## 3 Results and Discussion
In both cases, a representation of the total distribution of scales for the analyzed use is shown on the right side of the figure. The same approach is applied in Figure 12 to the other three analyzed uses. Observing both figures, it is possible to appreciate some trends of interest. Firstly, it can be noticed that the \"territorial infrastructure\" scale does not have presence. This highlights the greater difficulties that the assets of this scale present in terms of reuse for new activities. Regarding the use of \"industrial heritage information\", the other four scale criteria that are considered in the catalogue have representation, and in most of the cases, in several different territories. This heterogeneity is due to the nature and the objectives of this possible use, whose main purpose is not only the conservation, but also the dissemination and promotion of the concerned asset and its heritage values. Thus, it is not so much the scale demanded by the new use, but the scale of the original asset itself that persists, since the scale itself is a distinctive feature, and a characteristic of the value that must be preserved and shown. In the other cases, it is possible to identify a clear prevalence of some scales over others. In the case of the use named \"social and cultural\", two scales have a clear predominance without signs of a significant preference for either one of them. Thus, both the \"immovable asset\" and the \"system or set of buildings\" scales emerge as the main alternatives for this use. In addition,  
Figure 12: Distribution of assets within the new uses with a significant number of assets and considering the location and the scale criteria. two examples of \"landscape or area\" scale appear. This is due to isolated situations derived from the classification guidelines established for the construction of the catalogue [1]. Industrial landscapes and areas represent dimensions clearly different from other scales such as industrial facilities composed by a set of buildings, so this kind of elements must be identified as such. However, other criteria of the classification structure applied into the catalogue may affect only some of the recognizable single elements that are included within that landscape or area. The reuse of some of the elements while the others are abandoned, or the legal protection only of some of them, are examples of this situation. This way, the general guideline applied in the catalogue is the identification of the landscape or area scale as an asset into the catalogue, and then the identification of those elements that have special classification circumstances through the classification criteria structure as new and different assets. Due to this, while each one of the elements that are included within that greater scale asset usually present a single new use (in cases in which they have been recovered for a new activity), the corresponding asset of the greater scale will consider the uses identified with all of them, although only one of them is in fact the use of that landscape or area. Thus, the presence of assets with a scale of landscape or area for social and cultural use is a consequence of the limitations of the classification criteria structure, not a real relation between that scale and that use. In the case of \"administrative and offices\" use, a certain preference for the scale named \"system or set of buildings\" is shown, but a clear trend is not able to point out the relation between the needs of the use and the characteristics of the scale criterion. Furthermore, regarding \"educational and research\" use, the preference for this scale is very significant. This is because in this case, the relation between the needs of the use and the distinctive characteristics of each scale exists, since a main need of educational centers is playgrounds, as spaces that can be disposed between the buildings and elements of some typical industrial facilities layouts.