## 6 Conclusions  
The subdivision of the VGS into categories turned out to be a fundamental step in setting up the entire work, allowing to compare the advantages of using different VGS. The variations in modeling and in the attribution of diversified energy balances on the same sample building allowed comparison of results about trends of the external surface temperatures and the operative temperatures for each system. The in-depth literature review produced mathematical models and allowed comparison of the results with those from empirical studies, demonstrating a good match. The HS (with a consistent substrate thickness) proved to be the best performing in the summer season, while the Mur Vegetal results to be the best performing system in winter. Compared to the concrete model, generally all categories improve the thermohygrometric performance of the sample building. In particular, the benefits on the outside face temperatures of the walls, which remain below the temperature of the outside air on hot summer days, are significant. The results obtained refer to the simulated sample and therefore may vary in relation to the characteristics of the building analyzed (stratigraphy, number and size of windows, location, etc.) The simulation of a single sample and the non-determination of the contribu \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum Increase of the** \\ **External Surface** \\ **Temperature Compared to** \\ **the Reference Sample** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum Increase of the** \\ **Operative Temperature** \\ **Compared to the** \\ **Reference Sample** \\ \end{tabular} & **Main Effects Involved** \\ \hline
**GTB** & \(\pm\)0 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)0\%) & \(\pm\)0 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)0\%) & Wind barrier \\ \hline
**GCB** & \(\pm\)0 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)0\%) & \(\pm\)0 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(\pm\)0\%) & Wind barrier \\ \hline
**GCC** & \(+\)1 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)13\%) & \(+\)1 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)67\%) & Wind barrier \\ \hline
**GMC** & \(+\)1 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)13\%) & \(+\)1 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)67\%) & Wind barrier \\ \hline
**MV** & \(+\)8 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)800\%) & \(+\)4 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)200\%) &
\begin{tabular}{c} PVC panel in the \\ stratigraphy \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**LS** & \(+\)8 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)800\%) & \(+\)1 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)100\%) & Soil thermal conductivity \\ \hline
**HS** & \(+\)8 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)800\%) & \(+\)2 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(+\)150\%) & Soil thermal conductivity \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Winter. Comparison of the results obtained on the south wall of the sample during the daytime and evaluation of the variables involved for each category. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum Reduction of** \\ **the External Surface** \\ **Temperature Compared to** \\ **the Reference Sample** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Maximum Reduction of** \\ **the Operative** \\ **Temperature Compared to** \\ **the Reference Sample** \\ \end{tabular} & **Main Effects Involved** \\ \hline
**GTB** & \(-\)1.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)4\%) & \(-\)4 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)11\%) & Shading \\ \hline
**GCB** & \(-\)1.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)4\%) & \(-\)4 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)11\%) & Shading \\ \hline
**GCC** & \(-\)5 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)12\%) & \(-\)6 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)17\%) & Shading/transpiration \\ \hline
**GMC** & \(-\)6 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)15\%) & \(-\)7.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)21\%) & Shading/evapotranspiration \\ \hline
**MV** & \(-\)10 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)26\%) & \(-\)8 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)23\%) & Evapotranspiration/Ventilated facade \\ \hline
**LS** & \(-\)13 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)32.5\%) & \(-\)8 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)23\%) & Evapotranspiration/Ventilated facade \\ \hline
**HS** & \(-\)13 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)32.5\%) & \(-\)9 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)26\%) & Evapotranspiration/Ventilated facade \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summer.