## 4 Discussion
### Effectiveness of the Proposed Actions  
The obtained results could seem not too encouraging in terms of energy savings. In fact, the reduction of the energy demand following the proposed actions accounts for about one third of the annual energy consumption for both the considered agritourisms. However, this is not surprising; the fact that the ARERA technical datasheets proposed interventions have been designed for the residential sector, in fact, place some limits on their application in a wider context, such as the agritourism one. Specifically, the limitations set on the reference physical units (UFRs) sizes might have made the outcomes much lower than the actually achievable results.  
For instance, concerning datasheet 7 a maximum \(kW_{p}\) of 20 kW is reductive for an agritourism, which could employ PV better having wide areas available to install such systems. Supporting this observation, during the survey of the agritourisms, it arose that both currently have a 100-kW PV undergoing design phase. In this context it would be more sensible to impose a limit on the maximum percentage of yearly energy consumption to be covered with the proposed intervention.  
The latter consideration also applies to datasheet 8T.  
Regarding, instead, datasheet 15T the application problem is mainly related to the residential standard apartment size (80-90 m\({}^{2}\)), which is difficult to translate into an agritourism setting. In the conducted analysis, for instance, in order to comply with such a parameter, three to four rooms were grouped and assumed equal to 1.5 standard apartments, but it could be a questionable criterion.  
As for datasheets 19T, it would be more reasonable to install a centralized system rather than considering the replacement of the single air conditioning units (the same goes for the heat pumps proposed by datasheets 15T).  
Nevertheless, since one of the aims of this work was that of singling the most convenient EU Ecolabel \"environmental actions packages\", based on the comparison of the results reported in Tables 5 and 6 it was decided to tentatively choose three alternative options, both for _Villa Dafne_ (_VD-n_) and _Bergi_ (_B-n_), as follows:  
* options _VD-1_ and _B-1_, constituted by datasheets number 5 and 7;
* options _VD-2_ and _B-2_, constituted by datasheets number 7, 8T and (15T + 19T), the latter two must be considered together for the reasons indicated at the end of Section 2.4.2.;
* options _VD-3_ and _B-3_, constituted by datasheets number 7, (15T + 19T) and 27T.  
Table 7 summarizes the obtained results relative to the selected \"environmental actions packages\". By analyzing the data reported in Table 7 it was, therefore decided to consider as optimal options _VD-2_ for _Villa Dafne_ and _B-2_ for _Bergi_. These two options allow, in fact, the obtaining of greater economic and energy savings and, correspondingly, higher CO\({}_{2}\) emissions reductions. Moreover, they are characterized by the lower pay back periods.  
It must be observed that the availability of effective and reliable methods for evaluating the energy actions involving agritourism is of paramount importance for suitable planning of this important sector. Therefore, the ARERA technical data sheets should be properly reconsidered in order to render them more explicit with the energy features of agritourism buildings and dwellings.