## 5 Results  
Table 2 shows the results generated per GFA of each project according to cost, CF, EF, WF, and CDW. By analysing Table 2, the projects with the greatest economic impact are revealed as Projects 13 and 14, at over EUR 650/m\({}^{2}\), which are the semi-detached dwelling projects of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Project**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Floors above**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Floors below**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Gross Floor**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Number of**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Ground Floor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Foundation**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Ground**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Ground**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Area (GFA)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Dwellings**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Use**} & \\ \hline
6 & 4 & 2 & 4440.40 & 48 & Premises & Reinforced concrete slab \\ \hline
7 & 4 & 1 & 4440.40 & 48 & Dwellings & Reinforced concrete slab \\ \hline
8 & 4 & 1 & 4440.40 & 48 & Premises & Piles \\ \hline
9 & 4 & 1 & 4440.40 & 48 & Dwellings & Isolated concrete pad \\ \hline
10 & 3 & 1 & 3330.25 & 36 & Dwellings & Isolated concrete pad \\ \hline
11 & 3 & 1 & 3330.25 & 36 & Premises & Piles \\ \hline
12 & 3 & 1 & 3330.25 & 36 & Dwellings & Reinforced concrete slab \\ \hline
13 & 2 & 0 & 3836.17 & 24 & Dwellings & Isolated concrete pad \\ \hline
14 & 2 & 1 & 3836.17 & 40 & Dwellings & Isolated concrete pad \\ \hline
15 & 1 & 0 & 2696.57 & 13 & Dwellings & Concrete trenches \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Total per GFA in m\({}^{2}\)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Project**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Cost**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**CF**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**EF**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**WF**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**CDW**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(EUR/m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(hag/m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(m\({}^{3}\)/m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(kg/m\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \hline
1 & 537.15 & 0.452 & 0.213 & 10.29 & 100.66 \\ \hline
2 & 534.07 & 0.499 & 0.235 & 11.14 & 109.28 \\ \hline
3 & 474.12 & 0.432 & 0.204 & 10.02 & 102.87 \\ \hline
4 & 570.36 & 0.568 & 0.267 & 12.58 & 120.69 \\ \hline
5 & 541.78 & 0.486 & 0.235 & 10.81 & 118.08 \\ \hline
6 & 593.03 & 0.601 & 0.286 & 13.11 & 138.27 \\ \hline
7 & 519.93 & 0.485 & 0.229 & 11.49 & 102.43 \\ \hline
8 & 497.45 & 0.464 & 0.228 & 11.69 & 115.81 \\ \hline
9 & 510.64 & 0.459 & 0.216 & 11.31 & 106.10 \\ \hline
10 & 539.37 & 0.508 & 0.240 & 12.03 & 126.57 \\ \hline
11 & 477.27 & 0.516 & 0.253 & 11.80 & 127.61 \\ \hline
12 & 570.64 & 0.535 & 0.253 & 12.15 & 123.03 \\ \hline
13 & 665.06 & 0.556 & 0.272 & 13.51 & 126.50 \\ \hline
14 & 699.64 & 0.657 & 0.312 & 16.54 & 159.93 \\ \hline
15 & 550.90 & 0.655 & 0.309 & 15.14 & 169.27 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the CEACE tool (per GFA). the group. The general range is 475-650 EURm\({}^{2}\). The low construction cost of the buildings is due to the fact that they are all social housing with governmental constraints in their budgets. Regarding all environmental indicators, Projects 14 and 15, semidetached and detached dwellings, respectively, are those that generate the greatest impacts. The ranges for all projects are 0.43-0.60 t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\) for CF, 0.20-0.31 hag/m\({}^{2}\) for EF, and 100-169 kg/m\({}^{2}\) for CDW. The projects with the lowest impact globally were 1 and 3, which contain a greater number of floors. Typologies with two floors underground (e.g., typologies 2 and 4) have the worst environmental performance. The results are similar to those obtained in other publications by the authors [47] where, as the number of floors increases, the EF per m\({}^{2}\) is reduced until it stabilises. Regarding the influence of the foundation, with the results obtained, it cannot be concluded which type of impact is the greatest.