# Solar Energy in Urban Planning: Lesson Learned and Recommendations from Six Italian Case Studies
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Similarities and Differences among the Different Built Environments  
Table 3 presents the similarities and differences among the built environments.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Built** & **Similarities** & **Differences** \\
**Env.** & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{} & Social housing projects aiming to & SINFONIA focuses on the \\  & improve the life quality of citizens and & refurbishment of existing buildings. \\  & the energy performance of buildings. & Photovoltaic Village includes the \\  & Active involvement of municipalities & construction of new apartments blocks, \\  & and stakeholders highlights the & public spaces, facilities. \\  & importance of a dialogue between & Different scales of intervention. \\  & public and private. & SINFONIA has refurbishment projects \\  & Pilot studies proposing replicable & all over the city, the realization of \\  & solutions and developed within the & DH/DC grids, air quality, and smart \\  & context of European projects. & mobility measures at city scale. \\  & PV systems not fully integrated into & In Photovoltaic Village the intervention \\  & existing buildings. & is limited to the neighborhood scale. \\  & Provincial or Municipal regulatory & Different use of RES. In Bolzano PV, ST \\  & frameworks to promote energy & and geothermal heat pumps are used. \\  & efficiency. & The solar systems are installed only on \\  & Establishment of a monitoring phase & buildings’ roofs. In Photovoltaic Village \\  & and involvement of researchers. & only PV technology is adopted and the \\  & & installation encompasses roofs, facades, and public areas. \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{} & Use of public tenders as an instrument & Le Albere and Casanova use energy \\  & to assign the design of the projects. & certification (CasaClima, LEED) to \\  & Aim to represent the state of the art of & assess the sustainability level. Violino \\  & technology in the sustainable building & does not. \\  & industry and inspire replicability. & Le Albere and Casanova include mixed \\  & Morphologies of neighborhoods and & functions within the neighborhood, \\  & buildings shaped to maximize use of & while Violino has only residential \\  & Attention in connecting the new & Foucs on social housing and affordable \\  & development to the rest of the city & rental solution in Violino and Casanova. \\  & through the realization of public paths. & Violino and Le Albere show a higher \\  & Use of green spaces as a unifying & PV integration level than Casanova. \\  & element for the interventions and as a & Adoption of a monitoring campaign \\  & way to connect it to the natural & carried out by researchers in Casanova and Violino. \\  & & Le Albere was realized on a brownfield \\  & of roads or restricting access to vehicles. & area, while the other two cases are \\  & Constant dialogue between public and & developed on greenfield sites. \\  & private stakeholders during & Stricter urban grid limits planning \\  & the process. & freedom in Violino compared to the \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Similarities and differences among the different built environments.