Conclusion This section offers a discussion of main findings of the present study, limitations of the PAIRS tool, challenges foreseen for local municipalities to adopt PAIRS as a planning tool, and policy implications that can be drawn from this research. Analysis of Nepicastat the PAIRS model produced three central findings. First, the
output from the model simulations suggests that pairing cities with similar major attributes produces at best only minimal improvements in either city’s sustainability or overall sustainability. Second, pairings that yielded the greatest improvements in sustainability were those that matched two cities with a significant disparity in size, existing level of sustainability, growth, JPH203 manufacturer or community type. Third, matching two cities with differential characteristics resulted in substantial increases in levels of sustainability in both communities. In short, the results from the simulations points to the idea that it is the differences between neighboring cities which make for the greatest partnerships. However, the PAIRS model also features several limitations which bear careful consideration. PAIRS is useful in identifying local partners and potential areas of partnership, but cannot provide specific sustainability initiatives or direct measurements
of their value. It can only identify areas where
local resources are strained or VRT752271 purchase underutilized and suggest Methamphetamine that certain partnerships may be mutually beneficial, or that certain partnerships could span different resource sectors. The primary challenge of employing PAIRS as a planning tool is the large amount of data required to complete the analysis for all potential municipal partnerships. City planners attempting to complete the PAIRS metric may very well encounter difficulties retrieving requisite data on their own city, much less that of a potential sister city. Over the course of our study, we distributed a Request for Information (RFI) which covered all of the data necessary to complete the survey to over 250 cities and counties within the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Oregon, and Washington. The response rate was expectedly low, 3.5 %, as was the completion rate, 10 %. The low completion rate typically covered important demographic and geographic criteria that would support a majority of the survey questions. The additional sustainability specific questions—for instance, “How many local farmers markets are open each week?”, would require specific research by the entity applying PAIRS. This was the approach undertaken in this study to fill in what gaps we could for our Southern California test cities.