## 5 Results and Discussion
### Cost and Benefit Graphs Observation
The third pair of scenarios compared corresponds to 3 and 3A, for which the results obtained with the application of their corresponding pre-defined weighting schemes are presented in the following Figure 6:  
Figure 5: Pre-defined scheme 2 (achieve a carbon neutral district) (**a**) and pre-defined scheme 2A (achieve a carbon neutral district + economic aspects) (**b**). Comparing pre-defined schemes 3 and 3A it can be concluded that one scenario's results become invariable, with the lowest cost and benefit values, which corresponds to the application of the active measure separately. The set of points are divided into two main groups (with the highest or lowest benefit costs): in this set of graphs corresponding to the pre-defined schemes 3 and 3A, the shift towards the top of the scenarios corresponding to passive external and passive roof in combination with active and renewable measures becomes more visible and the difference between cost and benefit values of the scenarios less apparent. The reason for this may lie in the configuration of the prioritisation schemes: in both cases higher weights have been applied to a reduced number of DPIs (in particular ENV06 - energy payback time in the cost's side and ENE06 (net fossil energy consumed) and ENE09 (energy demand covered by renewable sources), the latter being related to each other. The sets of scenarios are easily identifiable in both cases. In addition, the sets of scenarios are more clearly identifiable as in the previous cases, having more similar cost and benefit values among each other. Additionally, the cost values are very similar for each set of scenarios where similar ECMs have been applied. Comparing these two scenarios with the previous it can be shown that the sets of scenarios are more clearly identifiable than in the previous sets of graphs: this implies that small differences in the types of ECMs cannot be fully appreciated, especially in terms of the cost. Shift to the top: higher benefit values are obtained in this scheme for the scenarios where renewables have been applied, which seems logical due to the definition of the scheme: priority to energy generation through renewables. Finally, the results obtained through applying the pre-defined weighting scheme 6A are shown in Figure 7, where it can be observed that: there are two main groups of scenarios: as in previous cases, there is a great difference among the scenarios where the implementation of renewables is considered (top benefit values) and where they have not (lower values). For this scheme, groups of scenarios are easily identifiable: as it happened previously, the different sets of scenarios can be easily appreciated. It is to be remarked that especially those with a cost value lower than 1.5 remain quite constant on the cost values, forming vertical lines. These scenarios correspond to scenarios where the following combinations have been applied: A, P+A, P+A+R, P int + P roof + A and P int + P roof + A +R. Figure 6: Pre-defined scheme 3 (energy generation through renewables) (**a**) and pre-defined scheme 3A (energy generation through renewables + economic aspects) (**b**).