## 2 Materials and Methods
### Impact Assessment Strategy  
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation strategies, a comparative analysis was conducted between the baseline condition and the two alternative scenarios described in Section 2.4. This assessment focused on quantifying variations in both air quality and outdoor thermal comfort parameters, using spatially explicit indicators derived from ENVI-met simulations.  
The first phase of the analysis involved generating full-domain maps of PM\({}_{10}\), PM\({}_{2.5}\), air temperature, MRT, and UTCI for each scenario. These outputs enabled a synoptic understanding of how pollutant dispersion and thermal stress conditions evolved under different urban configurations. Key environmental indicators were examined during the most critical hours of the day (8:00-14:00), corresponding to the time window of the measurement campaign and peak campus activity.  
To complement this domain-wide analysis, a targeted receptor-based evaluation was carried out. Eight representative receptors were selected within the study area (Figure 7), including entrances to academic buildings, pedestrian crossings, internal courtyards, and other zones with high pedestrian exposure. The selection aimed to capture the most sensitive locations from both a climatic and an environmental perspective.  
At each receptor, simulated values of PM\({}_{10}\), PM\({}_{2.5}\), MRT, and UTCI were extracted and compared across the three scenarios. These data were then analyzed to determine local improvements or deteriorations resulting from the mitigation interventions. Table 10 summarizes the spatial coordinates of the receptors and specifies the mitigation measures planned at each location under Scenarios 1 and 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Receptor** & **Scenario 1 (Planned Interventions)** & **Scenario 2 (Planned Interventions)** \\ \hline N. 1 (146 m, 242 m) & No specific intervention for receptor protection. & Presence of grass in the central island of the mini-roundabout located near the receptor. \\ \hline N. 2 (226 m, 246 m) & Thinning of existing vegetation and planting of new trees less than 5 m tall. & No specific intervention for receptor protection. \\ \hline N. 3 (202 m, 314 m) & Thinning of existing vegetation. & Installation of photocatalytic pavement on sidewalks and permeable pavement in parking areas. Additional vegetation introduced in a sparse configuration, composed of low shrubs (1 m in height). \\ \hline N. 4 (258 m, 244 m) & No specific intervention for receptor protection. & Installation of photocatalytic pavement on sidewalks. \\ \hline N. 5 (184 m, 236 m) & Thinning of existing vegetation and planting of new trees less than 5 m tall. & Installation of photocatalytic pavement on sidewalks. Addition of a few shrubs 2 m in height. \\ \hline N. 6 (110 m, 222 m) & Moderate thinning of existing vegetation. & Installation of photocatalytic pavement on sidewalks. \\ \hline N. 7 (66 m, 170 m) & No specific intervention for receptor protection. & Installation of photocatalytic pavement on sidewalks. \\ \hline N. 8 (60 m, 128 m) & Thinning of existing vegetation and planting of new trees less than 5 m tall. & Installation of photocatalytic pavement on sidewalks and permeable pavement in parking areas. Vegetation reduced to low shrubs (1 m in height). \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Planned interventions for optimizing the microclimatic comfort of receptors.  
Figure 7: Location of the eight receptors: (**a**) 2D top view including x and y coordinates; (**b**) 3D model view of the study area simulated with ENVI-met.  
This receptor-based approach enabled a precise assessment of localized effects, capturing microclimatic variations that may not be fully evident in domain-scale outputs. The strategy also allowed for identifying which types of interventions yielded the most significant environmental benefits in specific contexts, supporting a more nuanced and site-responsive design logic.