1 Existing sustainability by sector for 10 archetypal cities of p

1 Existing sustainability by sector for 10 archetypal cities of pairwise analysis The pairwise analysis evaluated

every possible combination of two cities from the list of 10, including a partnership with an identical city. The heat map depicted in Fig. 2 shows the resulting score from the PAIRS metric. The amicability questions were omitted, as they pertain to attitudes of specific towns rather than our archetypal cities. Three important points may be drawn from Fig. 2. First, the results are symmetric across www.selleckchem.com/products/lxh254.html the diagonal, indicating a partnership between cities A and B is as promising as a partnership between cities B and A. Second, the region of high scores in the upper left and lower right indicates that partnerships between large cities and small towns are among the most beneficial. Third, the lowest score for each city lies on the diagonal, indicating a partnership with an identical city offers the least amount of mutual benefit. Fig. 2 Heat map distribution of pairwise analysis using

PAIRS metric Typical Ralimetinib ic50 municipal sustainability strategies seek to group similar towns under the impression that a practice that benefits city A must be beneficial to all cities like city A (Rittel and Non-specific serine/threonine protein kinase Webber 1973). This analysis suggests substantially greater sustainable potential is achieved when the heterogeneous resources of two different cities are harnessed to support a common sustainability goal. The greatest mutual benefit occurs between agrarian and urban cities, mainly through the utilization of each other’s waste

streams. Urban centers often rely upon several regional hinterland communities to feed their populations, and any improvement upon its rural food chain improves the sustainability of the urban center. This finding that municipal differences hold the greatest potential for mutual benefit is perhaps the most important deduction from this analysis of municipal partnerships. Figure 3 compares the existing sustainability of each archetypical city to the range of potential sustainability PLX3397 in vivo improvements through cooperation with each of the other nine archetypical cities as measured with the PAIRS metric. One would expect a city with organized sustainability objectives and existing programs to demonstrate a much lower potential for improvement. These results confirm a slight negative trend in potential for improved sustainability versus existing sustainability.

Comments are closed.