## 3 Results and Discussion
### Holistic and Environmental Efficiency Scores for Typology of Buildings in All the Climate Zones  
Results of holistic and environmental efficiency scores are presented in Table 3, where the building typology SFH is represented by the case-studies of Cyprus and Croatia (in particular, Labin). Table 3 shows the holistic and environmental scores (Model#1 and Model#2) for the 24 solutions referring to the different climate zones. Considering the W1S2 climate zone, results suggest that solution 9 is the most efficient, both for holistic and environmental purposes. On the other hand, solution 1 presents the highest efficiency scores, suggesting that in all cases this is the most inefficient solution. On the contrary, unclear conclusions can be obtained considering the W2S2 climate zone where solution 5 is always the most efficient in both holistic and environmental terms, except for the Model#2, case-study of Croatia, where the solution 1 presents the lowest environmental efficiency score. Similar considerations can be carried on considering the W2S3 climate zone. Indeed, in this case, the solution 9 is the most efficient in holistic terms. Considering Model#2, solution 9 is the most efficient only for the Croatia case-study, indeed result for Cyprus suggests solution 2 as the best intervention. However, in this specific case, solution 9 does not present a high value of environmental efficiency, so we can conclude that the inefficiency for solution 9 is not too great in comparison to the best one (solution 2). The results on W3S2 climate zone suggest that holistic efficiency solutions (Model#1) are the number 10 and 12 (Cyprus case-study), and solution 2 (Croatia). However, in general, efficiency values are very high. Environmental efficiency scores (Model#2) suggest that solutions 11 and 12 are the optimal choice for both case-studies, but in the case of Cyprus, solution 12 also does not present a too high environmental score. Table 4 presents results on Multi-Family House (MFH) in France and Spain (in particular, the front-runner pilots are in Marseille and in Castellon). The presented analysis is equal to the previous one on Single-Family House and 8 Directional Distance Functions were run considering the two different formulation of input-output space and the four climate zones. As in the case of SFH, considering the W1S2 climate zone, a univocal solution always presents the best results in terms of both holistic and environmental efficiency. This solution is the number 8 but considering the Model#1 and the Marseille case study, there are many holistic efficiency solutions. Taking W2S2 and W2S3 climate zones into account, results are controversial. Indeed, in the first case (W2S2), both Model#1 and Model#2 suggest different efficient solutions. Less controversial conclusions can be found for W2S3 climate zone: both models suggest solution 7 as the best for Marseille, whereas for Castellon there is not a univocal solution, but it changes on the base of the model adopted. Finally, also for the W3S2 climate zone conclusions on results are not so clear. However, for France and considering the holistic efficiency, solution 6 is clearly the best choice, whereas in other cases Model#1 and Model#2 suggest more than one (holistic and environmental) efficient solution. The models proposed present not always univocal results, even if scores suggest which is the best solution for each country. This means that, to decide which could be the optimal choice, in next subsection we propose to cross in a Cartesian coordinate system, the obtained results of holistic efficiency scores with other variables that can suggest definitely the optimal solution.