## 3 Results
### Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credits and Category  
Table 6 shows the results for the EA credits and categories. EAc4 (On-Site and Off-Site Renewable Energy in version 3) and EAc6 (Renewable Energy in version 4) were of low priority for both countries (PAS = 25-27 for both countries), with the only exception being Spain's PAS for the LEED-EB v3 certification (48). In contrast, the issue of operational energy saving was of high priority for both \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Credit (Max Points) 4** & \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{1}{c}{**DF 3**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Finland** & **Spain** & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v3 (LEED-EB v3)} \\ \hline WEC1 (2) & 50 & 81 & **0.0133** (\(-\)0.49) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ WEC2 (5) & 77 & 99 & **0.0081** (\(-\)0.46) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ WEC3 (5) & 86 & 13 & **0.0002** (0.81) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ WEC4 (2) & 0 & 13 & 0.1328 (\(-\)0.25) \({}^{\text{a}}\) & & & \\ WE total (14) & 65 & 53 & 0.0180 (0.50) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v4 (LEED-EB v4)} \\ \hline WEC1 (2) & 100 & 72 & _0.0613_ (0.31) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ WEC2 (3) & 29 & 19 & 0.5369 (0.55) \({}^{\text{a}}\) & & & \\ WEC3 (2) & 11 & 25 & 0.0996 (\(-\)1.30) \({}^{\text{a}}\) & & & \\ WEC4 (5) & 96 & 95 & 1.0000 (0.04) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ WE total (12) & 65 & 60 & 0.3943 (0.18) \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Similarly high (SH) achievements. 2 Similarly low (SL) achievements. 3 Different (DF) achievements. 4 Full WE credit titles are given in Appendix A, Table A2. \({}^{\text{a}}\) [PERSON]’s exact \(2\times 2\) test and the \(\ln\theta\) test were used. \({}^{\text{b}}\) 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} 
Table 5: Statistical analysis of achieved points in the Water Efficiency (WE) credits for LEED-EB v3 and v4 large office-type projects in Finland and Spain. countries. This was correct for both versions of the certification, showing PASs of 92 (Finland) and 87 (Spain) in version 3 (EAc1, Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance) and 91 (Finland) and 85 (Spain) in version 4 (EAc8, Optimize Energy Performance). The PASs of the building commissioning analysis issue were very high, with scores of 100 and 81 in Finland and Spain, respectively, for EAc2.1 (Existing Building Commissioning--Investigation and Analysis, version 3), and 100 in both Finland and Spain for EAc1 (Existing Building Commissioning--Analysis, version 4). For the building commissioning implementation issue, Finland (PAS = 100) outperformed Spain (PAS = 56) in version 3 (EAc2.2, Existing Building Commissioning--Implementation). However, in version 4 of the certification (EAc2, Existing Building Commissioning--Implementation), Spain improved its achievement (PAS = 75), approaching Finland's PAS (100). Only the ongoing commissioning issue (EAc2.3 in version 3 and EAc3 in version 4 of the certification) had mostly low PASs in both countries (0-25), with the exception of Finland's PAS in version 4 of the certification (50). For EAc5 (Enhanced Refrigerant Management in version 3) and EAc7 (Enhanced Refrigerant Management version 4), the PASs were between 50 and 71.