## 4 Conclusions and Discussions  
This research aimed at clarifying the variation in the energy consumption of a prototype residential building located in five representative European cities. Heating and cooling consumption were analyzed under five different scenarios of climate change, also in relation with the applicability of the adaptive thermal comfort model through the ACCIM. The main conclusions of the study are as follows:  
The ACCIM shows a great potential to reduce heating and cooling energy consumption, but some considerations should be made when implementing this model in different locations. Cities in the Mediterranean arch seem to benefit from significant reductions in the cooling consumption (around 50-60%) in contrast with discrete savings for heating (around 20%). On the other hand, the energy consumption for cooling in northern cities can be practically disregarded and savings for heating are very discrete (around 10%). In general, future climate scenarios seem to have a slightly positive impact in northern Europeans cities and not exert a remarkable influence in the cities located in the Mediterranean basin. According to this study, it can also be concluded that adaptive setpoint temperature should be adopted to contain the energy consumption in future climate scenarios; that seems to hold true for every considered location and scenario, but attention should be paid to the particularities of each city. Once more, with regard to the climate context, a distinction can be made between Mediterranean and northern cities. In the first group, savings for cooling are predominant and ACCIM will be able to contain, albeit to a moderate degree, the rise in energy consumption; that seems to be especially evident in the RCP scenarios. In contrast, northern European cities will greatly benefit from the shift from static to adaptive setpoints because it might allow in practice for a complete elimination of the cooling consumption, which seems to be particularly evident under RCP scenarios. This study also concludes that, with regard to thermal comfort levels, conclusions are not crystal-clear, as two pressing questions might arise. First, for Mediterranean cities, even if adaptive models are considered, the number of hours in comfort will be reduced, especially because of the dramatic rise of the hours when temperatures exceed the limits of the model. In contrast, northern Europeans will benefit from milder temperatures and from a nearly non-existing discomfort associated to hot temperatures. Second, the question on how the adaptive model might be modified to adapt to these changing conditions remains unclear, although this study can provide some hints. No modification might be necessary regarding its lower limit, but higher limits should be put under serious consideration; this study suggest that occupants would accept operative temperatures over 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C (30-32.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C for northern European cities and 30-35 \({}^{\circ}\)C for Mediterranean cities), but further research is deemed necessary to clarify this matter. Indeed, previous research also pointed out the scarcity of data over 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about thermal adaptability for hot temperatures [40]. This study also pointed out that cultural preferences and levels of expectation might play a relevant role in thermal adaptation; this claim has been supported by similar research, which concluded that the equations for the adaptive model should be modified for dry and humid hot climates [41]. On top of that, as previously mentioned, measurements for thermal comfort are subject to a certain degree of uncertainty [30] and that might be especially relevant under extreme temperatures. This calls for studies focusing especially on warm climates in order to clarify how adaptive comfort operates under hot conditions, for which data is relatively scarce. In order to tackle this future research, it is also important to acknowledge the limitations of the present study.