## 4 Results and Discussion
### Phase 6--Development of Geographical Maps of Economic Benefits
#### 4.6.2 Isoprofit Maps  
By recalling the division of the Italian territory into five macro-areas--North-Western Italy (Valle d'Aosta, Liguria, Lombardia, Piemonte), North-Eastern Italy (Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Emilia Romagna), Central Italy (Toscana, Umbria, Marche, and Lazio), Southern Italy (Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, and Calabria) and Islands (Sicilia and Sardegna)--the isoprofit maps have been defined considering the three urban areas considered (central, semi-central, and peripheral) into which each Italian provincial capital is commonly divided. By taking into account an ordinary profit margin for the investor equal to 15%, the isoprofit maps have allowed one to graphically represent the urban areas of the different Italian provincial capitals located in the macro-areas for which the use of fiscal incentives is required, and their measure. The isoprofit maps have allowed one to identify the provincial capitals for which a higher convenience in carrying out the intervention through the use of the Superbonus incentive has been attested. In this sense, in fact, the value higher than 110% highlights that the investor must incur additional costs to achieve the energy efficiency goal. On the other hand, in cases for which the value is negative, a very convenient condition has been found for the private subject, by confirming a lack of necessity in implementing the Superbonus measure. For all three urban areas--central, semi-central, and peripheral--into which each Italian provincial capital is divided, the break-even incentive is capable of guaranteeing the private investor a profit margin equal to 15% on the initial investment costs, that is, the sum of the purchase of the property and eventual refurbishment costs to be burdened and not covered by the incentive has been determined. The results obtained have attested that in the central areas of forty-three provincial capitals (39% of the total number of provincial capitals analyzed), a convenient condition has occurred due to the detection of relevant benefits in implementing energy improvement interventions even in the absence of the Superbonus incentive. With reference to the semi-central area, a profitable situation for the private operator to invest using their own capital for the energy efficiency intervention has been found for 19 provincial capitals (17% of the total number), whereas for the peripheral areas, a convenience to activate an energy retrofit initiative without the use of the fiscal mechanism has been recorded only for nine provincial capitals (8% of the total number). Thus, at national level, for 21% of the urban areas in the 110 provincial capitals (71 urban areas compared to the 330 urban areas of the Italian provincial capitals), a condition of convenience to invest in the improvement of energy requalification of the residential assets has been identified. In Figure 4, the isoprofit maps developed for Northern Italy, i.e., North-Western Italy and North-Eastern Italy macro-areas, are reported. The isoprofit maps related to the Central Italy, Southern Italy, and Islands macro-areas are reported in Figures S20 and S21 in Supplementary Files. Finally, the isoprofit maps have been elaborated using a gradation of four colors: (i) blue for the provincial capitals for which there is no need to use any fiscal incentives (break-even threshold \(<\) 0%); (ii) grey for the situations where the break-even threshold found is equal to 0%; (iii) orange for the four clusters (1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, and 75-110%), which indicate the provincial capitals where the incentive is necessary but with an extent lower than 110%; and (iv) red for the provincial capitals where the 110% incentive currently provided by the Superbonus is insufficient to guarantee the condition of minimum convenience for an investor.