapted))
O62Insurance(-)
What level of insurance cover exists in the city, across all sectors - business and community? (UNISDR Scorecard P3.3)
O63Damage and loss post-event assessment(-)
Does the city have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment?
O64Current post-event assessment system(-)
If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?
Availability and access to basic services
O65Water supply(%)
Percentage of households with access to safe drinking water distribution.
O66Wastewater collection(%)
Percentage of households served by wastewater collection.
O67Wastewater treatment(-)
Provision of adequate treatment to wastewater through wastewater treatment plant.
O68Urban waste collection(%)
Percentage of population served by regular solid waste collection (having waste picked up within 200 m from households, by a legally established entity, on at least a weekly basis).
O69Urban waste treatment(-)
Provision of adequate treatment to solid waste through recovery methods or disposal in landfill?
O70Urban electrical energy network(%)
Percentage of households with regular connection to the electricity network.
O71Urban electrical energy alternative source(%)
Estimated percentage of households connected to alternative sources of electricity.
O72Urban gas energy network(%)
Percentage of households with regular access to the gas distribution network.
O73Urban mobility accessing collective transportation(%)
Percentage of population living less than 500 m. from any type of public stop, including trains, subway, tram, bus transportation.
O74Urban cycling mobility(-)
Is there a public plan/strategy to develop cycling paths in the city or expend the existing network?
Table A2. Spatial dimension.
Table A2. Spatial dimension.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
SPATIAL RISK MANAGEMENT
General hazard and exposure mapping
S01Presentation process for risk information(-)
Do clear hazard maps and data on risk exist? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.5 (adapted))
S02Update process for risk information(-)
If yes, are these maps regularly updated? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.5 (adapted))
S03Knowledge of exposure and vulnerability(-)
Existence of scenarios setting out city-wide exposure and vulnerability from each hazard level. (UNISDR Scorecard D2.2.1)
S04Scenarios and update process for risk information(-)
Risk scenarios are updated at least every three years for the following. (UNISDR Scorecard D2.5.1 (adapted))
S05Damage and loss estimation(-)
Damage and loss aspects taken into account by risk assessments for key identified scenarios. (UNISDR Scorecard D2.2.2)
Hazard and exposure for climate change
S06Potential population at risk of displacement for climate change scenarios(-)
Percentage of population at risk of displacement for three months or longer according to climate change scenarios. (UNISDR Scorecard D4.1.1 (adapted))
S07Urban footprint at risk for climate change scenarios(-)
Percentage of urban footprint at risk, according to climate change scenarios.
S08Economic activity at risk for climate change scenarios(-)
Percentage of economic activity at risk from climate change scenarios. (UNISDR Scorecard D4.1.2.1 (adapted))
Resilient urban development
S09Land use zoning and planning(-)
Is the land use plan - including zoning - informed by risk scenarios?
S10Land use plan monitoring and review(-)
Is this plan regularly monitored and reviewed? (UNISDR Scorecard P4.1 (adapted))
S11Land use zoning implementation(-)
Extent to which land use zoning is implemented in the city and complied with. (UNISDR Scorecard D4.4.1 (adapted))
S12New urban development(-)
Is there a policy promoting physical measures in new development that enhance resilience to one or multiple hazards? (UNISDR Scorecard P4.2 (adapted))
S13Urban design solutions that increase resilience(-)
Does the city implement urban design solutions tasked to improve resilience? (UNISDR Scorecard D4.2.1 (adapted))
S14Building codes and standards(-)
Do building codes or standards exist, and do they address specific known hazards and risks for the city? Are these standards regularly updated? (UNISDR Scorecard P4.3)
S15Application of building codes(-)
Implementation of building codes on relevant structures, certified as such by a 3rd party. (UNISDR Scorecard D4.4.2)
Impacts of climate-related event
S16Human loss in the last events(-)
Human impact of the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
S17Damages in urban footprint in the last events(%)
Impact on urban footprint of the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PROVISION OF PROTECTIVE INFRASTRUCTURES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protective infrastructures and ecosystems services
S18Existing protective infrastructure(-)
Is existing protective infrastructure designed and built according to risk information? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.2 (adapted))
S19New protective infrastructure(-)
Is new protective infrastructure (in design or construction process) under development and consistent with best practice (for asset design, building and management, based on relevant risk information)?
S20Maintenance of protective infrastructure(-)
Is protective infrastructure regularly maintained?
S21Awareness and understanding of ecosystem services/functions(-)
Beyond just an awareness of the natural assets, does the city understand the functions that this natural capital provides for the city? (UNISDR Scorecard P5.1)
S22Awareness of the role that assets that provide ecosystem services play in the city’s resilience(-)
Assets that provide ecosystem services are specifically identified and managed as critical assets?
S23Trends in ecosystem services health(-)
Change in health, extent or benefit of each ecosystem service in last 5 years. (UNISDR Scorecard D5.1.2)
S24Maintenance of ecosystem services(-)
Are ecosystem services specifically maintained and annually monitored on a defined set of key health/performance indicators?
S25Availability of green and blue infrastructures(m2/inhabitant)
Estimated green and blue area per inhabitant.
S26Integration of green and blue infrastructure into city policy and projects(-)
Is green and blue infrastructure being promoted on major urban development and infrastructure projects through policy?
Dependence and autonomy regarding other services considering climate change
S27Critical services dependence of protective infrastructures and ecosystems under climate change scenarios(-)
Critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependence of protective infrastructures and ecosystems under climate change scenarios.
S28Autonomy from other services under climate change scenarios(-)
Protective infrastructure and ecosystems autonomy regarding critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) loss under climate change scenarios.
S29Transboundary environmental issues(-)
Is the city aware of ecosystem services being provided to the city from natural capital beyond its administrative borders? Are agreements in place with neighbouring administrations to support the protection and management of these assets? (UNISDR Scorecard P5.3)
Table A3. Functional dimension for the Water Service.
Table A3. Functional dimension for the Water Service.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
WATER SERVICE PLANNING AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Strategic planning
FWts01Water service strategic plan making and implementation(-)
Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted))
FWts02Plan alignment with the City Master Plan(-)
If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document?
FWts03Service plan monitoring and review(-)
If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational?
FWts04Exchange of information to the city(-)
Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents?
FWts05Land use zoning compliance(-)
Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service
FWts06Resilience in water service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan(-)
Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service’s strategic plan) and what is its timeframe?
FWts07Service strategic plan for resilience and CC(-)
Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)?
FWts08Service financial plan and budget for resilience(-)
Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions including disaster risk reduction (DRR))?
FWts09Water service business continuity(-)
Do business continuity plans exist?
FWts10Co-ordination with other water services in the city(-)
Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other water services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level?
FWts11Learning from other water services(-)
Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?
Risk management
FWts12Risk information related to the water service(-)
Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated?
FWts13Damage and loss estimation(-)
Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?
FWts14Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, in the city area according to CC scenarios(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts15Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, in the city area according to CC scenarios(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts16Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers according to CC scenarios(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts17Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers according to CC scenarios(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts18Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for other services according to CC scenarios(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts19Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for other services according to CC scenarios(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts20Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for households according to CC scenarios(% households)
% of households expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts21Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for households according to CC scenarios(% households)
% of households expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts22Expected total duration of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FWts23Expected total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.
Reliable service
FWts24Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts25Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts26Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers last year(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts27Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers last year(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts28Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for other services last year(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts29Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for other services last year(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts30Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for households last year(% households)
% of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts31Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for households last year(% households)
% of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts32Total duration of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, last year(Days)
Total duration (days) of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts33Total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, last year(Days)
Total duration (days) of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts34Water losses last year(m3/(km.day))
Water losses last year (water loss volume in the supply system/(total pipe length × 365))
Flexible service
FWts35Water uses(% drinking water)
% of drinking water being used for irrigation, street cleaning, firefighting, or other public uses.
FWts36Water sources(-)
Which types of water supply sources are being used in the city?
FWts37Water sources location(-)
Where are the city’s water supply sources located?
FWts38Service management(-)
Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place?
AUTONOMOUS WATER SERVICE
Service importance to the city
FWts39Stakeholders perception(-)
Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders’ perception and is it applied? If yes quantify the service score from stakeholder perception.
FWts40Cascading impacts(-)
Is there an understanding of potentially cascading failures between different services, under different scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted))
Service inter-dependency with other services considering climate change
FWts41Critical services dependence on water service according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent are critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependent on the water service, based on climate change scenarios?
FWts42Water services autonomy from other critical services according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent is the water service dependent on other critical services (CS -RESCCUE services), based on climate change scenarios?
WATER SERVICE PREPAREDNESS
Service preparedness for disaster response
FWts43Water service event management plans(-)
Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted))
FWts44Water services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency(-)
Is there an emergency operations’ centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with “most probable” and “most severe” scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted))
FWts45Water services early warning(-)
Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted))
FWts46Water service drills(-)
Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change
FWts47Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects(% reduction GHG)
Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning?
FWts48Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios(-)
Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios?
FWts49Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios(-)
The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People (…)
FWts50Service planning for adaptation to CC(-)
Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects?
FWts51Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FWts52Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FWts53Equipment capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
FWts54Staffing capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
Service preparedness for recovery and build back
FWts55Water service CC recovery planning(-)
Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1)
FWts56Water service damage and loss post-event assessment(-)
Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment?
FWts57Current post-event assessment system(-)
If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?
FWts58Water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts59Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, in the city area, in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts60Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts61Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts62Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for other services in the last relevant climate-related event(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts63Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for other services in the last relevant climate-related event(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts64Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for households in the last relevant climate-related event(% households)
% of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts65Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for households in the last relevant climate-related event(% households)
% of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts66Total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts67Total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWts68Water service lessons learnt and learning loops(-)
Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them?
FWts69Insurance(-)
What level of insurance cover exists in the service?
Table A4. Functional dimension for Wastewater Service.
Table A4. Functional dimension for Wastewater Service.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
WASTEWATER SERVICE PLANNING AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Strategic planning
FWwt01Wastewater service strategic plan making and implementation(-)
Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted))
FWwt02Plan alignment with the City Master Plan(-)
If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document?
FWwt03Service plan monitoring and review(-)
If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational?
FWwt04Exchange of information to the city(-)
Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents?
FWwt05Land use zoning compliance(-)
Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service
FWwt06Resilience in wastewater service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan(-)
Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service’s strategic plan) and what is its timeframe?
FWwt07Service strategic plan for resilience and CC(-)
Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)?
FWwt08Service financial plan and budget for resilience(-)
Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))?
FWwt09Wastewater service business continuity(-)
Do business continuity plans exist?
FWwt10Co-ordination with other wastewater services in the city(-)
Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other wastewater services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level?
FWwt11Learning from other wastewater services(-)
Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?
Risk management
FWwt12Risk information related to the wastewater service(-)
Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated?
FWwt13Damage and loss estimation(-)
Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?
FWwt14Expected wastewater flooding in the city area according to CC scenarios(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios.
FWwt15Expected wastewater treatment failures in the city area according to CC scenarios(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by wastewater treatment failures, according to climate change scenarios.
FWwt16Expected wastewater flooding in sensitive customers according to CC scenarios(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios.
FWwt17Expected wastewater discharges, due to failure in wastewater service to ecosystem services according to CC scenarios(-)
Number of expected wastewater discharges into ecosystems services due to wastewater service interruption, according to climate change scenarios.
FWwt18Expected wastewater flooding in other services according to CC scenarios(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios.
FWwt19Expected wastewater flooding in households according to CC scenarios(% households)
% of households expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios.
FWwt20Expected total duration of wastewater flooding period according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected wastewater flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios.
FWwt21Expected total duration of wastewater treatment failure period according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected wastewater treatment failures, according to climate change scenarios.
Reliable service
FWwt22Wastewater flooding in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year.
FWwt23Wastewater treatment failures in the city area in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by wastewater treatment failures, last year.
FWwt24Wastewater flooding in sensitive customers last year(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year.
FWwt25Wastewater discharges, due to failure in wastewater service, to ecosystem services last year(-)
Number of wastewater discharges into ecosystems services due to wastewater service interruption, last year.
FWwt26Wastewater flooding in other services last year(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year.
FWwt27Wastewater effective treatment in the city area last year(%)
Percentage of wastewater that was collected and safely treated, last year.
FWwt28Wastewater flooding in households last year(% households)
% of households affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year.
FWwt29Total duration of wastewater flooding period last year(Days)
Total duration (days) of wastewater flooding, last year.
FWwt30Total duration of wastewater treatment failure period last year(Days)
Total duration (days) of wastewater treatment failure, last year.
FWwt31Estimated undue inflows into wastewater system last year(m3/(km.day))
Undue inflows (e.g., stormwater, industrial, saline, water supply inflows) into the system last year (undue wastewater inflow volume in the collection system/(total pipe length × 365)).
Flexible service
FWwt32Treated wastewater uses(% treated wastewater)
Percentage of treated wastewater being recycled or reused (for e.g., irrigation, urban cleaning, firefighting).
FWwt33Wastewater disposal(-)
Which solutions for wastewater disposal are used in the city?
FWwt34Wastewater disposal location(-)
Where are the city’s wastewater disposal points located?
FWwt35Service management(-)
Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is in place?
AUTONOMOUS WASTEWATER SERVICE
Service importance to the city
FWwt36Stakeholders perception(-)
Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders’ perception and is it applied? If yes quantify the service score from stakeholder perception.
FWwt37Cascading impacts(-)
Is there an understanding of potentially cascading failures between different services, under different scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted))
Service inter-dependency with other services considering climate change
FWwt38Critical services dependence on wastewater service according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent are critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependent on the wastewater service, based on climate change scenarios?
FWwt39Wastewater services autonomy from other critical services according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent is the wastewater service dependent on other critical services (CS -RESCCUE services), based on climate change scenarios?
WASTEWATER SERVICE PREPAREDNESS
Service preparedness for disaster response
FWwt40Wastewater service event management plans(-)
Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted))
FWwt41Wastewater services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency(-)
Is there an emergency operations’ centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with “most probable” and “most severe” scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted))
FWwt42Wastewater services early warning(-)
Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted))
FWwt43Wastewater service drills(-)
Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change
FWwt44Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects(% reduction GHG)
Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning?
FWwt45Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios(-)
Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios?
FWwt46Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios(-)
The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People (…)
FWwt47Service planning for adaptation to CC(-)
Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects?
FWwt48Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FWwt49Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FWwt50Equipment capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
FWwt51Staffing capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
Service preparedness for recovery and build back
FWwt52Wastewater service CC recovery planning(-)
Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1)
FWwt53Wastewater service damage and loss post-event assessment(-)
Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment?
FWwt54Current post-event assessment system(-)
If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?
FWwt55Wastewater flooding in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt56Wastewater treatment failures in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by wastewater treatment failures, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt57Wastewater flooding in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt58Wastewater discharges, due to failure in wastewater service, to ecosystem services in the last relevant climate-related event(-)
Number of wastewater discharges into ecosystems services due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario
FWwt59Wastewater flooding for other services in the last relevant event(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt60Wastewater effective treatment in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(%)
Percentage of wastewater that was collected and safely treated, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt61Wastewater flooding in households in the last relevant climate-related event(% households)
% of households affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt62Total duration of wastewater flooding period in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of wastewater flooding, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt63Total duration of wastewater treatment failure period in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of wastewater treatment failure, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FWwt64Wastewater service lessons learnt and learning loops(-)
Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them?
FWwt65Insurance(-)
What level of insurance cover exists in the service?
Table A5. Functional resilience assessment framework of the Stormwater Service.
Table A5. Functional resilience assessment framework of the Stormwater Service.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
STORMWATER SERVICE PLANNING AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Strategic planning
FSwt01Stormwater service strategic plan making and implementation(-)
Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted))
FSwt02Plan alignment with the City Master Plan(-)
If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document?
FSwt03Service plan monitoring and review(-)
If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational?
FSwt04Exchange of information to the city(-)
Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents?
FSwt05Land use zoning compliance(-)
Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service
FSwt06Resilience in stormwater service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan(-)
Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service’s strategic plan) and what is its timeframe?
FSwt07Service strategic plan for resilience and CC(-)
Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)?
FSwt08Service financial plan and budget for resilience(-)
Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))?
FSwt09Stormwater service business continuity(-)
Do business continuity plans exist?
FSwt10Co-ordination with other stormwater services in the city(-)
Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other stormwater services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level?
FSwt11Learning from other stormwater services(-)
Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?
Risk management
FSwt12Risk information related to the stormwater service(-)
Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated?
FSwt13Damage and loss estimation(-)
Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?
FSwt14Expected stormwater flooding in the city area according to CC scenarios(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FSwt15Expected stormwater flooding in sensitive customers according to CC scenarios(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FSwt16Expected stormwater flooding in other services according to CC scenarios(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FSwt17Expected stormwater flooding in households according to CC scenarios(% households)
% of households expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.
FSwt18Expected total duration of stormwater flooding period according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected stormwater flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.
Reliable service
FSwt19Stormwater flooding in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.
FSwt20Stormwater flooding in sensitive customers last year(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.
FSwt21Stormwater flooding in other services last year(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.
FSwt22Stormwater flooding in households last year(% households)
% of households affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.
FSwt23Total duration of stormwater flooding period last year(Days)
Total duration (days) of stormwater flooding, due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.
FSwt24Estimated undue inflows into stormwater system last year(m3/(km.day))
Undue inflows (e.g., wastewater, industrial, saline, water supply inflows) into the system last year (undue wastewater inflow volume in the collection system/(total pipe length × 365)).
Flexible service
FSwt25Treated stormwater uses(% treated stormwater)
% of collected stormwater being recycled or reused (for e.g., irrigation, urban cleaning, firefighting).
FSwt26Stormwater disposal(-)
Which solutions for stormwater disposal are used in the city?
FSwt27Stormwater disposal location(-)
Where are the city’s stormwater disposal points located?
FSwt28Service management(-)
Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place?
AUTONOMOUS STORMWATER SERVICE
Service importance to the city
FSwt29Stakeholders perception(-)
Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders’ perception and is it applied? If yes quantify the service score from stakeholder perception.
FSwt30Cascading impacts(-)
Is there an understanding of potentially cascading failures between different services, under different scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted))
Service inter-dependency with other services considering climate change
FSwt31Critical services dependence on stormwater service according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent are critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependent on the stormwater service, based on climate change scenarios?
FSwt32Stormwater services autonomy from other critical services according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent is the stormwater service dependent on other critical services (CS -RESCCUE services), based on climate change scenarios?
STORMWATER SERVICE PREPAREDNESS
Service preparedness for disaster response
FSwt33Stormwater service event management plans(-)
Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted))
FSwt34Stormwater services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency(-)
Is there an emergency operations’ centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with “most probable” and “most severe” scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted))
FSwt35Stormwater services early warning(-)
Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted))
FSwt36Stormwater service drills(-)
Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change
FSwt37Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects(% reduction GHG)
Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning?
FSwt38Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios(-)
Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios?
FSwt39Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios(-)
The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People (…)
FSwt40Service planning for adaptation to CC(-)
Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects?
FSwt41Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FSwt42Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FSwt43Equipment capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
FSwt44Staffing capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
Service preparedness for recovery and build back
FSwt45Stormwater service CC recovery planning(-)
Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1)
FSwt46Stormwater service damage and loss post-event assessment(-)
Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment?
FSwt47Current post-event assessment system(-)
If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?
FSwt48Stormwater flooding in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSwt49Stormwater flooding in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSwt50Stormwater flooding in other services in the last relevant climate-related event(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSwt51Stormwater flooding in households in the last relevant climate-related event(% households)
% of households affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSwt52Total duration of stormwater flooding in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of stormwater flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSwt53Stormwater service lessons learnt and learning loops(-)
Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them?
FSwt54Insurance(-)
What level of insurance cover exists in the service?
Table A6. Functional dimension for Waste Service.
Table A6. Functional dimension for Waste Service.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
WASTE SERVICE PLANNING AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Strategic planning
FSlw01Waste service strategic plan making and implementation(-)
Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted))
FSlw02Plan alignment with the City Master Plan(-)
If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document?
FSlw03Service plan monitoring and review(-)
If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational?
FSlw04Exchange of information to the city(-)
Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents?
FSlw05Land use zoning compliance(-)
Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service
FSlw06Resilience in waste service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan(-)
Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service’s strategic plan) and what is its timeframe?
FSlw07Service strategic plan for resilience and CC(-)
Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)?
FSlw08Service financial plan and budget for resilience(-)
Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))?
FSlw09Waste service business continuity(-)
Do business continuity plans exist?
FSlw10Co-ordination with other waste services in the city(-)
Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other solid waste services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level?
FSlw11Learning from other waste services(-)
Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?
Risk management
FSlw12Risk information related to the waste service(-)
Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated?
FSlw13Damage and loss estimation(-)
Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?
FSlw14Expected solid waste collection interruption in the city area according to CC scenarios.(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruptions exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios.
FSlw15Expected solid waste treatment failure in the city area according to CC scenarios(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by solid waste treatment problems exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios.
FSlw16Expected solid waste collection interruption of sensitive customers according to CC scenarios(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios.
FSlw17Expected solid waste collection interruption for other services according to CC scenarios(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios.
FSlw18Expected solid waste collection interruption in households according to CC scenarios(% households)
% of households expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios.
FSlw19Expected total duration of solid waste collection interruption period according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected solid waste collection interruption, according to climate change scenario.
FSlw20Expected total duration of solid waste treatment failure period according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected solid waste treatment failure, according to climate change scenarios.
Reliable service
FSlw21Solid waste collection interruption in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by solid waste collection interruptions exceeding 4 days, last year.
FSlw22Solid waste effective treatment failure in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by solid waste treatment problems exceeding 4 days, last year.
FSlw23Solid waste collection interruption for sensitive customers last year(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, last year.
FSlw24Solid waste collection interruption for other services, last year(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, last year.
FSlw25Solid waste effective treatment in the city area last year(% safely treated solid waste)
Percentage of solid waste that was collected and safely treated, last year.
FSlw26Solid waste collection interruption in households, last year(% households)
% of households affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, last year.
FSlw27Total duration of solid waste collection interruption period last year(Days)
Total duration (days) of solid waste collection interruption, last year.
FSlw28Total duration of solid waste treatment failure period last year(Days)
Total duration (days) of solid waste treatment failure, last year.
FSlw29Estimated undue wastes into solid waste system last year(-)
Types of undue wastes into the solid waste system.
Flexible service
FSlw30Treated solid waste recovered(% treated solid waste being recovered)
% of treated solid waste being recovered (from recycling and reuse, energy recovery, composting…)
FSlw31Solid waste disposal(-)
Which solutions for solid waste disposal are used in the city?
FSlw32Solid waste disposal location(-)
Where are the city’s solid waste disposal points located?
FSlw33Service management(-)
Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place?
AUTONOMOUS WASTE SERVICE
Service importance to the city
FSlw34Stakeholders perception(-)
Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders’ perception and is it applied? If yes quantify the service score from stakeholder perception.
FSlw35Cascading impacts(-)
Is there an understanding of potentially cascading failures between different services, under different scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted))
Service inter-dependency with other services considering climate change
FSlw36Critical services dependence on solid waste service according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent are critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependent on the waste service, based on climate change scenarios?
FSlw37Solid waste services autonomy from other critical services according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent is the waste service dependent on other critical services (CS -RESCCUE services), based on climate change scenarios?
WASTE SERVICE PREPAREDNESS
Service preparedness for disaster response
FSlw38Solid waste service event management plans(-)
Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard 9.2 (adapted))
FSlw39Solid waste services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency(-)
Is there an emergency operations’ centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with “most probable” and “most severe” scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted))
FSlw40Solid waste services early warning(-)
Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted))
FSlw41Solid waste service drills(-)
Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change
FSlw42Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects(% reduction GHG)
Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning?
FSlw43Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios(-)
Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios?
FSlw44Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios(-)
The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People (…)
FSlw45Service planning for adaptation to CC(-)
Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects?
FSlw46Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FSlw47Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FSlw48Equipment capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
FSlw49Staffing capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
Service preparedness for recovery and build back
FSlw50Solid waste service CC recovery planning(-)
Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard 10.1)
FSlw51Solid waste service damage and loss post-event assessment(-)
Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment?
FSlw52Current post-event assessment system(-)
If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?
FSlw53Solid waste collection interruption in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
% of city area with solid waste collection interruption in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw54Solid waste effective treatment failure in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by solid waste treatment problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw55Solid waste collection interruption in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by solid waste collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw56Solid waste collection interruption for other services in the last relevant climate-related event(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by solid waste collection interruption in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw57Solid waste effective treatment in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% solid waste safely treated)
Percentage of solid waste that was collected and safely treated in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw58Solid waste collection interruption in households in the last relevant climate-related event(% households)
% of households affected by solid waste collection interruption in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw59Total duration of solid waste collection interruption in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of solid waste collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw60Total duration of solid waste treatment failure in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of solid waste treatment failure, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FSlw61Solid waste service lessons learnt and learning loops(-)
Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them?
FSlw62Insurance(-)
What level of insurance cover exists in the service?
Table A7. Functional dimension for the Energy Service.
Table A7. Functional dimension for the Energy Service.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
ENERGY SERVICE PLANNING AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Strategic planning
FEne01Energy service strategic plan making and implementation(-)
Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted))
FEne02Plan alignment with the City Master Plan(-)
If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document?
FEne03Service plan monitoring and review(-)
If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational?
FEne04Exchange of information to the city(-)
Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents?
FEne05Land use zoning compliance(-)
Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service
FEne06Resilience in energy service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan(-)
Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service’s strategic plan) and what is its timeframe?
FEne07Service strategic plan for resilience and CC(-)
Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)?
FEne08Service financial plan and budget for resilience(-)
Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))?
FEne09Energy service business continuity(-)
Do business continuity plans exist?
FEne10Co-ordination with other energy services in the city(-)
Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other energy services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level?
FEne11Learning from other energy services(-)
Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?
Risk management
FEne12Risk information related to the energy service(-)
Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated?
FEne13Damage and loss estimation(-)
Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?
FEne14Expected energy outage in the city area according to CC scenarios(% city area)
Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h, according to climate change scenarios.
FEne15Expected energy outage for sensitive customers according to CC scenarios(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers expected to be affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h, according to climate change scenarios.
FEne16Expected energy outage for other services according to CC scenarios(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services expected to be affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h, according to climate change scenarios.
FEne17Expected energy outage for households according to CC scenarios(% households)
% of households expected to be affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h, according to climate change scenarios.
FEne18Expected total duration of energy outage period according to CC scenarios(Days)
Total duration (days) of expected energy outage, according to climate change scenarios.
Reliable service
FEne19Energy outage in the city area last year(% city area)
Percentage of the city area affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year.
FEne20Energy outage for sensitive customers last year(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year.
FEne21Energy outage for other services last year(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year.
FEne22Energy outage in households last year(% households)
% of households affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year.
FEne23Total duration of energy outage period last year(Days)
Total duration of energy outage periods last year (days).
FEne24Energy losses last year(-)
Energy losses last year (rate of electricity losses in distribution networks measured as the ratio between losses and supplies of electricity).
Flexible service
FEne25Alternative energy sources(% energy from renewable sources)
% of energy coming from renewable sources.
FEne26Energy sources(-)
Which energy sources are used in the city?
FEne27Energy sources location(-)
Where are the city’s energy source points located?
FEne28Service management(-)
Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place?
AUTONOMOUS ENERGY SERVICE
Service importance to the city
FEne29Stakeholders perception(-)
Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders’ perception and is it applied? If yes, quantify the service score from stakeholder perception.
FEne30Cascading impacts(-)
Is there an understanding of potentially cascading failures between different services, under different scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted))
Service inter-dependency with other services considering climate change
FEne31Critical services dependence on energy service according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent are critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependent on the energy service, based on climate change scenarios?
FEne32Energy services autonomy from other critical services according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent is the energy service dependent on other critical services (CS -RESCCUE services), based on climate change scenarios?
ENERGY SERVICE PREPAREDNESS
Service preparedness for disaster response
FEne33Energy service event management plans(-)
Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted))
FEne34Energy services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency(-)
Is there an emergency operations’ centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with “most probable” and “most severe” scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted))
FEne35Energy services early warning(-)
Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted))
FEne36Energy service drills(-)
Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change
FEne37Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects(% reduction GHG)
Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning?
FEne38Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios(-)
Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios?
FEne39Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios(-)
The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People (…)
FEne40Service planning for adaptation to CC(-)
Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects?
FEne41Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FEne42Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
FEne43Equipment capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
FEne44Staffing capacity of the service(-)
Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
Service preparedness for recovery and build back
FEne45Energy service CC recovery planning(-)
Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1)
FEne46Energy service damage and loss post-event assessment(-)
Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment?
FEne47Current post-event assessment system(-)
If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?
FEne48Energy outage in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of city area affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FEne49Energy outage in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event(% sensitive customers)
% of sensitive customers affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FEne50Energy outage in other services in the last relevant climate-related event(% customers other services)
% of customers of other services affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FEne51Energy outage in households in the last relevant climate-related event(% households)
% of households affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FEne52Total duration of energy outage in the last relevant climate-related event(Days)
Days of energy outage in the last relevant climate-related event.
FEne53Energy service lessons learnt and learning loops(-)
Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them?
FEne54Insurance(-)
What level of insurance cover exists in the service?
Table A8. Functional dimension for the Mobility Service.
Table A8. Functional dimension for the Mobility Service.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
MOBILITY SERVICE PLANNING AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Strategic planning
FMob01Mobility service strategic plan making and implementation(-)
Existence and implementation of a strategic plan for the mobility in the city. (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted))
FMob02Characterization of mobility needs(-)
The plan includes the characterization of the following population mobility habits: a) Type of mobility solutions used (…)
FMob03Mobility plan monitoring and review(-)
If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational?
FMob04Routes hierarchy characterization(-)
The city established a hierarchy of its routes.
FMob05Land use zoning compliance(-)
Do mobility-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged mobility
FMob06Resilience in Mobility service strategy(-)
Resilience’s aspects are included in the mobility plan?
FMob07Mobility plan for Climate Change(-)
The plan considers climate change (hazards, projections, scenarios, impacts, etc.)?
FMob08Budget for resilience(-)
The mobility plan has dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))?
FMob09Co-ordination with other Mobility services in the city(-)
Is there any coordination mechanism in place between mobility services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level?
FMob10Learning from other Mobility services(-)
Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?
Risk management
FMob11Risk information related to the Mobility service(-)
Does the mobility plan include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, identification of higher flow routes, damage and loss quantification, etc.) and is it regularly updated?
FMob12Damage and loss estimation(-)
Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?
FMob13Expected mobility interruption in the city area according to CC scenarios(-)
No city area at risk of mobility interruptions exceeding 2 h, due to the most probable scenario, for these services:
FMob14Expected mobility interruption in the higher flow routes according to CC scenarios(-)
Expected mobility interruption exceeding 2 hours in the higher flow routes according to climate change scenarios.
FMob15Expected mobility interruption for population according to CC scenarios(-)
No population living in the area expected to be affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, due to the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob16Expected mobility interruption for long-distance passengers according to CC scenarios(-)
No long-distance passengers expected to be affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, due to the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob17Expected mobility interruption period according to CC scenarios(-)
Less than 2 h of expected mobility interruption, due to the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based (…)
Reliable mobility
FMob18Public transport spatial coverage(% city area)
Public transport is available and covers: a) More than or equal to 80% of the city area (…)
FMob19Public transport daily coverage(Hours/day)
Public transport is available.
FMob20Mobility interruption in the higher flow routes last year(-)
Mobility interruption exceeding 2 hours in the higher flow routes last year.
FMob21Mobility interruption in the city area last year(-)
Less than 2.5% of the city area with mobility interruptions exceeding 2 h, last year, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob22Mobility interruption for population last year(-)
Less than 2.5% of the population living in the area affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, last year, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob23Mobility interruption for long-distance passengers last year(-)
Less than 2.5% of the long-distance passengers affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, last year, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob24Total duration of mobility interruption period last year(-)
Less than 0.5 days of mobility interruption, last year, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob25Routes with restrictions to circulation of heavy vehicles(-)
The city has identified the routes with restriction to the circulation of heavy vehicles.
FMob26Routes with restrictions to circulation of medical or emergency vehicles(-)
The city has identified the routes with restriction to the circulation of medical or emergency vehicles.
Flexible mobility
FMob27Alternative mobility(% everyday cycling mobility)
% of everyday cycling mobility.
FMob28City mobility solutions(-)
Which solutions for mobility are available in the city?
FMob29Modal split for city road-based solutions(% share)
% share of each road-based solution.
FMob30Long distance mobility solutions(-)
Which solutions for long distance mobility are available in the city?
FMob31Mobility passenger transference(-)
Where are the city’s mobility central node points located?
FMob32Use of mobility management tools(-)
Mobility in the city recurs to the following management tools: a) Traffic lighting is managed in an integrated and automatic way (…)
AUTONOMOUS MOBILITY
Service importance to the city
FMob33Stakeholders perception of city mobility(-)
Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders’ perception and is it applied? If yes, quantify the service score from stakeholder perception.
FMob34Cascading impacts(-)
Is there an understanding of potentially cascading failures between different mobility services, under different scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted))
Service inter-dependency with other services considering climate change
FMob35Critical services dependence on mobility according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent are critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependent on the mobility, based on climate change scenarios?
FMob36Mobility autonomy from other critical services according to CC scenarios(-)
To what extent is the mobility dependent on other critical services (CS -RESCCUE services), based on climate change scenarios?
MOBILITY PREPAREDNESS
Mobility preparedness for climate change
FMob37Mobility commitment with mitigation of CC effects(% reduction GHG)
Is city mobility committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning?
FMob38Mobility interruption in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event(% city area)
Percentage of city area affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FMob39Mobility interruption in the higher flow routes in the last relevant climate-related event(-)
Mobility interruption exceeded 2 h in higher flow routes in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
FMob40Mobility interruption for population in the last relevant climate-related event(-)
Less than 2.5% of population living in the area affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob41Mobility interruption for long-distance passengers in the last relevant climate-related event(-)
Less than 2.5% of long-distance passengers affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based (…)
FMob42Mobility interruption period in the last relevant climate-related event(-)
Less than 2 h that mobility services suffered from interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based (…)
Table A9. Physical dimension for the water infrastructure.
Table A9. Physical dimension for the water infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
SAFE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets criticality and protection
PWts01Water infrastructure critical assets(-)
Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified?
PWts02Component importance(-)
The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following:
PWts03Water infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update(-)
Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk?
PWts04Exchange of information(-)
Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city?
PWts05Protective buffers mapping and information to the city(-)
Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?
Infrastructure assets robustness
PWts06Codes and standards for infrastructure(-)
Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented?
PWts07Maintenance of infrastructure(-)
Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered?
PWts08Water pump failures last year(Days)
Average number of days that system pumps were out of order last year.
PWts09Water mains bursts last year(No./100 km)
Relative number of water mains bursts last year (No./system length (km) × 100 km).
PWts10Water service connections bursts last year(No./1000 connections)
Number of water connections bursts last year (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).
PWts11Hydrant failures last year(No./1000 hydrants)
Average number of hydrant failures last year (No./hydrants in the system × 1000 hydrants).
PWts12Power failures last year(Days)
Average number of days pumping stations were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year.
PWts13Water quality last year(%)
Percentage of performed laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year.
PWts14Level of failure of critical infrastructure asset last year(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year.
PWts15Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year(-)
Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year.
PWts16Time for restoration last year(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year (days).
PWts17Real water losses(m3/(km.day))
Volume of real physical water losses, through any leaks, damaged pipes or overflows (m3/(km.day)).
PWts18Energy efficiency in pumping stations(kWh/m3.100m)
Average normalized energy consumption in PS - pumping stations = (Total energy consumption for pumping/sum (Water volume in PS i × Manometric pressure head i/100).
PWts19Pollution prevention(% appropriate sludge disposal)
Percentage of sludge from water treatment with appropriate final disposal.
AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services
PWts20Cascading impacts(-)
There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios:
PWts21Infrastructure of other services dependency on water infrastructure(-)
The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on water infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service (…)
PWts22Dependency on infrastructures of other services(-)
The infrastructure of the water service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service (…)
PWts23Level of dependency(% customers affected)
Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.
Infrastructure assets autonomy
PWts24Autonomy from infrastructures of other services(% infrastructure)
Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the water service.
PWts25Level of autonomy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected).
PWts26Autonomy activation(-)
How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PWts27Autonomy period(Days)
Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)).
PWts28Water storage autonomy(Days)
Days of water supply autonomy provided by supply and distribution storage tanks = water inflow (m3/year)/(water storage volume (m3) × 365 )
PWts29Energy self-production(%)
Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.
Infrastructure assets redundancy
PWts30Redundancy(-)
Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?
PWts31Redundancy activation(-)
How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PWts32Level of redundancy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience
PWts33Use of design solutions to improve city resilience(-)
The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement (…)
PWts34Greenhouse gas emission target(-)
Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction.
PWts35Other contributions to city resilience(-)
The water infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter (…)
Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change
PWts36Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario(-)
Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
PWts37Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario(%)
Ratio between predicted expenditure on infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year.
PWts38Time for restoration for most probable scenario(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
Preparedness for climate change
PWts39Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
PWts40Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back
PWts41Water pump failures in the last relevant event(Days)
Number of days system pumps were out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWts42Water service mains failures in the last relevant event(No./100 km)
Number of mains failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./system length (km) × 100 km).
PWts43Water service connection mains bursts in the last relevant event(No./1000 connections)
Number of water service connections mains bursts due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).
PWts44Hydrant bursts in the last relevant event(No./1000 hydrants)
Number of hydrant bursts due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./hydrants in the system × 1000 hydrants).
PWts45Power failures in the last relevant event(Days)
Number of days pumping stations were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWts46Water quality compliance in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWts47Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWts48Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event(%)
Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year.
PWts49Time for restoration in the last relevant event(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
Table A10. Physical dimension for the wastewater infrastructure.
Table A10. Physical dimension for the wastewater infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
SAFE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets criticality and protection
PWwt01Wastewater infrastructure critical assets(-)
Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified?
PWwt02Component importance(-)
The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: a) Population served (…)
PWwt03Wastewater infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update(-)
Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk?
PWwt04Exchange of information(-)
Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city?
PWwt05Protective buffers mapping and information to the city(-)
Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?
Infrastructure assets robustness
PWwt06Codes and standards for infrastructure(-)
Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented?
PWwt07Maintenance of infrastructure(-)
Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered?
PWwt08Wastewater pump failures last year(Days)
Average number of days that system pumps were out of order last year.
PWwt09Wastewater sewer pipe collapses last year(No./100 km)
Relative number of collapses in wastewater sewers last year (No./system length (km) × 100 km).
PWwt10Wastewater connection collapses last year(No./1000 connections)
Number of collapses in wastewater connections last year (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).
PWwt11Power failures last year(Days)
Average number of days pumping stations were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year.
PWwt12Combined sewer overflow failures last year(CSO discharges/total CSO devices)
Average number of combined sewer overflows last year.
PWwt13Wastewater quality last year(%)
Percentage of performed laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year.
PWwt14Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year.
PWwt15Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year(-)
Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year.
PWwt16Time for restoration last year(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year.
PWwt17Real undue inflows into the wastewater infrastructure(m3/(km.day))
Volume of real physical undue inflows into the wastewater infrastructure, through joints, damaged pipes or wrong connections (m3/(km.day)).
PWwt18Energy efficiency in pumping stations(kWh/m3.100m)
Average normalised energy consumption in PS – pumping stations = (Total energy consumption for pumping/sum (wastewater volume in PS i × Manometric pressure head i/100).
PWwt19Pollution prevention(% appropriate sludge disposal)
Percentage of sludge from wastewater treatment with appropriate final disposal.
AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services
PWwt20Cascading impacts(-)
There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the wastewater service (…)
PWwt21Infrastructure of other services’ dependency on wastewater infrastructure(-)
The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on wastewater infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service (…)
PWwt22Dependency on infrastructures of other services(-)
The infrastructure of the wastewater service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service (…)
PWwt23Level of dependency(% customers affected)
Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.
Infrastructure assets autonomy
PWwt24Autonomy from infrastructures of other services(% infrastructure)
Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the wastewater service.
PWwt25Level of autonomy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected).
PWwt26Autonomy activation(-)
How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PWwt27Autonomy period(Days)
Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)).
PWwt28Energy self-production(%)
Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.
Infrastructure assets redundancy
PWwt29Redundancy(-)
Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?
PWwt30Redundancy activation(-)
How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PWwt31Level of redundancy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service.
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience
PWwt32Use of design solutions to improve city resilience(-)
The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement (…)
PWwt33Greenhouse gas emission target(-)
Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction.
PWwt34Other contributions to city resilience(-)
The wastewater infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter (…)
Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change
PWwt35Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario(-)
Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
PWwt36Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario(%)
Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year.
PWwt37Time for restoration for most probable scenario(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
Preparedness for climate change
PWwt38Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
PWwt39Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back
PWwt40Wastewater pump failures in the last relevant event(Days)
Number of days system pumps were out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWwt41Wastewater sewer pipe failures in the last relevant event(No./100km)
Number of failures in wastewater sewers due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./system length (km) × 100 km).
PWwt42Wastewater connection failures in the last relevant event(No./100km)
Number of failures in wastewater connections due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).
PWwt43Combined sewer overflow failures in the last relevant event(CSO discharges/total CSO devices)
Number of combined sewer overflow failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWwt44Power failures in the last relevant event(Days)
Number of days pumping stations were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWwt45Wastewater quality compliance in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWwt46Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PWwt47Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event(%)
Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year.
PWwt48Time for restoration in the last relevant event(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
Table A11. Physical dimension for the stormwater infrastructure.
Table A11. Physical dimension for the stormwater infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
SAFE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets criticality and protection
PSwt01Stormwater infrastructure critical assets(-)
Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified?
PSwt02Component importance(-)
The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: a) Population served (…)
PSwt03Stormwater infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update(-)
Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk?
PSwt04Exchange of information(-)
Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city?
PSwt05Protective buffers mapping and information to the city(-)
Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?
Infrastructure assets robustness
PSwt06Codes and standards for infrastructure(-)
Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented?
PSwt07Maintenance of infrastructure(-)
Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered?
PSwt08Stormwater pump failures last year(Days)
Average number of days that system pumps were out of order last year.
PSwt09Stormwater sewer pipe collapses last year(No./100 km)
Relative number of pipe collapses last year (No./system length (km) × 100 km).
PSwt10Stormwater connection collapses last year(No./1000 connections)
Number of collapses in stormwater connections last year (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).
PSwt11Inlet failures last year(No./1000 inlets)
Average number of inlet failures last year (No./inlets in the system × 1000 inlets).
PSwt12Power failures last year(Days)
Average number of days pumping stations were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year.
PSwt13Stormwater quality last year(%)
Percentage of performed laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year.
PSwt14Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year.
PSwt15Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year(-)
Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year.
PSwt16Time for restoration last year(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year.
PSwt17Real undue inflows into the stormwater infrastructure(m3/(km.day))
Volume of real physical undue inflows into the stormwater infrastructure (e.g., soil, wastewater, industrial, saline, water supply inflows), through joints, damaged pipes or wrong connections (m3/(km.day)).
PSwt18Energy efficiency in pumping stations(-)
Average normalized energy consumption in PS - pumping stations = (Total energy consumption for pumping/sum (stormwater volume in PS i × Manometric pressure head i/100).
PSwt19Pollution prevention(% appropriate sludge disposal)
Percentage of sludge from stormwater treatment with appropriate final disposal.
AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services
PSwt20Cascading impacts(-)
There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the stormwater service (…)
PSwt21Infrastructure of other services’ dependency on stormwater infrastructure(-)
The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on stormwater infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service (…)
PSwt22Dependency on infrastructures of other services(-)
The infrastructure of the stormwater service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service (…)
PSwt23Level of dependency(% customers affected)
Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.
Infrastructure assets autonomy
PSwt24Autonomy from infrastructures of other services(% infrastructure)
Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the stormwater service.
PSwt25Level of autonomy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected).
PSwt26Autonomy activation(-)
How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PSwt27Autonomy period(Days)
Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)).
PSwt28Capacity for zero floods(Years)
Based on the historical data, estimative of the maximum return period without city-wide flood ensured by the existing stormwater infrastructure.
PSwt29Energy self-production(%)
Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.
Infrastructure assets redundancy
PSwt30Redundancy(-)
Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?
PSwt31Redundancy activation(-)
How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience
PSwt32Use of design solutions to improve city resilience(-)
The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement (…)
PSwt33Greenhouse gas emission target(-)
Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction.
PSwt34Other contributions to city resilience(-)
The stormwater infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter (…)
Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change
PSwt35Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario(-)
Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
PSwt36Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario(%)
Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year.
PSwt37Time for restoration for most probable scenario(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
Preparedness for climate change
PSwt38Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
PSwt39Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back
PSwt40Stormwater pump failures in the last relevant event(Days)
Number of days system pumps were out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSwt41Stormwater sewer pipe failures in the last relevant event(No./100 km )
Number of failures in stormwater sewers due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./system length (km) × 100 km).
PSwt42Stormwater connection failures in the last relevant event(No./1000 connections )
Number of failures in stormwater connections due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).
PSwt43Inlets failures in the last relevant event(No./1000 inlets )
Number of inlets failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./inlets in the system × 1000 inlets).
PSwt44Power failures in the last relevant event(Days)
Number of days pumping stations were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSwt45Stormwater quality compliance in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSwt46Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSwt47Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event(%)
Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year.
PSwt48Time for restoration in the last relevant event(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
Table A12. Physical dimension for the waste infrastructure.
Table A12. Physical dimension for the waste infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
SAFE WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets criticality and protection
PSlw01Solid waste infrastructure critical assets(-)
Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified?
PSlw02Component importance(-)
The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: a) Population served (…)
PSlw03Solid waste infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update(-)
Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk?
PSlw04Exchange of information(-)
Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city?
PSlw05Protective buffers mapping and information to the city(-)
Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?
Infrastructure assets robustness
PSlw06Codes and standards for infrastructure(-)
Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented?
PSlw07Maintenance of infrastructure(-)
Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered?
PSlw08Waste collection infrastructure components failures last year(Days)
Average number of days with collection infrastructure components out of service last year.
PSlw09Waste management service facilities unavailable last year(% facilities)
Relative number of waste management facilities unavailable for longer than 4 days, last year (facilities unavailable /total number of facilities).
PSlw10Waste management fleet failures last year(-)
Average number of days that at least 10% of the waste management fleet was out of service last year.
PSlw11Waste containers dumped or displaced last year(% containers)
Relative number of waste containers dumped or displaced last year (number affected/total number of containers).
PSlw12Power failures interrupting service last year(Days)
Average number of days waste management were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year.
PSlw13Laboratory analysis compliance(%)
Percentage of laboratory analysis performed in disposal site that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year.
PSlw14Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year.
PSlw15Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year(-)
Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year.
PSlw16Time for restoration last year(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year.
PSlw17Pollution prevention(% appropriate leachate disposal)
Percentage of leachate from solid waste treatment with appropriate final disposal.
AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services
PSlw18Cascading impacts(-)
There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the solid waste service (…)
PSlw19Infrastructure of other services’ dependency on solid waste infrastructure(-)
The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on waste infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service (…)
PSlw20Dependency on infrastructures of other services(-)
The infrastructure of the waste service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service (…)
PSlw21Level of dependency(% customers affected)
Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.
Infrastructure assets autonomy
PSlw22Autonomy from infrastructures of other services(% infrastructure)
Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the solid waste service.
PSlw23Level of autonomy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected).
PSlw24Autonomy activation(-)
How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PSlw25Autonomy period(Days)
Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)).
PSlw26Waste storage autonomy(Days)
Days of waste storage autonomy provided by containers and transfer locations.
PSlw27Energy self-production(%)
Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.
Infrastructure assets redundancy
PSlw28Redundancy(-)
Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?
PSlw29Redundancy activation(-)
How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PSlw30Level of redundancy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service.
WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience
PSlw31Use of design solutions to improve city resilience(-)
The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement (…)
PSlw32Recovered material from waste treatment(% recovered material)
% of recovered material from treatment per year (including composting, recycling and direct recovery).
PSlw33Greenhouse gas emission target(-)
Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction.
PSlw34Other contributions to city resilience(-)
The solid waste infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter (…)
Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change
PSlw35Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario(-)
Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
PSlw36Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario(%)
Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year.
PSlw37Time for restoration for most probable scenario(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
Preparedness for climate change
PSlw38Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
PSlw39Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back
PSlw40Waste collection infrastructure components failures last relevant event(Days)
Number of days waste collection infrastructure components were out of service due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSlw41Waste management service facilities unavailable in the last relevant event(% facilities)
Number of waste management service facilities unavailable in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSlw42Waste management fleet failures in the last relevant event(-)
Number of waste management fleet failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSlw43Waste containers dumped or displaced in the last relevant event(% containers)
Number of waste containers dumped or displaced due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSlw44Power failures in the last relevant event(Days)
Number of days waste management facilities were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSlw45Laboratory analysis compliance in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of laboratory analysis performed in disposal site that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements in the last relevant event.
PSlw46Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PSlw47Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event(%)
Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year.
PSlw48Time for restoration in the last relevant event(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
Table A13. Physical dimension for the energy infrastructure.
Table A13. Physical dimension for the energy infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
SAFE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets criticality and protection
PEne01Energy infrastructure critical assets(-)
Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified?
PEne02Component importance(-)
The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following:
PEne03Energy infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update(-)
Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk?
PEne04Exchange of information(-)
Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city?
PEne05Protective buffers mapping and information to the city(-)
Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?
Infrastructure assets robustness
PEne06Codes and standards for infrastructure(-)
Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented?
PEne07Maintenance of infrastructure(-)
Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered?
PEne08Power station failure last year(Days)
Average number of days that power stations were out of service due to infrastructure problems last year.
PEne09Power substation failure last year(Days)
Average number of days that power substations were out of service due to infrastructure problems last year.
PEne10Power distribution network failures last year(-)
Number of failures in the distribution network last year.
PEne11Local power installations failures last year(-)
Number of sectional and transformation power stations and public lighting installations failures last year.
PEne12Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure assets out of order by failure last year.
PEne13Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year(-)
Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year.
PEne14Time for restoration last year(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year.
PEne15Use of cooling waters(l/kWh)
Water use per year for cooling power stations.
AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services
PEne16Cascading impacts(-)
There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the energy service (…)
PEne17Infrastructure of other services’ dependency on energy infrastructure(-)
The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on energy infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service (…)
PEne18Dependency on infrastructures of other services(-)
The infrastructure of the energy service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service (…)
PEne19Level of dependency(% customers affected)
Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.
Infrastructure assets autonomy
PEne20Autonomy from infrastructures of other services(% infrastructure)
Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the energy service.
PEne21Level of autonomy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected).
PEne22Autonomy activation(-)
How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PEne23Autonomy period(Days)
Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)).
Infrastructure assets redundancy
PEne24Redundancy(-)
Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?
PEne25Redundancy activation(-)
How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.
PEne26Level of redundancy(% customers covered)
Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service.
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience
PEne27Use of design solutions to improve city resilience(-)
The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement (…)
PEne28Greenhouse gas emission target(-)
Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction.
PEne29Other contributions to city resilience(-)
The energy infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter (…)
Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change
PEne30Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario(-)
Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
PEne31Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario(%)
Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year.
PEne32Time for restoration for most probable scenario(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
Preparedness for climate change
PEne33Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
PEne34Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back
PEne35Power stations failure in the last relevant event(Days)
Average number of days that power stations were out of service due to infrastructure problems due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PEne36Power substation failure in the last relevant event(Days)
Average number of days that power substations were out of service due to infrastructure problems due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PEne37Power distribution network failures in the last relevant event(-)
Number of failures in the distribution network due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PEne38Local power installation failures in the last relevant event(-)
Number of sectional and transformation power stations and public lighting installation failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PEne39Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event(%)
Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order by failure due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PEne40Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event(-)
Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year.
PEne41Time for restoration in the last relevant event(Days)
Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
Table A14. Physical dimension for the mobility infrastructure.
Table A14. Physical dimension for the mobility infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
PI
PI Unit
SAFE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets criticality and protection
PMob01Mobility infrastructure critical assets(-)
Are the critical infrastructure assets for mobility identified?
PMob02Component importance for city mobility(-)
The identification of infrastructure critical assets for city mobility is based in the following: a) Population served (…)
PMob03Mobility infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update(-)
Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk?
PMob04Protective buffers mapping and information to the city(-)
Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined and are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?
Infrastructure assets robustness
PMob05Codes and standards for infrastructure(-)
Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented?
PMob06Maintenance of infrastructure(-)
Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered?
PMob07Road and rail routes failures last year(-)
Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average last year, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)
PMob08Transport interfaces failures last year(Hours)
Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to infrastructural failures last year.
PMob09Power-related failures in road and rail routes last year(-)
Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average, due to power-related failures, last year.
PMob10Power-related failures in transport interfaces last year(Hours)
Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to power-related failures, last year.
PMob11Flooding-related failures in road and rail routes last year(-)
Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average, due to flooding, last year.
PMob12Flooding-related failures in transport interfaces last year(Hours)
Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to flooding-related failures on average, last year.
PMob13Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year(-)
Ratio of expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure (routes and interfaces) and annual operating budget of last year between 0.9 and 1.0 or between 1.1 and 1.2, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)
PMob14Time for restoration last year(-)
Mobility critical infrastructure (routes and interfaces) with a maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, less than or equal to 7 h last year, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)
PMob15Clean fuel public transport(-)
Existence of alternative clean fuel public transport in the city.
AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services
PMob16Cascading impacts(-)
There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the mobility infrastructure (road, train, air and water-based transport that applies) and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Full knowledge between the components of the mobility infrastructure (…)
PMob17Infrastructure of other services’ dependency on mobility infrastructure(-)
The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on mobility infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service (…)
PMob18Dependency on infrastructures of other services(-)
The infrastructure of the mobility service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service.
Infrastructure assets autonomy and redundancy
PMob19Energy self-production(%)
Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.
PMob20Redundancy(-)
Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?
MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience
PMob21Use of design solutions to improve city resilience(-)
The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of solutions to improve city resilience: a) Renewable energy generation (…)
PMob22Greenhouse gas emission target(-)
There is a prediction of GHG emissions reduction, aiming at the targets defined at the strategic planning level, from the following components of assets: a) Infrastructure operation (…)
PMob23Other contributions to city resilience(-)
The mobility infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter (…)
Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change
PMob24Level of exposure of mobility infrastructure to the most probable scenario(-)
Identify the critical assets for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios.
PMob25Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario(-)
Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure (routes and interfaces) affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year between 0.9 and 1.0 or 1.1 and 1.2, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)
PMob26Time for restoration for most probable scenario(-)
Transport networks with maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure (routes and interfaces), including recovery time, for less than 7 h, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)
Preparedness for climate change
PMob27Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
PMob28Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation(-)
What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back
PMob29Road and rail routes failures in the last relevant event(-)
Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)
PMob30Transport interfaces failures in the last relevant event(Hours)
Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to infrastructural failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PMob31Power-related failures in road and rail routes in the last relevant event(-)
Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average, by power-related failures, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PMob32Power-related failures in transport interfaces in the last relevant event(-)
Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h due to flooding on average, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PMob33Flooding-related failures in road and rail routes in the last relevant event(Hours)
Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to flooding-related failures on average, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PMob34Flooding-related failures in transport interfaces in the last relevant event(Hours)
Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to power-related failures, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.
PMob35Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event(-)
Ratio of expenditure on rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure (routes and interfaces) affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, and annual operating budget of last year, is between 0.9 and 1.0 or 1.1 and 1.2, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)
PMob36Time for restoration in the last relevant event(-)
Mobility critical infrastructure (routes and interfaces) with a maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, less than or equal to 7 h due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these infrastructures: a) Road based (…)

References

  1. Revi, A.; Satterthwaite, D.E.; Aragón-Durand, F.; Corfee-Morlot, J.; Kiunsi, R.B.R.; Pelling, M.; Roberts, D.C.; Solecki, W. Urban areas. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 535–612. [Google Scholar]
  2. Walloth, C.; Gurr, J.M.; Schmidt, J.A. (Eds.) Understanding Complex Urban Systems: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Modelling; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Panda, A. Foreward. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Building Resilience, ICBR, Lisbon, Portugal, 14–16 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. UN-GA. Sustainable development: Disaster risk reduction. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. In Proceedings of the United Nations—General Assembly, Seventy-First Session, Agenda Item, New York, NY, USA, 1 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Patel, R.; Nosal, L. Defining the Resilient City. In Working Paper 6; United Nations University Centre for Policy Research: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sharifi, A. A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 629–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. UN-Habitat City Resilience Profiling Programme. Guide to the City Resilience Profiling Tool. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2018. Available online: http://urbanresiliencehub.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CRPT-Guide-Pages-Online.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2018).
  8. UNDRR. Disaster resilience scorecard for cities. Preliminary level assessment. In United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction United; Nations Office for Disaster Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. UNDRR. Disaster resilience scorecard for cities. Detailed level assessment. In United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction United; Nations Office for Disaster Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. ARUP. City Resilience Framework. 100 Resilient Cities; The Rockefeller Foundation, ARUP: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  11. ISO. ISO 9001:2015—Quality Management Systems; International Organisation for Standardisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  12. ICLEI 2010. Changing Climate, Changing Communities: Guide and Workbook for Municipal Climate Adaptation, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability. 2010. Available online: https://icleicanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Guide.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2018).
  13. Rockefeller Foundation and Arup Group. City Resilience Framework. 2014. Available online: https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20140410162455/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2018).
  14. World Bank. City Strength: Resilient Cities Program. World Bank Group. 2015. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22470 (accessed on 10 September 2018).
  15. EPA. Evaluating Urban Resilience to Climate Change: A Multi-Sector Approach; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; EPA/600/R-16/365F. [Google Scholar]
  16. Summers, J.K.; Smith, L.M.; Harwell, L.C.; Buck, K.D. Conceptualizing holistic community resilience to climate events: Foundation for a climate resilience screening index. GeoHealth 2017, 1, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Schipper, E.L.; Langston, L. A Comparative Overview of Resilience Measurement Frameworks—Analysing Indicators and Approaches; Working paper 422; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Abdrabo, M.; Hassaan, M. Assessing Resilience of the Nile Delta Urban Centers to Sea Level Rise Impacts. In Proceedings of the 5th Global Forum on Urban Resilience & Adaptation, Bonn, Germany, 29–31 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Joerin, J.; Shaw, R. Chapter 3 Mapping Climate and Disaster Resilience in Cities. In Climate and Disaster Resilience in Cities (Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management); Shaw, R., Sharma, A., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011; Volume 6, pp. 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peacock, W.G.; Brody, S.; Seitz, W.; Merrell, W.; Vedlitz, A.; Zahran, S.; Harriss, R.; Stickney, R. Advancing Resilience of Coastal Localities: Developing, Implementing, and Sustaining the Use of Coastal Resilience Indicators: A Final Report; Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  21. Batica, J. Methodology for Flood Resilience Assessment in Urban Environments and Mitigation Strategy Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Universite Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France, 2015. Available online: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01159935/document (accessed on 25 July 2019).
  22. Ainuddin, S.; Routray, J.K. Earthquake hazards and community resilience in Baluchistan. Nat. Hazards 2012, 63, 909–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yoon, D.K.; Kang, J.E.; Brody, S.D. A measurement of community disaster resilience in Korea. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016, 59, 436–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kwasinski, A.; Trainor, J.; Wolshon, B.; Lavelle, F.M. A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Resilience at the Community Scale; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2016; NIST GCR 16-001. [Google Scholar]
  25. UKWIR. Resilience—Performance Measures, Costs and Stakeholder Communication; UK Water Industry Research, Report Ref. No. 17/RG/06/4; UKWIR: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cox, R.S.; Hamlen, M. Community disaster resilience and the rural resilience index. Am. Behav. Sci. 2014, 59, 220–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brugmann, J. Financing the resilient city. Environ. Urban. 2012, 24, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vallejo, L.; Mullan, M. Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: Getting the Policies Right; OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 121; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pagani, G.; Fournière, H.; Cardoso, M.A.; Brito, R.S. Report with the Resilience Diagnosis for each City; RESCCUE Project: Barcelona, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  30. Brito, R.S.; Pereira, C.L.; Lopes, P.; Cardoso, M.A. RESCCUE RAF App—Climate change Resilience Assessment Framework tool for urban areas. In Proceedings of the ECCA 2019, European Climate Change Adaptation Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 28–31 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Resilience Assessment Framework (RAF) development process flow chart.
Figure 1. Resilience Assessment Framework (RAF) development process flow chart.
Sustainability 12 02349 g001
Figure 2. RAF tree structure.
Figure 2. RAF tree structure.
Sustainability 12 02349 g002
Figure 3. Bristol resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) assessment of the objective autonomous electrical energy service, (d) assessment of the criterion water service preparedness for disaster response.
Figure 3. Bristol resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) assessment of the objective autonomous electrical energy service, (d) assessment of the criterion water service preparedness for disaster response.
Sustainability 12 02349 g003
Figure 4. Barcelona resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) functional overall assessment per service, (d) physical overall assessment per service infrastructure.
Figure 4. Barcelona resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) functional overall assessment per service, (d) physical overall assessment per service infrastructure.
Sustainability 12 02349 g004
Figure 5. Lisbon resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) physical overall assessment per service infrastructure, (d) assessment of the objective spatial risk management.
Figure 5. Lisbon resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) physical overall assessment per service infrastructure, (d) assessment of the objective spatial risk management.
Sustainability 12 02349 g005aSustainability 12 02349 g005b
Table 1. Synthesis of resilience assessment frameworks for climate change.
Table 1. Synthesis of resilience assessment frameworks for climate change.
FrameworkThemes AddressedSectors AddressedNo. of MetricsReference
GovernanceSocialSpatialBuilt environmentEconomyNatural EnvironmentWaterWastewaterStormwaterWasteEnergyMobilityOther(s) *
EPA conceptual framework163[15]
City Resilience Framework156[13]
UNDRR Disaster Resilience Scorecard for cities47 preliminaries
117 detailed
[8,9]
City Resilience Index to Sea Level Rise13[18]
Climate Disaster Resilience Index120[19]
Climate Disaster Resilience Index82[20]
Climate Resilience Screening Index117[16]
Flood Resilience Index91[21]
Resilience Factor Index17[22]
Community disaster resilience26[23]
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Community Resilience Assess. Methodology-[24]
UKWIR (UK Water Industry Research)73[25]
UN-Habitat CRPT148[7]
* e.g., Telecommunications, healthcare, education, population.
Table 2. Overview of the RAF dimensions.
Table 2. Overview of the RAF dimensions.
ORGANISATIONALSPATIAL
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
No.
total
metrics
No. essential
metrics
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
No.
total
metrics
No. essential
metrics
COLLECTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND AWARENESSSPATIAL RISK MANAGEMENT
Citizens and communities’ engagement53General hazard and exposure mapping55
Citizens and communities’ awareness and training53Hazard and exposure for CC33
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENTResilient urban development74
Government decision-making and finance43Impacts of climate-related event22
Coordination and communication with stakeholders42PROVISION OF PROTECTIVE INFRASTRUCTURES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Resilience engaged city1913Protective infrastructures and ecosystems services96
CITY PREPAREDNESSDependence and autonomy regarding other services considering CC32
City preparedness for disaster response138TOTAL2922
City preparedness for CC76
City preparedness for recovery and build back75
Availability and access to basic services107
TOTAL7450
FUNCTIONALPHYSICAL
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
No.
total
metrics
No. essential
metrics
OBJECTIVE
Criterion
No.
total
metrics
No. essential
metrics
SERVICE PLANNING AND RISK MANAGEMENTSAFE INFRASTRUCTURE
Strategic planning55Infrastructure assets criticality and protection55
Resilience engaged service5–64–5Infrastructure assets robustness10–144–6
Risk management7–122–7AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Reliable service6–111–5Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services3–43
Flexible service4–61–4Infrastructure assets autonomy1–60–4
AUTONOMOUS SERVICEInfrastructure assets redundancy1–30–3
Service importance to the city21INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Service inter-dependency with other services considering CC20Contribution to city resilience3–42–3
SERVICE PREPAREDNESSInfrastructure assets exposure to CC30–3
Service preparedness for disaster response0–40–4Preparedness for CC21
Service preparedness for CC6–84Preparedness for recovery and build back7–92–4
Service preparedness for recovery and build back0–150–8TOTAL35–5017–32
TOTAL37–7118–43
Table 3. Metrics definition—example for spatial dimension, objective spatial risk management, criterion impacts of climate-related event.
Table 3. Metrics definition—example for spatial dimension, objective spatial risk management, criterion impacts of climate-related event.
DIMENSION: SPATIAL
objective: spatial risk management
Criterion: Impacts of Climate-Related EventUnit
Metric: S16
Definition
 
Dimension Importance
Metric type
Human loss in the last events
Human impact of the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario
Spatial
Essential
Open value
(-)
Please answer with an estimated figure [inhab.], disaggregating according to (a) number of casualties, (b) missing persons and (c) people affected—including severe injuries and displaced. This metric allows to answer with a value.
Development level: assessment rule
-
(a) number of casualties
-
(b) missing persons
-
(c) people affected—including severe injuries and displaced
Develop. Level
 
3 if a, b and c = 0
2 if a and b = 0 and c ≤ 50
1 if a = 0, b ≤ 5 and c ≤ 50
0 if any other answer
Metric: S17
Definition
 
Dimension Importance
Metric type
Damages in urban footprint in the last events
Impact on urban footprint of the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario
Spatial
Essential
Single choice
(%)
Consider urban footprint as a spatial extent of urbanised areas on a regional scale.
Development level: assessment rule
-
0%
-
Less or equal to 0.5%
-
Between 0.5% and 2.5%
-
More or equal to 2.5%
Develop. level
 
3
2
1
0
Back to TopTop