## 3 Obstacles to the Implementation of LCA in the Procurement Process of Buildings
### Economic Obstacles  
The main factors hindering LCA or GPP implementation on the economic level were resource constraints, i.e., intensive resources for data management, lack of time, and the enormous time requirement for applying an LCA tool [57]. Next to the lack of time, the increased costs were mentioned in the literature. In this context, the establishment of standardized procedures was described as long, which led to a high initial cost [62; 64; 91]. Staff training for this process also brought financial burdens [62]. In detail, the problems lay in the shortage of resources for supporting GPP, the fear of even further increased costs, and the fact that developers may not be willing to bear these additional costs [58; 65; 68; 92]. An obstacle was also identified as the lack of funding support for LCA implementation, e.g., for LCI development [94]. Table 5 provides an overview of the identified economic obstacles. From an economic persepective, the obstacles to LCA implementation in the tendering and awarding phase were very clear. The additional costs were highlighted as a barrier to implementation. These additional costs were seen in the broader sense as environmental damage costs. The construction of new buildings increases CO2 emissions and, thus, has a negative impact on our environment. In general terms, there are two different theoretical approaches to monetizing these external environmental damages, the damage cost \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Political Obstacles** & **Reference** \\ \hline _Literature review of obstacles and drivers for sustainable buildings_ & \\ _Interviews about obstacles and drivers for sustainable buildings_ & \\ _Case studies on improving the sustainable building process and the impacts_ & [67] \\ _and benefits of sustainable buildings_ & \\ \(\rightarrow\) Municipal authorities do not use the right to set sustainability requirements as award criteria & \\ \hline _Assessment of environmental impacts of two different hot mix asphalt (HMA)_ & \\ _materials to provide evaluation parameter in public bids_ & [93] \\ \(\rightarrow\) Lack of a comprehensive strategy for public procurement & \\ \(\rightarrow\) More than GWP should be considered as environmental criteria & \\ \hline _Development of the Thai National LCI Database_ & [94] \\ \(\rightarrow\) No supporting initiatives & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Political obstacles to LCA implementation in the procurement process of buildings. approach and the abatement cost approach. In the abatement cost approach, the focus is not on the cost of the damage caused but on the cost of abatement. The cost incurred by these measures, i.e., the additional cost for LCA implementation, are referred to as abatement costs [104]. In general, there are already standards in the EU for the calculation of environmental damage costs [105; 106]. However, in addition to the calculation principles of the LCA, a monetization value such as the CO\({}_{2}\) price must also be specified in the tender documents. Another obstacle to implementation, which specifies the additional cost mentioned above, was the additional cost required to establish standardized procedures, which companies were unwilling to pay. Training costs for the staff to build up LCA expertise also fell under this additional cost. These barriers were further compounded by the fact that