## 3 Results
### Qualitative Analysis Results Regarding LCC Definition and Methods  
The existence of methodological variations or sub-methodologies in relation to the main tools (LCA, LCC, or CBA), as well as efforts in the integration between them (LCSA or LCC+A) by researchers and practitioners has led to inconsistencies in their definition and scope that are currently unresolved [34]. Generally, building LCC includes total investment cost, annual operational cost, and cost of maintenance and disposal, accounting for the life cycle; while under CBA, lifetime is a secondary matter and externalities are key points to account for.  
Although the term commonly used in the scientific literature is life-cycle cost (LCC or LCCA), English-language sources and ISO Standard 15686 maintain a distinction between LCC and Whole Life Costing (WLCC). The primary conceptual difference lies in the scope of their assessments, with some ambiguities evident in the standard's wording [19], particularly regarding intangible costs, external costs, and environmental costs, among others. Both terms are treated often as synonyms, with LCC used to assess either \"elemental\" or \"integral\" life-cycle costs depending on the developer's or practitioner's requirements.  
According to ISO 15686, environmental costs can be included under WLCC under the integration of LCA methodologies. However, upstream and downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are rarely included in building LCC [47]. Thus, building climate impacts are not included in the economic building design assessment. In the case of refurbishment, LCC should take into account the \"avoided burden approach\" so that impacts avoided as a result of reuse, recycling, and recovery are credited in the studied products. Following [PERSON] et al., only newly added components should be included in the building impact assessment, since they burden the assessment [48].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Author** & **Ref.** & **Classification** & **Title of Article** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. & [42] & GF & The evolution of life cycle assessment in European policies over three decades \\ \hline [PERSON] \& [PERSON] & [40] & AMD & Developing surrogate ANN for selecting near-optimal building energy renovation methods considering energy consumption, LCC and LCA \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. & [37] & TD & BIM-based life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of an office building in Western Europe \\ \hline [PERSON], [PERSON] \& [PERSON] & [44] & CS & Life cycle cost analysis of structural concrete using seawater, recycled concrete aggregate, and GFRP reinforcement \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. & [45] & CS & Sustainability assessment of circular building alternatives: Consequential LCA and LCC for internal wall assemblies as a case study in a Belgian context \\ \hline [PERSON] \& [PERSON] & [43] & GF—MD & The development of life-cycle costing for buildings \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. & [41] & AMD & Developing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment methodology by applying values-based sustainability weighting—Tested on biomass based and fossil transportation fuels \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. & [38] & TD & A performance data integrated BIM framework for building life-cycle energy efficiency and environmental optimization design \\ \hline [PERSON] \& [PERSON] & [46] & GF—MD & A modeling framework to evaluate sustainability of building construction based on LCSA \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: _Cont._Finally, regarding methods to be applied on LCC assessment, depending on the scope and requirements, researchers and practitioners might apply and focus on different ones, including discounting, payback, internal rate of return, benefit-to-cost, or scenario probabilistic analysis (Monte Carlo), among others. Specific indicators like return on investment (ROI) or Net Present Value (NPV) are common to CBA in this context as well as Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods.