## 3 Results
### Qualitative Analysis Results Regarding Implementation Barriers and Results Interpretation  
Despite the sustained years of effort developing comprehensive LCC tools to assist decision-making processes, the usual increase in capital costs continues to be a major barrier to the incorporation of full life-cycle scope for practitioners. Sensitivity analyses tend to require large data processing efforts, which further increase when varying the life span of scenarios, discount rates, growth rate of energy prices, and other monetary values. Biases in life-cycle cost (LCC) assessments frequently arise from practitioners' perceived lack of value relative to the high cost and complexity of the evaluation process [54]. Interoperability issues such as data loss and the complexity resulting from the use of multiple tools represent significant limitations, particularly during the early stages of building design, when decisions critically affect the perceived value of projects [55]. Collecting accurate data on investment and operational costs at these early stages is inherently challenging, especially for investors managing small portfolios, where the process becomes increasingly time-consuming, resource-intensive, and costly. Moreover, the fragmented environment of LCC methodologies, requiring the use of diverse tools without a unified framework, further complicates access to reliable input data and limits practitioner experience. Although risk certainty should be incorporated into life-cycle evaluations, the integration of risk assessment methodologies remains complex and expensive [54], posing particular challenges for smaller projects or organizations with limited assessment capacities. In this context, the underrepresentation of risks in decision-making highlights the need for new risk assessment methodologies and improved communication of risk factors to stakeholders. [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [56] propose the adoption of Extended Life-Cycle Cost Assessment (ELCCA) to provide a more holistic framework, facilitating informed decision-making during the design stages of both renovation and new construction projects. However, their study emphasizes that assumptions, estimations, and the application of Estimated Emission Factor Charges (EFC) significantly influence the outcomes. The substitution of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) with GHG taxes could further support the integration of ELCCA and similar tools into policy instruments aimed at achieving climate change mitigation targets. In the absence of such mechanisms, artificially imposed costs should be considered carefully in decision-making, recognizing their indicative, rather than definitive, nature. To advance toward a more comprehensive sustainability assessment, environmental taxes could be extended beyond GHG emissions to other environmental impact categories, utilizing standards such as ISO 14008:2019 [57]. Other efforts should be taken as well in the taxonomy of these impacts, as the use of environmental and social impacts commonly appears to be contingent on economic performance or capacity [58; 59]. There is also a pressing need for further research in life-cycle assessment and its related fields [60], particularly regarding its integration into building management practices, the development of automated tools [32; 35; 36], and the establishment of systematic assessment processes incorporating advanced technological frameworks for investment decision-making. Nevertheless, LCC methodologies are progressively leading to more comprehensive economic analyses through the inclusion of factors such as inflation, cash flows, and future benefits and costs. The monetary evaluation of climate risks--driven by initiatives like the EU Taxonomy--has the potential to significantly influence investment decisions toward more sustainable alternatives [56].