## 7 Discussion of Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Project 14** & **CF (t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\))** & **EF (hag/m\({}^{2}\))** & **WF (hag/m\({}^{2}\))** & **I.CEACE** \\ \hline
1 & 0.657 & 0.312 & 16.545 & 0.720 \\ \hline
2 & 0.647 & 0.305 & 16.050 & 0.695 \\ \hline
3 & 0.628 & 0.297 & 19.655 & 0.748 \\ \hline
4 & 0.621 & 0.294 & 25.612 & 0.741 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Impact scenarios (Project 14). masonry also has a considerable influence on environmental aspects (its influence in the EF, CF, and CDW indicators exceeds 20%), and the foundations chapter has an approximate influence of 20% on the CF and EF and 30% on the WF and CDW. The installations chapter not only exerts a major economic impact but also a significant impact on WF. This analysis is similar for the rest of the projects. Those construction elements that have a greater environmental impact (structures, foundations, etc.) cause the environmental indicator Au (Eq1) to increase, and therefore also increase I_CEACE. This data can be used by the administration to demand that these impacts be reduced through concrete, steel, or bricks with environmental product declarations. Finally, in relation to the influence of the EPDs on the CEACE method, from the results of the four scenarios (Tables 4 and 5), it can be concluded that the EPDs from manufacturers generate less impact in all cases, except joists. The increase in the CF due to the joists is compensated by the decrease in the CF of the other materials, making the CF of the construction unit of the reinforced concrete slab lower, which makes the total CF of the project analysed (Scenarios 3 and 4) lower than that initially evaluated (Scenarios 1 and 2). A similar analysis would serve as an EF indicator. EPD from steel manufacturers generates WF values smaller than those in the CEACE database. EPD from concrete manufacturers generates WF values similar to those in the CEACE database. In the same way, the AEPDs (self-declarations) of the vaults and joists yield much higher values than those of the CEACE base, as previously justified. The WF between Scenario 2 (without EPD), Scenario 3 (with all EPDs except vaults), and Scenario 4 (with all EPDs) increases, especially between Scenarios 2 and 4. Regarding I_CEACE, it can be stated that EPDs in this case increase I_CEACE values, due to the influence of the WF indicator. It will be necessary to review in the future the influence of the use of self-declarations on the WF indicator, and therefore, on the I_CEACE. This study must be extrapolated to other materials to be conclusive. Therefore, this analysis verifies that the CEACE method can be employed to evaluate building projects according to CPE criteria, since it allows comparisons to be made between proposals that incorporate environmental aspects such as the use of EPDs and the use of materials certified with a lower CF and obtains lower values of I_CEACE. The difficulty in obtaining environmental information for many construction products should also be borne in mind, since most products do not have EPD, and hence the information, at least in the case of Spain, is not centralised, which greatly hinders comparative data analysis. These types of tools can provide an incentive for the dissemination of this type of environmental declaration.