## 3 Results
### Materials and Resources (MR) Credits and Category  
Table 7 shows the results for the MR credits and categories. In both versions of the certification, only MRc4 (Sustainable Purchasing--Reduced Mercury in Lamps in version 3) and MRc3 (Purchasing--Lamps in version 4), as well as MRc6 (Solid Waste Management--Waste Stream Audit in version 3) and MRc1 (Solid Waste Management--Ongoing in version 4), had high PASs, 63-94, in Finland and Spain. For two additional credits, MRc7 (Solid Waste Management--Ongoing Consumables in version 3) and MRc2 (Solid Waste Management--Facility Maintenance in version 4), Finland achieved PASs of 93 and 36 for versions 3 and 4, respectively, while Spain achieved PASs of 25 and 6 for versions 3 and 4, respectively.  
All other sustainable purchasing credits, such as MRc1 (Sustainable Purchasing--Ongoing Consumables), MRc2.1 (Sustainable Purchasing--Electric-Powered Equipment), MRc2.2 (Sustainable Purchasing--Furniture), and MRc3 (Sustainable Purchasing--Facility Alterations and Additions) in version 3 and MRc4 (Purchasing--Ongoing) and MRc5 (Purchasing--Facility Maintenance) in version 4, had low PASs (0-38) in both Finland and Spain.  
As a result, in both certification versions, Finland and Spain performed similarly low in the MR category, achieving similarly low PASs (for Finland, PASs of 34 and 45 in versions 3 and 4, respectively, and for Spain, PASs of 27 and 38 in versions 3 and 4, respectively).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Credit (Max Points) 4** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Percent Averaged Score (PAS)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\(p\)-Value (Effect Size)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SH 1**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SL 2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**DF 3**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Finland** & **Spain** & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v3 (LEED-EB v3)} \\ \hline MRc1 (1) & 0 & 0 & 0.5000 (0.13) a & & & \\ MRc2.1 (1) & 21 & 19 & 0.8284 (0.17) a & & & \\ MRc2.2 (1) & 7 & 0 & 0.2333 (1.30) a & & & \\ MRc3 (1) & 7 & 13 & 0.7931 (\(-\)0.62) a & & & \\ MRc4 (1) & 93 & 69 & 0.1240 (1.78) a & & & \\ MRc5 (1) & 0 & 0 & 0.5000 (0.13) a & & & \\ MRc6 (1) & 93 & 94 & 0.7425 (\(-\)0.14) a & & & \\ MRc7 (1) & 93 & 25 & 0.0001 (3.66) a & & & \\ MRc8 (1) & 29 & 38 & 0.5756 (\(-\)0.41) a & & & \\ MRc9 (1) & 0 & 13 & 0.3471 (\(-\)1.61) a & & & \\ MR total (10) & 34 & 27 & 0.0819 (0.36) b & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance v4 (LEED-EB v4)} \\ \hline MRc1 (2) & 86 & 63 & 0.1632 (1.28) a & & & \\ MRc2 (2) & 36 & 6 & **0.0455** (2.12) a & & & \\ MRc3 (1) & 86 & 94 & 0.4069 (\(-\)0.92) a & & & \\ MRc4 (1) & 0 & 0 & 0.5000 (0.13) a & & & \\ MRc5 (2) & 36 & 38 & 0.3512 (\(-\)0.81) a & & & \\ MR total (8) & 45 & 38 & 0.1853 (0.28) b & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Similarly high (SH) achievements. 2 Similarly low (SL) achievements. 3 Different (DF) achievements. 4 Full MR credit titles are given in Appendix A, Table A4. a [PERSON]'s exact \(2\times 2\) 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}
Table 7: Statistical analysis of achieved points in the Materials and Resources (MR) credits for LEED-EB v3 and v4 large office-type projects in Finland and Spain.