## 3 Results and Discussion
### Regional Comparison of the Energy Saving Achieved by Using Adaptive Setpoint Temperatures  
As mentioned in Section 3.1, the energy saving obtained by the adaptive model without tolerance was high. For this reason, it was interesting to analyze the possible differences of energy performance of the adaptive setpoint temperatures among the main cities of the four countries considered. Figure 10 shows the annual energy consumption distribution obtained in each country and the percentage average saving obtained. Tables 5-8 represent the energy consumption savings obtained by the model with tolerance of 0.00 \({}^{\circ}\)C in each city. By using adaptive setpoint temperatures, the energy consumption decreased, with the same differences between cooling and heating discussed in the previous section. Although the results obtained in each city showed a greater energy saving in heating than in cooling, the lowest period assigned to the use of the cooling system stresses the potential of using adaptive setpoint temperatures to reduce the cooling energy consumption. Furthermore, the average percentage saving in the different countries shows a clear difference between cooling and heating energy consumption (see Figure 10): the cooling energy consumption had an average percentage saving greater than 50% in the four countries, whereas the heating average percentage saving was lower than 31%. Despite the use of adaptive setpoint temperatures obtained reductions in both types of energy consumption, the energy saving varied according to the cities analyzed in each country. Similar tendencies were found in countries which are near each other: (i) Greece and Italy were characterized by presenting similar energy savings in the total consumption, ranging from 1142.51 and 1324.44 and 1337.54 kWh/year in the Italian cities; (ii) Spain and Portugal obtained similar tendencies in the total energy saving achieved, with oscillations between 684.04 and 418.59 kWh/year in the Spanish cities, and between 803.99 and 1264.57 kWh/year in the Portuguese cities. The greatest and the lowest energy-saving values were obtained in Spain because of the huge variety of existing climate typologies in the country which vary the potential of application of these energy-saving measures. The cities with a lower energy saving (e.g., La Corunia) were therefore characterized by presenting a low cooling energy consumption with the static model. Thus, although the application of the adaptive model practically removed the cooling consumption, its effect on the total energy consumption was low. [PERSON] et al. [43] found that the analyzed North American cities with a colder climate had a lower percentage of energy savings than the cities with warmer climates. Likewise, the studies carried out by [PERSON] et al. [42] and [PERSON] et al. [44] showed that, among the cities analyzed, the energy savings obtained with the adaptive setpoint temperatures were always greater in the cities with a higher cooling energy demand. Figure 9: Average increase percentage in the total energy consumption due to the improvement in the user’s expectations in 0.25 \({}^{\circ}\)C (current scenario). Figure 10: Summary of the results obtained in each country between the model of tolerance of 0.00 \({}^{\circ}\)C and the static model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**City**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Energy Consumption Saving (kWh/Year)**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Cooling** & **Heating** & **Total** \\ \hline Athens & 851.17 & 344.00 & 1195.17 \\ Ermoupoli & 983.15 & 237.32 & 1220.46 \\ Ioannina & 669.71 & 632.07 & 1301.78 \\ Irakleio & 946.53 & 244.83 & 1191.36 \\ Kerkyra & 777.68 & 364.83 & 1142.51 \\ Komotini & 712.83 & 576.73 & 1289.57 \\ Kozani & 649.37 & 675.07 & 1324.44 \\ Lamia & 835.83 & 444.83 & 1280.67 \\ Larisa & 728.11 & 567.49 & 1295.60 \\ Mytilini & 841.91 & 346.70 & 1188.61 \\ Patra & 830.61 & 326.41 & 1157.02 \\ Thessaloniki & 770.62 & 539.50 & 1310.12 \\ Tripoli & 624.27 & 650.38 & 1274.65 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}