## 4 Results and Discussion
### Phase 6--Development of Geographical Maps of Economic Benefits
#### 4.6.1 Convenience Maps
In this sense, it should be outlined that for no provincial capital of the Calabria region has a convenience of intervention in the peripheral areas been expected in the hypothesis of the absence of the Superbonus implementation, i.e., by considering the intervention costs in the market value differential calculation. Finally, by analyzing the results for the central areas of the Italian Islands (Sicilia and Sardegna), the energy retrofit investment has identified as convenient for six out of nine provincial capitals of the Sicilia region and for five out of eight provincial capitals of the Sardegna region. Similarly, for the semi-central areas, a positive value differential between the post-energy intervention situation and the ante-energy intervention situation has been recorded for five out of nine provincial capitals of the Sicilia region and three out of eight cities of the Sardegna region. For the peripheral areas of the provincial capitals located in the Island, a scarce convenience in terms of post/ante value surplus for five out of nine provincial capitals of the Sicilia region and seven out of eight of the Sardegna region has been attested. In Table 2, the maximum and minimum value differentials between the market values detected in the post-energy intervention situation and those related to the ante-energy intervention one, determined for each macro-area, are reported. In particular, for each urban area, Table 2 shows a summary of the average value surplus expressed in percentage terms calculated without the use of the Superbonus mechanism, with the costs incurred by the investor. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Maximum and Miminum Value Differentials**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Macro-Area**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Central Area**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Semi-Central Area**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Peripheral Area**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Maximum** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Minimum** \\  & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** & **Value** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{North-Western Italy} & Imperia & Biella & Sondrio & Alessandria & Milan & Biella \\  & \(56\%\) & \(-32\%\) & \(33\%\) & \(-40\%\) & \(37\%\) & \(-101\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{North-East Italy} & Pordenone & Gorizia & Pordenone & Gorizia & Pordenone & Gorizia \\  & \(45\%\) & \(-18\%\) & \(49\%\) & \(-41\%\) & \(29\%\) & \(-56\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Central Italy} & Macerata & Ascoli Piceno & Macerata & Ascoli Piceno & Pesaro e & \\  & \(59\%\) & \(-5\%\) & \(69\%\) & \(-6\%\) & \(43\%\) & \(-47\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Southern Italy} & Taranto & Catanzaro & Bari & Vibo Valentia & Bari & Chieti \\  & \(55\%\) & \(-36\%\) & \(43\%\) & \(-31\%\) & \(26\%\) & \(-42\%\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Islands} & Nuoro & Ragusa & Cagliari & Trapani & Palermo & Medio \\  & \(52\%\) & \(-37\%\) & \(38\%\) & \(-47\%\) & \(23\%\) & Campidano \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(52\%\) & \(-37\%\) & \(-38\%\) & \(-47\%\) & \(23\%\) & \(-66\%\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Average maximum and minimum value differentials expressed in percentage terms, calculated without the use of the Superbonus mechanism.