## 4 Results  
The results are presented in Table 2 in terms of the total impact of each project and its distribution across the different sub chapters of the budget, all belonging to the urbanization chapter 15, expressed in units of impact per urbanization area. For this calculation, the area of the entire street is considered (pavements, roads, gardens, etc.) and the functional unit is m\({}^{2}\) of urbanized area or area covered by the project (construction site boundaries) as in the previous related work by the authors, giving rise to an interesting comparison and analysis [28]. The impact of the machinery used directly in each of the urbanization projects does not exceed 18% of the total impact in terms of CF and EE, while the WF remains at less than 1%. This impact is similar to the ecological footprint determined in previous work, analyzing urbanization and construction [27] and the building life cycle where the machinery represents 20% of the total impact [61]. In order to further compare the results with those of other studies, the impacts of the materials are divided into 10 families: concrete and cement, ceramics and brick, wood, metal and alloy, plastics, water, aggregate and stone, bitumen and asphalt, others, and the gardening chapter. The results of each of the two projects are presented in Figure 5. The materials in the urbanization slightly differ from those found in building construction, where the building finishes in a Chilean housing project (floor, tiles, etc. ), and installations in Seville have also a significant impact [62]. By analyzing the results of the CF indicator, it can be observed that 71% of the impact on Project 1 (P1) is produced by the incorporation of concrete and cement in the work, followed by 15% from ceramic materials, 12% from aggregate and stone, and, to a much lesser extent, from metal and plastics. In Project 2 (P2), 80% of the CF is due to three families of materials: concrete and cement exert the greatest impact, with a 40% share of the total impact, followed by metallic materials with 23%, ceramic materials with 17%, and aggregate and stone with 13%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**ACCD Code.** & **Description** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cost**} \\  & & **(kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq./m\({}^{2}\))** & **(m\({}^{3}\) Water/m\({}^{2}\))** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(MJ/m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(f/m\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \hline  & **PROJECT** & **P1** & **P2** & **P1** & **P2** & **P1** & **P2** & **P1** & **P2** \\ \hline
15A & Civil work & 35.3 & 47.7 & 0.94 & 1.13 & 582.4 & 936.5 & 35.0 & 58.5 \\ \hline
15R & Connections & 14.9 & 3.6 & 0.42 & 0.10 & 294.1 & 69.4 & 17.9 & 3.5 \\ \hline
15P & Pavements & 91.0 & 107.7 & 1.34 & 2.27 & 685.8 & 1316.8 & 36.0 & 45.8 \\ \hline
15J &
\begin{tabular}{c} Gardening and \\ irrigation network \\ \end{tabular} & - & 12.4 & - & 0.58 & - & 169.6 & - & 25.2 \\ \hline
15M &
\begin{tabular}{c} Sustainable urban \\ drainage systems \\ \end{tabular} & - & 14.3 & - & 1.26 & - & 355.9 & - & 14.4 \\ \hline
15W &
\begin{tabular}{c} Other urban \\ systems \\ \end{tabular} & - & 70.8 & - & 1.91 & - & 1186.56 & - & 57.91 \\ \hline  & TOTAL & 141.2 & 256.5 & 2.70 & 7.25 & 1562.4 & 4034.8 & 88.9 & 205.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Quantification of the impacts of budget subchapters per m\({}^{2}\) of the project area. Figure 5: (**a**) Carbon footprint of Project 1 by area and material family, (**b**) water footprint of Project 1 by area and material family, (**c**) embodied energy of Project 1 by area and material family, (**d**) carbon footprint of Project 2 by area and material family, (**e**) water footprint of Project 2 by area and material family, (**f**) embodied energy of Project 2 by area and material family. Similarly, by analyzing the results of the WF indicator, 41% of the impact on P1 is from concrete and cement, followed by 35% from aggregate and stone, and 12% from ceramics and brick.