## 3 Results
### Evaluation at Section Tract Level: The Case Study of Cerro-Amate District  
In order to carry out a more detailed study, in addition to the analysis of energy efficiency and energy vulnerability at the district level in Seville, district 4 (Cerro-Amate) was selected as a sample for analysis at the census tract level. This choice is justified by the need to establish an evaluation procedure that can be replicated in other districts and in the interest of exploring in depth a representative area in terms of dwelling typologies.  
The Cerro-Amate district has 6244 dwellings registered in the EPC database, of which 77.4% are DMBs and 22.6% are SFDs. According to the database, the period of construction of these dwellings spans from 1918 to 2023 (Figure 12), showing an evident increase in construction activity between 1918 and 1960, with a peak of 518 records in 1960. However, from that year until 1994, there is a progressive decrease in the number of buildings, with specific peaks in 1970, 1975, 1980 and 2003.  
Figures 13 and 14 present the distribution of EPCs for the district by rating label and dwelling typology. The most common label in both typologies is \"E\" (81% of DMBs and 68% of Unis). However, SFDs show a better energy performance than DMBs, as 92.7% of DMBs present a low energy efficiency rating (\"E\" or lower), while this percentage decreases to 71.8% in SFDs. A similar behavior is observed in the classification by CO\({}_{2}\) emissions (Figure 8), where DMBs maintain a lower efficiency compared to SFDs.  
Figure 15 shows the distribution of dwellings by typology in the Cerro-Amate district according to energy poverty vulnerability categories. Both dwelling typologies concentrate more than 55% of the sample in the moderate energy vulnerability category. While in the range 5% < EEIR \(\leq\) 10% the results indicate that the percentage of DMBs is slightly higher compared to SFDs, this difference increases considerably in the EEIR > 10% range.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Total N** & 45,908 \\ \hline
**Test statistic** & 9093.945 \\ \hline
**Degree of freedom** & 10 \\ \hline
**Asymptotic sig.** & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Results obtained from the Kruskal-Wallis test to determine the significant differences between the EEIR of the districts.  
Figures 16 and 17 show the distribution of overall consumption and the vulnerability to experiencing energy poverty according to their classifications, respectively. The study at the census tract level in the Cerro-Amate district provided results that show patterns similar to those of the general sample. Census tract 58 showed the lowest average \(\rm EP_{nr}\)  
Figure 14: (**a**) Distribution of DMBs according to Global Emissions label in District Cerro-Amate. (**b**) Distribution of SFDs according to Global Emissions label in District Cerro-Amate.  
Figure 12: Distribution of number of dwellings built per year in district Cerro-Amate.  
Figure 13: (**a**) Distribution of DMBs according to Global Energy Certificate label in District Cerro-Amate. (**b**) Distribution of SFDs according to Global Emissions label in District Cerro-Amate.  
consumption and CO2 emissions (131.31 kWh/m2'year and 25.18 kgCO2/m2'year, respectively). In contrast to census tract 27, with expected average EPnr consumption and CO2 emissions of 213.49 kWh/m2'year and 41.41 kgCO2/m2'year, respectively. In terms of energy vulnerability, the minimum average \(EEIR\) were found in census section 15 (4.24%), and the maximum (10.62%) in section 52. These results allow us to identify those census tracts in a critical situation, which is key information for establishing measures to prioritize actions in these areas.  
Figure 16: Average overall consumption of dwellings in the Cerro-Amate District at the census tract level.  
Figure 15: Percentage of dwellings in each \(EEIR\) ranges by dwelling typology in District Cerro-Amate.