## 5 Results and Discussion
### Cost and Benefit Graphs Observation  
The cost and benefit results of the abovementioned scenarios according to the pre-defined schemes have been analysed by firstly looking at the graphs formed by the scenarios. They have been compared among similar pre-defined schemes. In this paper the analysis performed on three pairs of pre-defined schemes plus scheme 6A are displayed to observe the different point distribution that can exist and the effect that the weighting schemes have on the results. The scenarios presented below correspond to scenarios 1 and 1A, 2 and 2A, 3 and 3A, and 6A. The following Figure 4 shows scenarios 1 and 1A. When comparing the graphs obtained with pre-defined scheme 1 and with pre-defined scheme 1A, it can be observed that there is a set of scenarios that presents much higher benefit values than the rest in both cases, which corresponds with the scenarios where all measures are applied at the same time, which leads to the achievement of the highest benefits. The majority if scenarios presented have lower benefit values than 0.3, where the highest benefit values are obtained by those where a  
Figure 4: Pre-defined scheme 1 (achieve a nearly zero energy district) (**a**) and pre-defined scheme 1A (achieve a nearly zero energy district + economic aspects) (**b**). renewable measure is applied. Additionally, in this group the highest costs are obtained with scenarios where passive external facades, passive roofs and renewables are applied together. The sets of scenarios can be easily identified, especially in the second case (1A). The reason for this may lay in the higher weight assigned to economic DPIs, which makes cost and benefit results more dependent on them and thus more dependent on the cost of each measure. Regarding the distribution of the scenarios, in the two schemes it is very similar, but in the case of the scheme 1A the scenarios are more spread in the x-axis (cost) due to the fact that this scheme puts more emphasis in the economic cost. The second pair of scenarios (2 and 2A) corresponds to a priority scheme to achieve a carbon neutral district. The distribution of scenarios is shown in the following Figure 5. As it can be observed within the graphs, there is a set of scenarios that present much higher benefit values than the rest in both cases. These correspond to those that have included passive internal, roof, active and renewable measures applied in an integrated manner. There is one scenario which becomes invariable, with the lowest cost and benefit values, which corresponds to the application of only one active measure. Also, it can be observed that the benefit values cover a wider range than in the first case, but three main rows appear: the upper row corresponds with the scenarios where all ECMs are applied together; the middle row where a renewable measure is applied in combination with others (P+R, P+A+R, (P ext) + (P roof) + R, (P ext) + (P roof) + A + R, or (P int) + (P roof) + R); whereas in the lower row the rest of the scenarios can be found (passive separately, P+A, Pext +Proof, (P ext) + (P roof) + A, (P int) + (P roof), (P int) + (P roof) + A). When comparing these two scenarios with the previous (1 and 1A), it can be observed that the point distribution varies, where the cost and benefit values corresponding to the scenarios where passive external and passive roof in combination with active and renewable measures shift to the top, obtaining higher benefit values. This shift can stem from the higher weight given in this pair of prioritisation schemes to the net fossil energy consumed (ENE06) and the energy demand covered by renewable sources (ENE09), which makes scenarios where renewable measures are applied more favourable and, therefore, increasing their benefits.