The Importance of Water and Climate-Related Aspects in the Quality of Urban Life Assessment

: Global challenges such as urbanization, aging societies, climate change, and environmental and water crises are becoming increasingly important in terms of the impact they might have on the quality of life (QoL) in cities. Appraisal instruments for QoL assessment, such as rankings and guides, should therefore include these aspects. The aim of this research was to verify the signiﬁcance of water and climate-related aspects in assessment tools. A comparative analysis of 24 selected QoL assessment tools shows to what extent these aspects are included in the domains, criteria, and indicators proposed in the instruments. The method of veriﬁcation is a comparison of the position of winning cities in QoL rankings and city resilience rankings. The results show that water and climate-related aspects are still underestimated in the QoL rankings and guides, and only a few cities with the highest quality of life ranked highly in sustainability and climate resiliency ratings. Our results suggest that the tools for the evaluation and comparison of cities need remodeling, taking into account the most important global risks and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in order to create aging-friendly and climate-neutral cities. humidity/ temperature (2.1, 2.3, 2.4), hours of sunshine (2.3), climate (2.2), weather (2.7), carbon neutral (2.3), material footprint (2.11), renewable energy (2.11), record of natural disasters (2.2), and environmental initiatives (2.3, 2.12, 2.14).


Introduction
Cities are becoming the main place of human habitation on Earth and are areas with the greatest concentration of ecological and climate challenges [1]. Therefore, one of the most important indicators of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2] is the quality of life of citizens. Indicators used to assess the quality of life (QoL), including dynamic processes and growing threats, can support decision makers in developing policies and transforming urban structures, making them more user-friendly and climate neutral [3]. Research units and international bodies, as well as business entities, evaluate the quality of urban life using appraisal instruments based on selected domains and metrics, comparing cities and countries, and selecting the most livable locations. Some tools also take age-friendliness into account [4]. The rapid development of digital techniques and computational models has resulted in an increase in the number of tools and indicators for assessing quality of life in cities, but these tools are often inconsistent and incomparable [4,5]. Furthermore, some have mainly been designed for commercial and marketing purposes.
The global population is aging, which is one of the most important issues of this century. The share of the population aged 65 years or over within the total world population has been increasing. According to the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects, it has been estimated that the urbanization rate for the total population will reach 4.5 billion in environmental factors that should be included as livability indicators (green space, access to protected areas, remnant vegetation, biodiversity, air quality, and unpolluted water) [35]. Another example of analysis of the tools for QoL assessment concerns the verification of the relationship between the quality of life in cities and their environmental sustainability. Estoque et al. (2019) noted that "Climate change and variability affect QoL and human well-being in many ways, rendering it one of the most pressing and significant challenges of the present day" [32]. They reviewed quality of life (QoL) assessments and indicators, and found them to be poorly connected with climate-related issues. The authors proposed a new "QoL-Climate" assessment framework, designed to capture the socio-ecological impacts of climate change and variability [32].
As there is still little research on the connection between the quality of urban life and the environmental sustainability of cities, the authors of the present study conducted a comparative analysis of the instruments that assess urban quality of life and verified the inclusion of climatic, environmental, and water factors.
The recipients of the results from the available guides and rankings are often local government units and decision makers who create sustainable development policies and, thus, have an impact on improving living conditions and creating more sustainable and resilient cities. To develop more precise appraisal instruments to assess the sustainability and quality of life in cities, it is worth verifying the following: (i) Which water and climatic factors are considered to have the greatest impact on quality of life? (ii) Which tools assess water and climate aspects, and to what extent? (iii) Do international and Polish QoL assessment tools differ significantly and in which indicators? (iv) Which indicators are the most useful and reliable and which of them have been marginalized? Finally, which (v) are the cities with the highest QoL that are also sustainable and resilient?

Materials and Methods
The main goal of the research was to verify the integration and significance of water and climate-related aspects in the considered appraisal instruments. Analysis of the number and type of indicators, as well as the weight function of water and climate-related aspects, helped us determine which of the instruments most fully capture the impact of water and climate on QoL. Comparing the top ten cities in the QoL rankings with those in the sustainability and resilience rankings allowed us to identify which cities have most effectively combined strategies to improve the quality of life along with adaptation to climate change, as well as environmental and water crises.
The research subjects are the most influential, prestigious, and available international and Polish tools, which concern the features and indicators of livable cities for the assessment of quality of urban life and comparison of various countries, cities, and communities.
The first stage in the analysis of the importance of water and climate-related aspects in the assessment of quality of urban life in aging cities is based on the reports and a scientific literature review on topics relating to global changes (i.e., aging populations, urbanism, climate change, and water crises), as well as the analysis and selection of appraisal instruments (i.e., guides, rankings, reports from surveys) for the evaluation of livability of cities.
In the second stage, twenty-four tools were subjectively selected, including three international guides and one Polish one for age-friendly communities, thirteen international and two Polish rankings, and five other Polish appraisal instruments. The selected instruments were divided into two main groups: (i) Guides including core indicators for senior-friendly cities, and (ii) rankings measuring QoL and comparing the best countries and cities to live in. In both groups, international and Polish tools were selected to compare the indicators used. Additionally, several other Polish tools assessing the quality of life through a set of indicators were taken into account. The tools listed in Table 1 were assigned symbols (e.g., 1.1 for Global Age-friendly Cities-A Guide), which are used instead of their full names in the following figures. A comparative analysis has been elaborated in a previous study by the authors [4]; however, it included eight additional Polish assessment instruments and, thus, the coverage matrix presented in Figure 1 has been extended. The analysis covered the evaluation and synthesis of different domains, criteria, and indicators used in appraisal instruments. Seven common areas (six main domains: Architecture and urbanism, Infrastructure, Nature, Health and well-being, Social environment, and Development, and one domain of Supplementary criteria) and 29 categories were developed, in order to allow for universal classification of the metrics used in the various appraisal instruments. The authors used the WHO report Global Age-friendly Cities-A Guide as the reference tool in view of the methodology for assessing criteria in the aspects of architecture and urban planning. This tool has been assessed as being the most extensive, in terms of metrics related to the spatial structure of the cities. In an additive way, the criteria pool was extended with the new metrics provided by other analyzed instruments. Using a method of expert assessment, the collected criteria were categorized. The matrix presents the structure of the adopted criteria and domains ( Figure 1). Indicators from all the evaluated tools were interpreted and assigned to domains and categories recommended by the authors. The third step was to check the indicators and to determine the weight function of the water and climate aspects in all tools for the urban quality of life evaluation. First, the importance of domain-related (e.g., nature) indicators in particular tools (e.g., 2.12 presented in Table 2) was measured. Second, the average weight function for a domain (e.g.,  The third step was to check the indicators and to determine the weight function of the water and climate aspects in all tools for the urban quality of life evaluation. First, the importance of domain-related (e.g., nature) indicators in particular tools (e.g., 2.12 presented in Table 2) was measured. Second, the average weight function for a domain (e.g., nature) in the set of 13 rankings was calculated. Third, analyses of the importance of water and climate aspects in all compared appraisal instruments (consisting of checking all single indicators) were conducted. Metrics assessing water or climate-related aspects were marked and the average weight functions were calculated, according to the following ratio: number of indicators concerning water/climate aspects linked to the proper domain to the number of all indicators in the analyzed tool. Finally, the average weight function of all climate-related indicators in the set of 13 rankings were calculated. To present our findings in figures, the results were subtracted from the average weight function of the domain in a set of indicators. Accordingly, the importance of climate-related aspects was measured in the considered guides. Numbers were rounded to one decimal place, to make rough calculations easier and to present clearer figures. The limitations mainly concerned a lack of availability and transparency in the definition of particular metrics. Therefore, the results were estimated. The fourth stage of the study concerned the comparison of the QoL assessment tools in terms of their content and type of water and climate-related indicators, considering the subject and scope of the assessment. International and Polish QoL assessment tools were compared. This analysis identified the most comprehensive rankings, taking into account water and climate aspects and the role of blue-green infrastructure.
In the fifth step, the top ten cities included in the most comprehensive international QoL rankings were compared with the results of the sustainability and resilience (S&R) rankings, in order to determine whether the cities with the highest QoL are also sustainable and resilient, or if the QoL improvement came at the expense of sustainability. The list of top cities was taken from the websites on which the results of the rankings selected for comparison were published.

Integrating Water and Climate-Related Aspects in the QoL Assessment Tools
Comparison of the content and type of indicators related to water and climate aspects in selected QoL assessment tools allowed us to notice that, in the vast majority of instruments, these aspects were omitted or treated as a secondary issue. Additionally, the manner of defining the discussed aspects and their meanings differed significantly.

Importance of Water-Related Aspects in the Analyzed Tools
Our analysis revealed that the water topic has been omitted in many international and Polish guides, and most other Polish instruments ( Figure 2). Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 26

Importance of Water-Related Aspects in the Analyzed Tools
Our analysis revealed that the water topic has been omitted in many international and Polish guides, and most other Polish instruments ( Figure 2).  Living Survey (2.3), Deutsche Bank Liveability Survey (2.4), IMD Smart City Index (2.6), Human Development Report (2.8), The European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) (2.10), and How's Life? 2020 Measuring Well-being (2.11); two Polish tools (the instruments' names are marked with symbols proposed in Table 1): Jakośćżycia w Polsce Edycja 2017 (3.1) and Jakośćżycia mieszkańców Łodzi i jej przestrzenne zróżnicowanie (3.4); and one Polish ranking: Ranking jakościżycia. Wymiary szczęścia (2.14). The water aspects were considered in four domains and eight categories, such as housing, outdoor spaces, transport, utilities, access to nature, natural environment, pollution, health, and community support. The most diverse attitude towards water (up to five different QoL categories) was observed in the Monocle's Quality of Life Survey (2.3).
The results indicated that water-related metrics have only been proposed in four domains: architecture and urbanism, infrastructure, nature, and health and well-being. However, the topic of water was not considered in the areas of social environment and development, nor in the supplementary criteria (Figures 2 and 3).  Table 1): Jakość życia w Polsce Edycja 2017 (3.1) and Jakość życia mieszkańców Łodzi i jej przestrzenne zróżnicowanie (3.4); and one Polish ranking: Ranking jakości życia. Wymiary szczęścia (2.14). The water aspects were considered in four domains and eight categories, such as housing, outdoor spaces, transport, utilities, access to nature, natural environment, pollution, health, and community support. The most diverse attitude towards water (up to five different QoL categories) was observed in the Monocle's Quality of Life Survey (2.3).
The results indicated that water-related metrics have only been proposed in four domains: architecture and urbanism, infrastructure, nature, and health and well-being. However, the topic of water was not considered in the areas of social environment and development, nor in the supplementary criteria (Figures 2 and 3). The average weight of the water aspects was very low. Concerning international rankings, for the domain of architecture and urbanism, it was only 0.3%; in the domain of nature it was 0.9% and, for the domain of health and well-being, it was 0.2%. The most significant average weight was for the domain of infrastructure (1.4%). For Polish rankings, the weight of water aspects for the domain of architecture and urbanism was 1%; for Polish tools, the weights of water aspects for the domain of architecture and urbanism and infrastructure were equal to 0.3% (Figure 4). The average weight of the water aspects was very low. Concerning international rankings, for the domain of architecture and urbanism, it was only 0.3%; in the domain of nature it was 0.9% and, for the domain of health and well-being, it was 0.2%. The most significant average weight was for the domain of infrastructure (1.4%). For Polish rankings, the weight of water aspects for the domain of architecture and urbanism was 1%;

Importance of Climate-Related Aspects in the Analyzed Tools
This analysis takes into account weather phenomena, temperature, and air conditions as short-term indicators of climate change. The outcomes are shown in Figure 5. Climaterelated aspects were poorly covered in 10 (3.4). The climate-related aspects were considered in two domains and four categories, including transport, technologies, natural environment, and pollution ( Figures 5 and 6).  The data showed that metrics related to weather and climate aspects were developed in only two areas: Infrastructure and nature (Figures 5 and 6) and they seemed to be of little significance. The data showed that metrics related to weather and climate aspects were developed in only two areas: Infrastructure and nature (Figures 5 and 6) and they seemed to be of little significance.
In international rankings, climate factors were included in the infrastructure domain, with a weight of 0.4%; whereas for the domain of nature it was 4.1%. In Polish rankings, all indicators in the area of nature included climate-related aspects (5.6%). For Polish tools, the significance of climate factors for the domain of nature was equal to 0.5% (Figure 7). Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26 Figure 6. Share of the domains with climate-related indicators used for the assessment of quality of life (in reference to other domains) taken into account in the selected tools.
In international rankings, climate factors were included in the infrastructure domain, with a weight of 0.4%; whereas for the domain of nature it was 4.1%. In Polish rankings, all indicators in the area of nature included climate-related aspects (5.6%). For Polish tools, the significance of climate factors for the domain of nature was equal to 0.5% (Figure 7). In Quality of life in Poland. 2017 edition (3.1), an indicator concerning polluted waterexposure to pollution or other environmental problems in the neighbourhood (% of households)-was also included.
Water availability was also assessed in only four tools: 2.2, 2.4, 2.8, and 2.11. How's Life? 2020 Measuring Well-being (2.11) measured it using two (different from the rest) indicators: water stress (total) and water stress (internal).

Water-Related Indicators in the Analyzed QoL Assessment Tools
Indicators related to water were totally omitted in 13 appraisal instruments: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.9, 2.12, 2.13, 2.15, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5. In all 11 other tools, the indicators were concerned with basic, physiological aspects, such as water quality (environment and water supply), availability, and sanitary aspects. Most of the tools assessed only 1-2 indicators. Social and transport aspects of water were proposed in one ranking (2.3), whereas aspects related to safety or a proactive approach were not used at all.
Water quality/pollution was measured only in two tools:  In the Polish tool Jakośćżycia mieszkańców Łodzi i jej przestrzenne zróżnicowanie (3.4), this area was the most extensive, with the following indicators: warm running water, bathroom with bathtub and/or shower, flush toilet, and sewers.
The most varied instrument, containing three indicators from all categories, including water potability, water availability, and sewage, was Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking (2.2).
The most extensive (with five indicators related to water) was Monocle's Quality of Living Survey (2.3), which considered social and transport aspects of water, and assessed the following indicators: Access to water, waterfronts, and water as means of transport (Figure 8).
including water potability, water availability, and sewage, was Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking (2.2).
The most extensive (with five indicators related to water) was Monocle's Quality of Living Survey (2.3), which considered social and transport aspects of water, and assessed the following indicators: Access to water, waterfronts, and water as means of transport ( Figure  8).

Climate-Related Indicators in the Analyzed QoL Assessment Tools
Indicators related to climate were not included in 10 of the analyzed tools: 1.

Climate-Related Indicators in the Analyzed QoL Assessment Tools
Indicators related to climate were not included in 10 of the analyzed tools: 1. Weather (2.7); which was assessed as a composite score using heating degree days, cooling degree days, humidity, sunshine, and precipitation.
The most extensive range of weather-related indicators, such as dew point, temperature, average high humidex, and air quality, was found in the Deutsche Bank Liveability Survey (2.4).
Climate aspects were underestimated in most of the appraisal instruments. They were varied and assessed in only five rankings. Four of them proposed only one indicator: -Discomfort of climate to travellers (2.1); -Carbon neutral (2.3); -CO 2 Emmission Index (2.4); and -Climate (2.2); which was explained using the example of characteristics of the Four Seasons.
The most extensive tool, How's Life? 2020 Measuring Well-being (2.11), evaluated three indicators: Greenhouse gas emissions (domestic production), carbon footprint, and material footprint.
Aspects related to safety or/and environmental initiatives were included in six tools. Environmental initiatives, friendliness, and problems were observed in five tools, including: City is committed to fight against climate change (2.12); -City expenditure on air and climate protection (2.14).
Aspects of safety were verified only through a record of natural disasters indicator in Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking (2.2).
The most differential tools, in terms of number and classification of indicators, were the rankings How's Life? 2020 Measuring Well-being (2.11), with six indicators assessing all three categories, and Monocle's Quality of Living Survey (2.3), with five metrics also evaluating all categories of weather and climate aspects (Figure 9). Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26

Additional Indicators Related to Green Infrastructure in the Analyzed QoL Assessment Tools
Even if the rankings did not directly assess aspects of climate management, some of them appreciated the ecosystem services of urban greenery.
In three rankings (2.3, 2.10, 2.11), access to nature was also measured. Moreover, in Quality of life of Lodz inhabitants and city's spatial diversity (3.4), this aspect was measured through the indicator "feeling a lack of green areas".
The quality of and satisfaction of citizens with green and recreation areas were assessed in six tools (1.1, 2.4, 2.6, 2.9, 3.1, 3.4). Moreover, in Quality of life ranking. Dimensions of happiness (2.14), there was one extra indicator-expenditure on maintaining green areas in the years-related to involvement of city authorities in designing green areas.
As BGI has a significant impact on climate and water management in cities [60][61][62], it is essential that it is also reflected in the rankings. The ranking How's life going? 2020 Measuring well-being (2.11) used as many as nine indicators (Figure 10).   The analysis of the types and scope of indicators in QoL assessment tools proves that they differ significantly ( Figure 11); the reason for so many simplifications and imperfections is, inter alia, a shortage of commonly available and comparable data in various countries and cities (including Poland). One limitation in the research was also the lack of availability and transparency in methodology and metric descriptions in some of the tools. The analysis of the types and scope of indicators in QoL assessment tools proves that they differ significantly ( Figure 11); the reason for so many simplifications and imperfections is, inter alia, a shortage of commonly available and comparable data in various countries and cities (including Poland). One limitation in the research was also the lack of availability and transparency in methodology and metric descriptions in some of the tools.

Comparison of the Top Cities in the Most Comprehensive International QoL Rankings with the Results of the Sustainability and Resilience (S&R) Rankings
In order to determine whether the cities with the highest quality of life are also sustainable and resilient, the top ten cities in the most comprehensive international QoL rankings (Mercer Ranking QoL [41], Monocle's QoL Survey [42], and Deutsche Bank Liveability Figure 11. Number of water-, climate-, and urban greenery-related indicators grouped thematically.

Comparison of the Top Cities in the Most Comprehensive International QoL Rankings with the Results of the Sustainability and Resilience (S&R) Rankings
In order to determine whether the cities with the highest quality of life are also sustainable and resilient, the top ten cities in the most comprehensive international QoL rankings (Mercer Ranking QoL [41], Monocle's QoL Survey [42], and Deutsche Bank Liveability Survey [43]) were compared with the top ten cities in S&R rankings ( Table 3). The ranking How's life going? 2020 Measuring well-being (2.11) has been excluded as it compares only countries. All three QoL rankings jointly listed certain cities as high-ranking, such as: Zurich, Vienna, and Copenhagen. Moreover, Monocle ranked Tokyo and Munich highly (second and third positions), and Mercer rated Vancouver highly (third position). The cities mentioned were also listed in the S&R rankings, but only Copenhagen ranked highly in two of the four S&R rankings. Some top cities in the S&R rankings (i.e., Rotterdam, London, and Toronto) were not on the QoL ranking lists.

The Relationship between Water and Climate Aspects and Domains of the Quality of Urban Life
Cities' particular sensitivity to the effects of climate change should be taken into account in developing a vision of sustainable development for urban policy. Therefore, the cities' development perspective should be changed from the priority of economic development to ensuring a high quality of life for citizens. Nowadays, it is the QoL that states the competitiveness of cities [66].
Water and the climate have direct or indirect effects on all areas of human life, but remained poorly incorporated in the domains and criteria of the considered QoL assessments. Of the seven domains (including 29 categories) used in these studies, the water-related metrics were included in four: Architecture and urbanism (two categories: housing and outdoor spaces), Infrastructure (two categories: transport and utilities), Nature (three categories: access to nature, natural environment, and pollution), and Health and wellbeing (only one category: health and community support). Surprisingly, only one out of the 24 studied QoL tools took into account the effects of water on health and well-being, whereas the results of studies, such as the BlueHealth project [28], indicated the benefits of water bodies, in terms of public health and well-being.
The climate-related aspects were considered in two domains only: Infrastructure (two categories: transport and technologies) and Nature (two categories: natural environment and pollution). According to the literature [67][68][69][70][71], the types of land cover, buildings, and urban structures have a strong influence on the urban topoclimate (especially the radiant temperature and urban heat island); however, none of the rankings considered the impact of this aspect on the quality of life in the domains of Architecture and urbanism or Health and well-being.
To address the challenges of water management and adaptation to climate change in cities-especially in their historic centers-it is necessary to change the approach towards the perception and assessment of the roles of water and greenery [72][73][74]. Leading international organizations, such as the IWA, have provided solutions-for example, by developing principles for Water Wise Cities (2017) [75]-to encourage collaborative action "so that local governments, urban professionals, and individuals actively engage in addressing and finding solutions for managing all waters of the city" [29].

The Most Comprehensive QoL Assessment Tools Including Water and Climate Aspects
In the vast majority of instruments, the water and climate-related indicators were omitted or underestimated. The water-related indicators were included only in eight of the international rankings, two Polish tools, and one Polish ranking, whereas climate-related aspects were incorporated to a small degree in the 10 international and two Polish rankings, as well as in two Polish tools. The most diverse and comprehensive tools turned out to be Monocle's Quality of Life Survey (up to five different water-related indicators and up to five metrics and three different categories related to climate), Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking Survey (up to three indicators from all sub-categories of water, and all categories of climate-related aspects), Deutsche Bank Liveability Survey (up to three different water-related aspects, and up to five metrics and two different categories related to climate), and How's life going? 2020 Measuring well-being (up to three different water-related aspects, and up to six metrics from all categories of climate-related aspects.
QoL appraisal instruments can be used not only to assess the quality of life in entire cities, but also to compare living standards in individual districts, and especially downtown neighborhoods. However, the tools need to be remodeled in order to take into account the most important global challenges [32,33], the SDGs, and the growing vulnerability of an aging city population [76].

Comparison of the International and Polish QoL Assessment Tools
The International and Polish QoL assessment tools differed significantly, according to the water-related indicators. This may have resulted from an outdated approach to water management in Poland [77] and still low levels of climate and ecological awareness [78]. In international rankings, the indicators concerned a variety of aspects, such as pollution, quality and availability of water, sanitation, and water stress; whereas in Polish tools, only pollutionand sanitation-related indicators were included. International rankings were also more varied than Polish tools with regard to climate and weather-related indicators. However, the most common metrics (related to air pollution) were used in both groups of tools. In one Polish tool and several international rankings, indicators related to environmental initiatives were also included. The indicators that were omitted in Polish tools were related to temperature, humidity, weather, climate, CO 2 emissions, and material footprint.

Indicators Used in QoL Assessment Tools
The water aspects related to the domain of Architecture and urbanism were measured only by five appraisal instruments. Almost all metrics concerned the topic of sanitation in accommodation, consisting of indoor flushing toilet and bath or shower (2.10), basic sanitary facilities (2.11), apartment connected to the sewage system (2.14), and warm running water, bathroom with bathtub and/or shower, flush toilet, sewers (3.4). The most distinctive indicator was Monocle's waterfronts (2.3), which may be used to assess the image, aesthetics, form, and function of historic water districts. In terms of urban structures and architecture, there were no indicators linking land cover and types of buildings with the heat and humidity conditions in the city (i.e., green cover area, green roofs, share of low-carbon/ecologically certified buildings, rain water retention, and so on).
Metrics related to sustainable urban infrastructure and materials are missing. Based on the IWA Principles [29], we can propose some indicators related to the design of buildings and outdoor spaces, which allow for climate change adaptation and regenerative water services (e.g., green roofs), quick disaster recovery (e.g., vital infrastructure), the reduction of flood risks (e.g., drainage solutions integrated with urban infrastructure design), amplifying the livability with groundwater (i.e., roadside green infrastructure), and minimizing the impact of urban materials on water pollution (e.g., roof and wall materials not emitting pollutants). All aforementioned metrics should be considered in the context of urban heritage.
Almost half of the remaining water-related metrics corresponded to infrastructure, especially to the utilities category and for the evaluation of sanitation (2.6, 2.8, 3.1), as well as water quality (2.1, 2.3, 2.8) and availability (2.3, 2.4). Moreover, there was one water-related indicator in the transport category, water as means of transport (2.3), and one climate-related factor in the same category, CO 2 Emissions Index, which is an estimation of CO 2 consumption due to traffic time (2.4). One special climate-related indicator-a website or App allows effective monitoring of air pollution (2.6)-should be distinguished, as it can be classified as belonging to the technologies category. An essential indicator that was omitted in all compared tools was wastewater reuse, developed for the Cities Water Index [30].
The other water and climate-related indicators were correlated with the domain nature. There were aspects that may be included in the pollution category, such as sewage (2.2) water pollution (2. 4 Some of the most important aspects that were totally marginalized are those related to public safety and proactive approach. The key issue for citizens is their safety during extreme meteorological and hydrological phenomena. Extreme weather affects particularly vulnerable groups, such as the elderly [66].
For already-formed historic urban zones with specific surfaces, the indicators proposed by the IWA, such as investing in coastal storm risks mitigation as well as flood and drought early warning systems and using an WRM framework and plan for drought mitigation strategies, seem to be highly reasonable [29].
Metrics related to climate and water management may be developed on the basis of the scientific literature, recommendations (IWA Principles [29]), and appraisal instruments (e.g., Water City Index [79], Arcadis Sustainable Cities Water Index [30], Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index [63], Grosvenor Group Resilient Cities [64], and Global Ranking of Top 10 Resilient Cities [65]), and then adjusted to the domains and criteria proposed by the authors.
The results of our research confirm the conclusions of Estoque (2019) [32]: there is still a need to expand the range of indicators to incorporate climate-related issues into QoL assessment tools. It is crucial to include some essential climate variables, such as temperature and rainfall [80][81][82], as well as indicators such as exposure and sensitivity to climate hazards [83], thermal comfort, natural disaster exposure, and preparedness [32,84]. These effects of climate change, such as the urban heat island effect and rising temperatures, impact the well-being of citizens, especially the most vulnerable groups such as seniors [76,85].

Comparison of the Winning Cities in QoL and S&R Rankings
Only a few cities (Vienna, Zurich, Tokyo, Vancouver, Munich, Copenhagen, and Edinburgh) that ranked high in the QoL rankings were listed in the rankings evaluating the sustainability and climate resiliency (S&R) of cities. This is a serious cause for concern. Given the SDGs [2] and urban development agendas (e.g., ICOMOS_SDGs_Policy_Guidance_2021 [86], European New Bauhaus [87]), the significance and construction of global city rankings definitely necessitate a recalibration of the basics [88].
The top cities listed in both types of rankings were completely different, in terms of size, number of inhabitants, culture, and so on. The common issue was that each of these cities are among the richest places to live in the world. Environmental awareness and local politics are likely to be driven by financial resources [89][90][91], which are invested into eco-programs, and the existence of the world's leading universities, which shape public awareness [92]. This should be the subject of further research. Among them there are also old towns with historic districts that, despite the limitations of their spatial structures, face new challenges. They are all waterside cities, and all implement green spatial policies. A more detailed analysis of these policies and strategies-especially regarding natural and cultural heritage-can improve the management of urban environments and the associated quality of life.
The Paris Agreement (2015) [93] which recognises the role of cities, regions, and local authorities in addressing climate change, and invites them to "uphold and promote regional and international cooperation". The discrepancy between cities (rankings' leaders) emphasizes their role in looking for a common policy against climate threats.

Conclusions
Climate, environmental, and water crises affect the quality of life and well-being of residents in many ways, comprising one of the most urgent and important challenges facing modern cities. In the context of a broad debate on QoL assessment, sustainability, and livability indices [5,32,94], the socio-ecological paradigm emerges [83,88,94], which highlights the close links between QoL and climate and environmental variability [3,[31][32][33]. Moreover, the aging of societies poses new challenges for the assessment of factors determining the quality of life in cities [4,36,46]. Our research identifies gaps in many QoL rankings based on a comparative analysis of 24 selected QoL assessment tools in terms of the scope of application of water and climate-related indicators. The authors' recommendation is that the rankings need to be refined if they are to help create climate-neutral and age-friendly cities.
Our review revealed that water and climate-related aspects are still underestimated in the appraisal instruments for QoL assessment. It has been analyzed that out of 24 QoL tools surveyed, only four rankings-Monocle's [42], Mercer's [41], Deutsche Bank's [43], and How's life going? 2020 Measuring well-being [50]-contain a broad spectrum of indicators related to water, climate, and environmental quality. Since international and Polish QoL assessment tools differ significantly, the tools should be remodeled to be more comprehensive and useful for decision-makers and urban planners. It has been found that water-related indicators most often focus on the efficiency of sanitation and water supply, disregarding broad ecosystem services, whereas climate-related metrics are based on current thermal and humidity conditions in cities, disregarding climate variability and increasing hydrometeorological extremes. Moreover, comparing the results of the QoL and S&R rankings showed that the top cities differed, whereas those that ranked highly in both types, such as Copenhagen, provide a valuable source of information on how to combine sustainability and resilience with high quality of life, by shaping the city structure as well as social and environmental policies.
Some of the QoL assessment tools take into account measures of the availability of urban green areas and the quality of the natural environment; however, ecosystem services-especially regulatory and cultural ones-remain underestimated. Moreover, the rankings do not take into account the dynamics of environmental and climate changes and their long-term consequences.
Additionally, the importance of the presented research for urban planning and cultural heritage is a result not only of the growing climatic and environmental threats and their impact on the quality of life. Concentration of water and climate-related problems also affects the possibility of modernizing the urban fabric in historic centers of large cities. Among them there are the urban heat island effect, heat waves, and coastal, fluvial, and pluvial floods. The historical districts of many cities (including Polish ones) are typically inhabited by aging communities [8][9][10], particularly sensitive to extreme weather phenomena [85]. There has been little research addressing the relationship between quality of life in aging cities and sustainable urban development [95]. We have attempted to partially address this gap. The next step should be to remodel the rankings and use them to evaluate not only entire cities, but also individual districts [5], especially downtown. This can be helpful in detailing climate change adaptation plans and urban renewal programs.
However, we came across certain limitations, mainly concerning a lack of availability of materials and transparency in the definition of particular metrics used in appraisal instruments. Institutions often do not reveal the details of their research methodology [96]; thus, it is hard to deduce what the indicators consider. Appraisal instruments differ significantly, in terms of their purpose, sample size, contracting authorities, intended audience of the study, indicators and categories; thus, they are often incomparable [3][4][5]. That pose also challenges in adopting such indicators in urban planning [3].
Meeting global challenges and the SDGs requires the improvement of QoL assessment tools, in order to support municipalities in their decision-making process and to avoid choosing between quality of life and sustainable urban development and resilience.

Data Availability Statement:
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, A.P.-W., upon reasonable request.