## 3 Results  
### Sustainable Sites (SS) and Location and Transportation (LT) Credits and Categories  
Table 4 shows the results for the SS and LT credits and categories. According to these results, in Spain, SSc4 (Alternative Commuting Transportation in version 3) and LTc1 (Alternative Transportation in version 4) had high PAS values (80 and 89, respectively). In contrast, Finland had a low PAS (44) in version 3 of the certification. However, in version 4 of the certification, Finland improved its achieved score a lot (PAS = 72). For SSc7.1 (Heat Island Reduction--Non-roof in version 3) and SSc3 (Heat Island Reduction in version 4), Spain had a higher PAS than Finland, with 100 versus 79 in SSc7.1 (version 3) and 53 versus 36 in SSc3 (version 4). Spain also showed better results than Finland for the two additional credits of version 3 of the certification, namely SSc2 (Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan) and SSc3 (Integrated Pest Management, Erosion Control, and Landscape Management Plan (LMP)). In terms of Light Pollution Reduction (SSc8 in version 3 and SSc4 in version 4), Finland's PASs increased from 36 to 79, and Spain's PASs increased from 13 to 75. However, for SSc6 (Stormwater Quantity Control in version 3), the PASs were 7 and 13 for Finland and Spain, respectively, while for SSc2 (Rainwater Management in version 4), the PASs were zero for both countries. Thus, with regards to version 3 of the certification, Finland and Spain mostly had different achievements for credits, with only one similarly high credits achieved and three similarly low credits achieved (Table 3). However, considering version 4 of the certification, less than half of the credits were differently achieved, with increasing numbers of similarly high credits achieved and decreasing \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Credit (Max** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Percent Averaged Score (PAS)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(p\)**-Value (Effect Size)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SH 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SL 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DF 3**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Points) 4** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Finland**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Spain**} & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v3 (LEED-EB v3)} \\ \hline SSc1 (4) & 21 & 0 & **0.0448** (2.31) a & & & \\ SSc2 (1) & 36 & 88 & **0.0046** (\(-2.53\)) a & & & \\ SSc3 (1) & 7 & 88 & **0.00001** (\(-4.51\)) a & & & \\ SSc4 (15) & 44 & 80 & **0.0001** (\(-0.79\)) b & & & \\ SSc5 (1) & 43 & 69 & 0.2137 (\(-1.08\)) a & & & \\ SSc6 (1) & 7 & 13 & 0.7931 (\(-0.62\)) a & & & \\ SSc7.1 (1) & 79 & 100 & **0.0448** (\(-2.31\)) a & & & \\ SSC7.2 (1) & 0 & 13 & 0.347 (\(-1.61\)) a & & & \\ SSc8 (1) & 36 & 13 & 0.1450 (\(1.36\)) a & & & \\ SS total (26) & 37 & 61 & **0.00002** (\(-0.84\)) b & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v4 (LEED-EB v4)} \\ \hline LTc1 (15) & 72 & 89 & 0.0940 (\(-0.35\)) b & & \\ SSc1 (2) & 0 & 28 & **0.0005** (\(-3.60\)) a & & & \\ SSc2 (3) & 0 & 0 & 0.5000 (\(0.13\)) a & & & \\ SSc3 (2) & 36 & 53 & **0.0183** (\(-2.65\)) a & & & \\ SSc4 (1) & 79 & 75 & 0.8373 (\(0.20\)) a & & & \\ SSc5 (1) & 57 & 54 & 0.3830 (\(0.54\)) a & & & \\ SSc6 (1) & 0 & 38 & **0.0118** (\(-2.89\)) a & & & \\ SS total (10) & 21 & 32 & **0.0107** (\(-0.52\)) b & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Similarly high (SH) achievements. 2 Similarly low (SL) achievements. 3 Different (DF) achievements. 4 Full SS and LT credit titles are given in Appendix A, Table A. 1a [PERSON]’s exact 2 x 2 test and the \(\ln\theta\) test were used. b The Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney (WMW) exact test and [PERSON]’s \(\delta\) test were used. _p_-values were evaluated according to the following three-valued logic: seems to be positive (bold font); seems to be negative (ordinary font size); and judgment is suspended (italic font).  
\end{table}