## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparative Analysis of the Investigated Scenarios
#### 3.2.2 Outdoor Thermal Comfort  
This subsection analyzes the effects of the three simulated scenarios on outdoor thermal comfort, using the Mean Radiant Temperature (MRT) and the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) as reference indicators, both calculated at pedestrian level (z = 1.0 m). Results are presented in both absolute and percentage terms to highlight the differences between scenarios. The spatial configurations of the three scenarios are illustrated in Figure 10, as simulated through ENVI-met.  
In the baseline scenario, MRT values across the selected receptors range from 52.8 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 56.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with an average of approximately 55.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C, reflecting extensive impervious surfaces, asphalt-covered areas, parked vehicles, and minimal vegetation. UTCI values range between 27.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 32.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C, averaging around 28.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C, indicating conditions of moderate to severe heat stress, especially in zones with low shading and limited ventilation.  
Scenario 1, which includes a 50% reduction in vehicular traffic and a moderate increase in vegetated surfaces, achieves the most consistent improvements:  
* MRT average: 53.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with an absolute reduction of 1.43 \({}^{\circ}\)C compared to the baseline (\(-\)2.6%). The maximum drop occurs at receptor 5, from 55.44 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 52.92 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)2.52 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(-\)4.5%).
* UTCI average: 27.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C, showing a decrease of 1.36 \({}^{\circ}\)C from baseline (\(-\)4.8%). The greatest improvement is observed at receptor 2, where values drop from 28.27 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 26.11 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)2.16 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(-\)7.6%).  
Scenario 2, which combines a smaller traffic reduction (30%) with more intensive greening measures and the use of permeable and photocatalytic pavements, also leads to improved thermal comfort, albeit with more localized effects:  
* MRT average: 54.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with an overall reduction of 1.06 \({}^{\circ}\)C compared to baseline (\(-\)1.9%). The largest decrease is recorded at receptor 5, from 55.44 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 53.77 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)1.67 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(-\)3.0%).
* UTCI average: 27.4 \({}^{\circ}\)C, corresponding to a reduction of 1.19 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)4.2%). The best result is at receptor 7, with UTCI decreasing from 27.61 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 25.65 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(-\)1.96 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(-\)7.1%).  
The comparison clearly shows that Scenario 1 enables reductions of up to 4.5% in MRT and 7.6% in UTCI, outperforming Scenario 2, where maximum improvements reach 3.0% for MRT and 7.1% for UTCI. The greater effectiveness of Scenario 1 is attributed to the direct reduction of anthropogenic heat sources, particularly vehicle engines and asphalt surfaces. Conversely, the material and greening interventions in Scenario 2 play a more complementary role, offering significant but spatially limited cooling benefits.  
These results are in line with recent findings in the literature [89; 90; 91], which confirm that the integration of traffic reduction, green infrastructure, and high-albedo materials constitutes an effective strategy for mitigating urban heat stress. However, to achieve widespread and uniform benefits, it is essential to combine physical and material interventions with substantial cuts in direct heat emissions, especially from internal vehicular circulation.