## 4 Results and Discussion
### Comparison of District Sharing Strategies on C/D Ratio and Required Borehole Number
Although for both scenarios, the resulting ratios show the same range colors, their capacity potentials are varied; the reason for this is that many buildings in Westminster have a narrow and long shape, leading to more space being \"around\" than \"under\" the buildings, which was described in more detail in the paper of [PERSON], et al. [16]. For Districts 1 and 2, Strategy 2 outperforms Strategy 1 under both scenarios in terms of the C/D ratio. However, for District 3, the C/D ratio with Strategy 2 is lower than the value with Strategy 1 under both scenarios, due to the energy loss from the network in the district central system. The reason for this is that the savings in  
Figure 5: District sharing systems comparison (Scenario 1). the required energy resulting from the central district system cannot cover the relative energy loss. Therefore, it can be seen that each sharing strategy is applicable to different kinds of districts. In addition, among the three districts, for both scenarios (Figures 5 and 6), the performances of the sharing strategies are the best in District 1, followed by District 2, and the worst results are found in District 3. There are two main reasons for this: the first is the building type contained in the district, and the second is the number of building types. In District 1, there is a group of residential, retail and office buildings; the residential type only has heating demand and demonstrates a relatively high C/D ratio, ranging around 126%, but the office type has a 20% higher average cooling demand than heating and shows a lower C/D level of 70.8%, and thus there is a good balance of demands between the different types of building within the district. For District 2, there is a group of retail, office and mixed-use buildings; all these buildings have both heating and cooling demands, but retail types have a higher C/D ratio range with an average value of 154% than the office ones with 74.5% and the mixed ones with 55.0%, so the office buildings can still borrow some capacity from the retail buildings. As for District 3, there are mainly offices, and this is the type with the lowest C/D ratio range with an average value of 73.4%. Therefore, it can be seen that, for the C/D ratio, the residential and retail buildings have higher levels than the office buildings, and for the energy demand, the residential and retail buildings have more heating requirements while the office buildings require more cooling. A greater variety in  
Figure 6: District sharing systems comparison (Scenario 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 2**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **(C/D Ratio)\({}_{\text{District},\text{ISSBS}}\)** & **(C/D Ratio)\({}_{\text{District},\text{CS}}\)** & **(C/D Ratio)\({}_{\text{District},\text{ISSBS}}\)** & **(C/D Ratio)\({}_{\text{District},\text{CS}}\)** \\ \hline District 1 & 118\% & 142\% & 141\% & 169\% \\ District 2 & 109\% & 131\% & 117\% & 141\% \\ District 3 & 61\% & 55\% & 69\% & 62\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: C/D ratios with various sharing strategies under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.  
building types and a greater differentiation in heating and cooling demands between these types can contribute to better district sharing performance with the application of a GSHP system.