## 3 Results and Discussion
### EA Category  
As shown in Table 5. In the northern and southern European countries, achievements in three EA credits were similar, whereas achievements in three credits were different. In particular, similar high achievements were revealed for EAc4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management, whereas similarly low achievements were revealed for EAc2 On-site Renewable Energy and EAc6 Green Power. EAc2 and EAc6 require that renewable and green sources of energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydro or biomass sources, be used instead of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, or oil. It is interesting that the achievements of the two groups of countries were similarly poor in the renewable and green energy credits, despite their high share of available renewables. In Finland, renewable energy represented approximately 30% of the total electricity production and consists of mainly hydropower (28%) and wind, solar, and biofuel power (3%) [36]. In Sweden, the same energy sources were used: hydropower (42%), wind power (7%), biofuel power (6%), and solar power (1%), resulting in a total of 56% of renewables [37]. In Turkey, renewable energy represented approximately 20% of the total \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Credit**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Pt**} & **Finland** & **Sweden** & **Finland vs. Sweden** & **Turkey** & **Spain** & **Turkey vs. Spain** \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Median \(\pm\) IQR [25-73]** & \(p\) & \(\delta\) & **Median \(\pm\) IQR [25-73]** & \(p\) & \(\delta\) \\ \hline WEc1 & 4 & \(4.0\pm 4.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(5.0\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & **0.013** & \(-0.47\) & \(4.0\pm 3.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(5.0\pm 1.5\) \({}^{\circ}\) & **0.003** & \(-0.39\) \\ WEc2 & 2 & \(3.0\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(3.0\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.839 & 0.04 & \(2.0\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(3.0\pm 3.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.134 & \(-0.20\) \\ WEc3 & 4 & \(4.0\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(2.0\pm 4.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & **0.028** & 0.41 & \(4.0\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(5.0\pm 0.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & **0.001** & \(-0.58\) \\ WE & 10 & \(8.0\pm 3.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(8.0\pm 2.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.732 & \(-0.07\) & \(10.0\pm 3.0\) \({}^{\circ}\) & \(12.0\pm 4.5\) \({}^{\circ}\) & **0.003** & \(-0.39\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{\({}^{\circ}\) Similar high achievements, \({}^{\circ}\) similar low achievements, \({}^{\circ}\) different achievements. The \(p\) values: bold font—seems to be positive, ordinal font size—seems to be negative, italic font—judgment is suspended.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: WE achievement: Northern European countries vs. southern European countries. electricity production and contained mainly hydropower (16%), wind power (3%), and other power sources (solar, geothermal, and biofuel power) (1%) [38]. In Spain, the energy sources were involved relatively different: wind power (19%), solar power (5%), and other (biomass, cogeneration, and the remaining) (11%), resulting in the total 35% of renewables [39]. Different achievements were revealed for EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance (Finland's and Sweden's achievements were the best, whereas Turkey's and Spain's achievements were the worst), EAc3 Enhanced Commissioning (Finland's achievement was the best, whereas Sweden's achievement was the worst; Spain's achievement was the best, whereas Turkey's achievement was the worst), and EAc5 Measurement and Verification (Turkey's achievement was the best, whereas those for Finland, Sweden, and Spain were the worst). Thus, the EA achievements of the two northern European countries were twice (approximately 90-105%) the achievements of the two southern European countries (approximately 40-50%). It should be noted that the achievements of Turkey and Spain confirmed the same intermediate level of the EA achievement (40%) previously revealed by [PERSON] et al. [7], who performed an overall combined evaluation of LEED-NC 2009 projects certified in the U.S. and throughout the world.