## 3 Results and Discussion  
The results obtained through the application of the proposed vulnerability assessment methodology lead to highlighting some interesting topics for the understanding of traditional architecture, and more specifically, of earthen construction techniques. Buildings were chosen to obtain a sample diversified by the architectural typology, thus selecting five religious buildings and ten civil buildings of various dimensions and characteristics. As mentioned above, all of the buildings analysed have adobe walls. However, by collecting information and observing the buildings in situ, a detailed analysis was possible, differentiating three typologies of adobe walls: uniform, mixed (adobe and brick), and supplemented with brick corners. The data obtained show that most of the walls are made of adobe and bricks (40%), while uniform adobe walls and supplemented walls are, respectively, 33% and 27% of the total (Figure 6a). Another very influential feature for the purposes of the analyses is undoubtedly the topography of the site, which conditioned the construction of the buildings. More than half of the buildings are in an urban condition with an obvious \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Damages** & **W** & **SF** \\ \hline  & Plinth erosion & 1 & & \\ - & Absent & & 1 & \\ - & Superficial & & 3 & \\ - & In the joints & & & 4 \\ - & Volumetric loss & & & 5 \\  & Structural damages & 1 & & \\ - & Absent & & 1 \\ - & Hair crack & & & 3 \\ - & Minor crack & & & 4 \\ - & Deep crack & & & 5 \\ \hline  & Rising damp & 0.6 & & \\ - & Absent & & & 1 \\ - & Present & & & 5 \\  & Wall saturation & 0.8 & & \\ - & Absent & & & 1 \\ - & Present & & & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: W = weight; SF = susceptibility factor.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._inclination, a third of the cases are built at street level and a smaller percentage (13%) are built above ground, due to the presence of a platform with steps (Figure 6b). These classifications are very important when it comes to understanding the results of the susceptibility assessment, as they allow for showing the weaknesses of the buildings, their resistance resources and their resilience. The vulnerability assessment turns out that the characteristic vulnerability index of the buildings varies in a range of values between 2.4 and 3.6 (Figure 7a), on a scale of 1 to 5. So, the vulnerability associated with the intrinsic characteristics of the majority of the assets can be assumed to be medium (Figure 7b). However, these values are not fully representative of the actual condition of the buildings. Thus, evaluating its state of conservation by calculating the susceptibility index associated with the damages was also considered essential. The values obtained from the combination of the two indices are included in a range of low and medium vulnerability, between 3.4 and 6.2 (Figure 8a). Looking at the percentage distribution of the values of the total index, 73% of buildings have a medium susceptibility index, 13% have a low susceptibility index, and 7% a high susceptibility index (Figure 8b). Figure 6: (**a**) Percentage distribution graph of the adobe construction system; (**b**) Percentage distribution graph of the urban locations of the assets. Figure 7: (**a**) Characteristic vulnerability index graph; (**b**) Percentage distribution of the characteristic vulnerability index values. Comparing the characteristic vulnerability and the total vulnerability, an increase in the value is observed. This increase is caused by the state of conservation of the asset, significantly changing the value of the index. For instance, if the QU-3 and QU-10 cases are analysed, QU-10 is noted to have increased its value, exceeding QU-3, and this is related to the presence of forms of material weathering and damages affecting the walls. In fact, in almost all buildings, forms of deterioration were found, especially due to rising damp.