## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparative Analysis of the Investigated Scenarios  
This section presents a comparative evaluation of the three simulated scenarios--Baseline, Scenario 1, and Scenario 2--with a dual focus on air quality and outdoor thermal comfort. The objective is to assess the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation strategies in improving environmental conditions across the campus, both in terms of pollutant concentration and microclimatic comfort experienced by users. To ensure a comprehensive and spatially aware interpretation of the results, the analysis is supported by two complementary visualizations. Figure 9 displays the ENVI-met simulation maps for PM\({}_{10}\) and PM\({}_{2.5}\) concentrations under each scenario, illustrating how air pollution varies spatially across the study area as a function of traffic intensity, surface types, and vegetation coverage. Figure 10 presents the spatial distributions of MRT and UTCI, providing insight into how thermal conditions change in response to the different interventions. These maps serve to visually contextualize the effectiveness of the design strategies prior to quantitative interpretation. The outputs shown in Figures 9 and 10 refer to the hour between 12:00 and 13:00, which was identified as the period of maximum vehicular traffic during the monitoring campaign. This time window was selected because it best represents the peak exposure conditions in the area. Moreover, the simulation considers the cumulative effect of pollutant emissions from the start of the reference period (8:00 a.m.), thereby accounting for the progressive build-up of particulate matter due to ongoing traffic activity and atmospheric conditions. This approach allows for a more realistic representation of the air quality and thermal comfort impacts resulting from the different mitigation interventions applied in each scenario. Following the spatial analysis, Tables 12 and 13 report the simulated values of key environmental parameters at the eight representative receptors described in Section 2.5. These tables allow for a direct comparison of air quality and thermal comfort indicators across the three scenarios, referring specifically to the simulation hour between 12:00 and 13:00. Table 12 presents both absolute and relative variations in PM\({}_{10}\) and PM\({}_{2.5}\) concentrations, while Table 13 shows the corresponding data for MRT and UTCI. Baseline values and changes under both mitigation scenarios are included, enabling a clear and quantitative assessment of their performance. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Concentration of Pollutants**} \\ \hline Statistical Index & PM\({}_{10}\) & PM\({}_{2.5}\) \\ \hline Coefficient of determination (R\({}^{2}\)) & 0.77 & 0.79 \\ \hline MAE (\(\mu\)g/m\({}^{3}\)) & 0.0722 & 0.0592 \\ \hline Mean of the differences (\(\mu\)g/m\({}^{3}\)) & 0.0135 & 0.0288 \\ \hline Acceptance limits (\(\mu\)g/m\({}^{3}\)) & [\(-\)0.170, 0.197] & [\(-\)0.093, 0.151] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Statistical validation indices of the ENVI-met model. Figure 9: ENVI-met maps of pollutant concentrations (PM\({}_{10}\) and PM\({}_{2.5}\)) for the considered scenarios. Figure 10: ENVI-met maps related to MRT and UTCI for the considered scenarios.