For instance, air movement seems to be a critical issue since some studies, such as ([PERSON] et al., 2018), affirm that radiant heating systems led to more thermal comfortable votes due to less air movement, and others ([PERSON] et al., 2018) report that occupants might doubt the freshness of the air since they cannot feel the air  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Global Comfort**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Local Discomfort**} \\ \hline  & **PMV** & **PPD (\%)** & **T\({}_{t}\)(\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **DR (\%)** & **AT\({}_{\text{P,low}}\)** & **AT\({}_{\text{P,cc}}\)** & **AT\({}_{\text{P,low}}\)** & **AT\({}_{\text{P,low}}\)** & **T\({}_{\text{a,1.1}}-{}_{\text{A,0.1}}\)** \\  & & & & &  
movement. In this field, [PERSON] et al. [24] proposed the coupling of primary air systems, and [PERSON] et al. [25] verified the effectiveness of displacement ventilation for improving the indoor air quality. Few studies are available on baseboard heaters such as the one proposed by [PERSON] et al. [26]. They found that a baseboard heater with a convector fin can increase the performance by up to 42% and 94%, respectively, compared to the conventional fins. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [27] revealed that the total thermal power of the modified radiant baseboard with higher free convection is 34% higher than that of the conventional one. Finally, the review analysis of [PERSON] et al. [28] pointed out that five studies established a thermal comfort preference between all-air and radiant systems, and three studies showed a preference for radiant systems. However, more recently, by means of experiments in a test chamber, [PERSON] et al. [29] found that there was no significant thermal comfort difference during the steady stage of convective and radiative heaters. On the other hand, in recent years, several studies focused on approaches and strategies to control building HVAC systems for reducing energy consumption and polluting emissions without compromising thermal comfort. [PERSON] et al. [30] experimentally verified an optimized control strategy for fan-coil units achieving 39.71% energy conservation. [PERSON] et al. [31] found that the adaptive approach in Mediterranean cities can guarantee reductions in cooling consumption (around 50-60%) in contrast with discrete savings for heating (around 20%). Considering the temperature set point strategies, [PERSON] et al. [32] obtained peak demand reductions of up to 10% and 25% when the conventional night time setback temperature profile was respectively changed with a one hour or two hours ramp with baseboards. For the 'hot summer-cold winter' climatic region of China, [PERSON] et al. [33] hypothesized a heating temperature set point of 17-18 \({}^{\circ}\)C based on a lumped-parameter four-node steady-state model. By means of simulations for typical USA single-family homes, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [34] found a linear increase of 5.4%/\({}^{\circ}\)C for heating consumption in a cold climate passing from 15.6 to 26.7 \({}^{\circ}\)C. According to [PERSON] et al. [35], the potential savings from selecting daily optimal set-points in the range of 22.5 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\circ}\)C for small, medium, and large office buildings would lead to 10.09-37.03%, 11.43-21.01%, and 6.78-11.34% savings, respectively, depending on the climate. [PERSON] et al. [36] demonstrated that the set-point values prefixed by EN 16798-1:2019 for new buildings can bring significant savings with respect to the static model. In field measurements of indoor environments and occupant satisfaction, surveys were used in [37] to evaluate optimized strategies to manage the HVAC system in an existing office building--the Town Hall of Viborg, Denmark. Proposed optimization scenarios (lower set point temperature, adoption of CO\({}_{2}\) sensors for the openings) brought a 21-37% reduction of heating consumption and thermal comfort improvement by 7-12%.