## 3 Results and Discussion
### Step 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment
#### 3.3.2 Step 3.2: Meso-Assessment  
This step evaluates the quality of the resources used in the life cycle (inputs) and their relation with the impacts generated (outputs). The objective is to carry out the LCA+C2C endpoint weighting to obtain a quantification of the intervention of each resource (raw material, energy, water, land, human resource and information), in the generation of impact caused by the system. With the information in Section 3, and starting from the normalized impact data obtained in the previous stage, the following are determined:  
1. **Partial impact weighting (Wij):** this is the impact generated by a given cause (input or resource). It is calculated with expression (2) and represents the level of interference of each resource in each of the protected areas (SH, SH, AS and BS). The results for the case study may be found in Table 5, column Wij.
2. **Global impact weighting (Qk):** this is the impact weighting in the LCA+C2C endpoint. This is calculated with expression (1) and represents the total interference level of the resources in the protected areas, measured through the LCA+C2C endpoint categories (QSH, QSH, QAS and QBS). The results for the case study may be found in Table 5, column Qk.
3. **The quality of the inputs (Wr):** this is calculated with expression (4) and represents the quality level of the resource used (in LiC eq). The results for the case study may be found in Table 5, column Wr.
4. **The quality of the protected areas (Wk):** this is calculated with expression (5) and represents the quality level (in LiC eq) of the protection to the elements. The results for the case study may be found in Table 5, column Wk.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ICA**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**C2C**} \\ \hline
**Dimension** & **Categories and Metrics** & **Category** & **Results** & **Certification** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Ec-LCA} & Impact category & \(\mathbf{\ell/unit}\) & N\({}_{i}\) (\(\mathbf{\ell}\)) & renewable energy \(<5\%\)** & Bronze \\ \cline{2-5}  & LCC. & - & 1200 & **Water stewardship** & Level \\ \cline{2-5}  & Global warm. (kg CO\({}_{2}\) eq) & 0.116 & 69.63 & no audit for water management ** & Basic \\ \cline{2-5}  & Acidification (kg SO\({}_{2}\) eq) & 7.55 & 39.75 & **Social fairness** & Level \\ \cline{2-5}  & Eutrophication (kg PO\({}_{4}\) eq) & 3.60 & 0.93 & & Social issues relating to suppliers not \\ \cline{2-5}  & Summer smog (kg C\({}_{2}\)H\({}_{4}\) eq) & 10.38 & 2.36 & evaluated; no positive impact strategy ** & \\ \cline{2-5}  &... &... &... &... & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Legend: * M/U/PC/E: Manufacturing/Use/Post-Consumption/EoL; ** This factor blocks the next level.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: \(Cont.\)  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**N**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Weighting LCA+C2C**} \\ \hline
**K** & \(\mathbf{N_{K}}\) & \(\mathbf{J_{k}}\) & \(\mathbf{W_{i\,j\,k}}\) & \(\mathbf{Q_{k}}\) & \(\mathbf{W_{r}\,LiC}\) & \(\mathbf{W_{K}\,LiC}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{QHH} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(8.14\times 10^{-11}\)} & M (J\({}_{2}\)) & \(1.01\times 10^{-11}\) & & 0.88 & \\ \cline{2-5}  & & E (J\({}_{3}\)) & \(4.42\times 10^{-12}\) & \(2.11\times 10^{-11}\) & 0.95 & 0.74 \\ \cline{2-5}  & & H (J\({}_{5}\)) & \(6.53\times 10^{-12}\) & & 0.92 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{QSH} & \multirow{3}{*}{30} & H (J\({}_{5}\)) & 2.07 & & 0.93 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & & L (J\({}_{1}\)) & 1.26 & 5.94 & 0.96 & 0.80 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & & I (J\({}_{6}\)) & 2.61 & & 0.91 & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Results of meso assessment—QEI.  
Results are shown in Table 5. The overall interpretation is as follows: the less intervention there is between input (resource) and output (impact), the greater the quality of the resource, and therefore, the less environmental impact the product or system generates in its life cycle.