**4. Discussion**

The distribution of the urban footprint, which began to increase with the construction of the Panama Canal, may have affected the city's position today. Considering other factors that were part of the urban growth, some studies point to the real estate explosion as an important cause, which began in the central banking and financial area of the city (Bella Vista and San Francisco); however, it has been moving to the north and east of the capital city [57]. The existence of multiple, poorly structured zonings in the city, where different land uses are dispersed, is part of the problem. This results in poor connections between areas with only a complicated network of roads, dense streets, deteriorated highways, and unfinished train lines, which increases the travel time of the inhabitants. This is due to the poor distribution of residential areas and economically unbalanced neighborhoods lacking basic services. Some authors and urban planners in [58] define Panama City with the words "half a city", "a divided city" or "two realities".

According to INEC data, in the 2010 census, 42% of households in the metropolitan area had a car. However, there were no initiatives to prioritize pedestrians until 2014, when the mayor's office started interventions for public space. Three restructured projects stand out and serve as an example: Via España, Via Argentina and Calle Uruguay [58]. Because of these and other problems, tools like the Green City Index [19] could estimate a starting point for describing the primary needs in terms of sustainability in cities and urbanizations. These needs can be adapted into biomimicry's different strategies, to seek better solutions, as has been seen in the literature. Furthermore, nature's opportunities for urban development offer an efficient way for human advancement in sustainability.

#### *4.1. Evaluation of Proposed Approaches via SWOT Analysis*

In Section 2, different solutions based on nature were proposed, however, it is not possible to know the suitability of such solutions to an urban and continuously developing environment, such as Panama City. For this reason, it is necessary to discuss or assess the potential for its adaptation; where strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are sought to be explored through a SWOT analysis for each approach studied.

A strength considers the resources involved in the urban area that make it possible to achieve the objectives considered in the area's social structure and physical conditions. On the other hand, a weakness focuses on the limitation that prevents the project from achieving the results or objectives in the urban environment. This analysis discusses the initiatives for the energy, air quality, and mobility sectors in Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8, respectively.

#### *4.2. Experts Survey for the Evaluation of Regenerative Proposals*

As a more exhaustive demonstration of the possibility of adapting the solutions presented for Panama City, a questionnaire was conducted among researchers and experts in different fields involved in the technological and sustainable development of cities. This could be done in collaboration with professionals in energy, environment, architecture, urbanism, among others.

#### 4.2.1. Information Regarding the Participants

In August (2021), the survey was open for responses, and 13 participants gave their opinions through a set of evaluations. It was completed with a relative majority of participants who worked in the public sector, with 69.2% of respondents; the rest, 30.8%, belonged to the independent sector and none to the private sector. The work experience was distributed as follows: 30.8% for more than 20 years, 30.8% for both 10 to 20 years and less than 5 years, and at last, 7.7% for 5 to 10 years.

In addition, as a basis for their knowledge in biomimicry and regeneration, they were asked about their level of understanding, with 61.5% describing themselves as having low knowledge of biomimicry, 23.1% of medium, and only 15.4% having a high level. In the case of regeneration, almost half of them had a medium understanding with 46.2%, 23.1% had insufficient knowledge, 15.4% of them agreed to have high knowledge, 7.7% had a very high understanding, and just 7.7% had very low knowledge. When asked about what topic they considered to have more knowledge in, 76.9% answered in Environment, 23.1% chose Clean Energies, and only 7.7% said Urbanism and Mobility.


**Table 6.** SWOT analysis for energy initiatives.


**Table 7.** SWOT analysis for the proposed air quality initiatives.

monuments, schools and drainage structures [42].

this type of cement.



#### 4.2.2. Rating Questions and Answers

Local experts were asked which sectors they considered to be priorities for sustainable development in Panama City with the options of 1 (low importance), 3 (neutral), and 5 (high importance). A total of 61.54% considered the waste sector as high importance, making it the most relevant. For the energy and CO2 emissions, 53.85% rated it as high importance, and the same happened for land use/buildings, water and sanitation, and transportation sectors. On the other hand, for air quality, only 23.08% considered this sector to be of high importance, 38.46% between very important and neutral, and 38.46% recognized it to be neutral.

Participants were also asked what aspects they considered the most relevant for developing a sustainable city. Their responses pointed to a greater appreciation for the integration of nature and the application of waste reduction measures, both of which were approved by 76.9% of the participants surveyed. This was followed by implementing clean energy with 69.2% and sustainable mobility where the participants indicated their approval with 61.5%. Furthermore, 46.2% valued compact urbanization, while 30.8% valued adequate care of air quality. Finally, a total of 23.1% considered the preservation of public spaces.

To obtain the experts' opinions for the evaluation of proposed solutions, it was explained what the initiatives consisted of. Then they were asked how they would rate the feasibility of those solutions on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 denoted high likelihood, 3 meant medium likelihood, and 1 indicated low likelihood.

The results revealed that out of the 17 actions assessed by the respondents, nine of them were considered to have an average value of 4 and upon the scale presented, i.e., close to a high possibility of implementation. The solution that had the highest score for its positive application in cities was the adaptation of trees and plants for arborization. In the case of the remaining eight solutions, they all obtained an average value between 3 (medium) and 4, denoting a medium-high possibility of implementation. No solution had a value lower than 3.31, belonging to the Sierpinski ceiling. These results can be further seen in Table 9, along with the rank occupied by each solution, where rank 1 represents the best-voted option for adaptation, and the value 12 is the least voted one.

As an assessment of the limitations involved in applying these solutions, the respondents were asked which ones they considered as challenges and which ones as risks. Some of the limitations included the difficulties in technology and natural solutions, their implementation, maintenance, possible effects, and their adaptability in Panama City with the current policies. In total, it was found that from the 28 constraints, the participants voted 211 times for the challenge section with 59.94% of the total; on the other hand, the option of possible risk was selected 103 times, covering 29.26% of the constraints; at last, 10.80% of these were not considered a limitation or were not as relevant. Table 10 summarizes the results for this question, with the number of votes for each option.

As part of the research, respondents were asked what factors they considered that applied to Panama City. The most voted were the delay in governmen<sup>t</sup> decision-making and resistance to change in the adoption of new practices, both with 92.30%. This was followed by the lack of governmen<sup>t</sup> support and knowledge of sustainable planning practices with 84.60%. Figure 8 shows the results obtained:


**Table 9.** Feasibility of nature-based solutions for Panama City: expert opinion. Own elaboration.

> **Table 10.** Limitations of the nature-based solutions for Panama City. Own elaboration.


**Table 10.** *Cont.*


**Figure 8.** Factors that apply in the Panamanian context, according to respondents. Own elaboration.

Finally, they were asked for their opinions regarding this work, and they recommended or commented on the following factors:

