## 3 Results and Discussion
### Indoor Environmental Quality
This resulted in similar Chinese and U.S. Silver and Gold-related EQ category performance. However, in China, the Gold EQ performance was much better than the Silver EQ performance compared to the U.S., who had similar Silver and Gold EQ performances. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Credit/Category** & **County/\(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Possible** \\ **Points** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Achieved Points**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{\delta_{2}/\text{In}\theta}\)} \\  & & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.78\)\({}^{1}\) \\ EQc5 Indoor Chemical & China \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.12\) & \(0.24\) & X \\ and Pollutant Source & & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(-0.16\)\({}^{1}\) \\ Control & The U.S. \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.32\) & \(0.32\) & X \\  & & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(\mathbf{-1.39}\)\({}^{1}\) \\ EQc6.1 Controllability of & China \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.06\) & \(0.21\) & X \\ Systems—Lighting & The U.S. \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.07\)\({}^{1}\) \\  & & & \(\mathbf{0.41}\) & \(\mathbf{0.39}\) & X \\ EQc6.2 Controllability of & China \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.18\)\({}^{1}\) \\ Systems—Thermal & & & \(0.06\) & \(0.05\) & X \\ Comfort & The U.S. \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(-1.04\)\({}^{1}\) \\  & & & \(0.05\) & \(0.04\) & X \\  & & & \(1.0\,1.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(1.0\,1.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.07\)\({}^{1}\) \\ EQc7.1 Thermal & China \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(\mathbf{1.00}\) & \(\mathbf{0.92}\) & X \\ Comfort—Design & The U.S. \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(1.0\,1.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(1.0\,1.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.03\)\({}^{1}\) \\  & & & \(\mathbf{0.92}\) & \(\mathbf{0.92}\) & X \\  & & & \(1.0\,1.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(1.0\,1.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.06\)\({}^{1}\) \\ EQc7.2 Thermal & China \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.87\) & \(\mathbf{0.87}\) & X \\ Comfort—Verification & The U.S. \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(1.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(1.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.42\)\({}^{1}\) \\  & & & \(\mathbf{0.73}\) & \(\mathbf{0.68}\) & X \\  & & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(0.01\) \\ EQc8.1 Daylight and & China \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.19\) & \(0.11\) & X \\ Views–Daylight & The U.S. \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.00\) \\  & & & \(0.05\) & \(0.00\) & X \\ EQc8.2 Daylight and & China \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.5\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(-0.44\)\({}^{1}\) \\ Views—Views & The U.S. \(\mathbf{\delta_{1}}\) & & \(0.25\) & \(0.32\) & X \\  & & & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(0.0\) & \(0.0\,0.0\)–\(1.0\) & \(-0.95\)\({}^{1}\) \\ EQ Total & The U.S. & & \(0.16\) & \(0.32\) & X \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{l}{Notes: IAQ—Indoor Air Quality. The \(\delta\) effect size is considered to be (i) negligible if \(|\delta|<0.147\), (ii) _small_ if \(0.147\leq|\delta|\)} \\ \(<0.33\), (iii) _medium_ if \(0.33\leq|\delta|<0.474\), and (iv) **large** if \(|\delta|\geq 0.474\). \({}^{1}\) The \(|\ln\theta|\) effect size thresholds are considered to be \(0.51\) (_small_), \(1.24\) (_medium_), and \(1.90\) (large). \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: _Cont._It should be pointed out that both the Chinese and U.S. projects in the LEED-CIv3 certification succeeded in six/seven high performance credits, respectively (Table 9), whereas, in the LEED-CIv4 certification, only one to three credits were performed to a high standard in these countries (Table 10). For the EQ category, the main difference between LEED-CIv3 and LEED-CIv4 is the number of available credits in these versions. LEED-CIv3 has 16 EQ credits (Table 9), whereas LEED-CIv4 has only nine credits (Table 10). This is due to the grouping of some separate credits of LEED-CIv3 into representative unique credits in LEED-CIv4.