*3.4. Validation of the RAF (Step 3)*

RAF validation by the stakeholders provide the opportunity to contribute to adjust metrics' definition, to identify relevant sources of information for metrics' determination and test the assessment approach adequacy to different development levels of urban resilience. With this approach, stakeholders' contributions allow to consolidate the RAF, particularly, the proposed metrics and reference values.

This section presents an analysis of the metrics' relevance and feasibility of application to cities based on the stakeholders' opinion. According to [39], metrics' relevance was classified considering three levels—(i) essential, which should be integrated in the assessment of any city (essential for all cities); (ii) complementary, when the assessment corresponds to an intermediate level; and (iii) comprehensive, when the purpose is to make an in-depth assessment of the city. According to the feasibility of application, metrics were classified as high, medium, and low feasibility. Figure 2 presents the responses to metrics relevance and feasibility of application to cities, aggregated at the criterion level. Detailed responses for each metric are presented in Appendix A.

(**c**) Responses to metrics relevance and feasibility of application to cities, aggregated at criterion level

**Figure 2.** Stakeholders' opinion regarding metrics' relevance and feasibility of application to cities.

Considering an overview of the metrics relevance, 63% and 32% are considered essential and complementary, respectively (Figure 2a). Only 4% of the metrics are classified as comprehensive. In terms of the feasibility of application, 79% and 10% of the metrics are considered to have high and medium feasibility application to cities, respectively (Figure 2b). Nevertheless, 11% of the RAF metrics are considered with low feasibility of application. The responses to metrics relevance and feasibility of application to cities, aggregated at the criterion level (Figure 2), confirm the conclusions obtained for the overall results, aggregated for the whole RAF (Figure 2a,b).

These results highlight the relevance of the selected metrics and, consequently, the assessment criteria defined in the resilience assessment proposal. In addition, the stakeholders' opinion regarding the feasibility of application provided the opportunity to identify which metrics are more suitable for a city depending on its resilience development level. In this sense, the stakeholders' opinion supported the selection of metrics to be considered in the RAF according to different resilience development levels. Recommendations will be further proposed in setting a tailored roadmap for the RAF application to the city with a preselection of metrics depending on the city´s resilience development level.
