**4. Discussion**

By applying the RAF (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) to Bristol, Barcelona and Lisbon (Section 2.3), from the results obtained (Sections 3.1–3.3), 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 Figures 3a,b, 4a,b and 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 Figures 3b, 4b–d and 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 Figures 3c,d and 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).
