## 7 Discussion of Results  
Carbon footprint values obtained from the CEACE tool (Table 2) lie within the range calculated by others. [PERSON] et al. (2018) evaluate residential buildings and determine a range of 0.128-1.35 t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\) for the construction phase. Similar studies by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018); [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018) confirm the coherence of the data provided. The studies of [PERSON] et al. (2018) for the complete life cycle of residential buildings, establish two ranges, one for single-family dwellings, 0.4-0.7 t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\), and another for multifamily buildings, 0.2-1 t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\). The same authors consider that the CF for the A1-A5 phases of the life cycle is approximately 2/3 of the total CF. Therefore, by extrapolating this value to the ranges, for single-family dwellings, it would be 0.27-0.47 t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\) and for multifamily dwellings, 0.13-0.67 t CO\({}_{2}\)/m\({}^{2}\). The results of the CEACE tool lie within this range for multifamily homes, while for single-family households (Projects 13 and 15), they are slightly above. The differences might be due to the greater variety of single-family dwellings, which can generate a wider range of values. The ecological footprint values (Table 2) are similar to those published in previous studies by the authors ([PERSON] et al., 2018). The results of WF impacts (Table 2) lie in the range of 10-16 m\({}^{3}\)/m\({}^{2}\). The studies of [PERSON] et al. (2018) for the analysis of the WF of the construction of warehouse buildings show slightly lower values due to the simplicity of those buildings, 6-12 m\({}^{3}\)/m\({}^{2}\). Other studies in Iran reveal higher values in the construction of residential buildings, 20.80 m\({}^{3}\)/m\({}^{2}\)([PERSON] et al., 2018). In China, a detailed case study was performed for the structure engineering of six landmark buildings in E-town, Beijing. The total virtual water of the case buildings is quantified as 1.25 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) m\({}^{3}\), which corresponds to an intensity of 20.83 m\({}^{3}\)/m\({}^{2}\) per square metre of floor ([PERSON] et al., 2018) and 26.6 m\({}^{3}\)/m\({}^{2}\) per square metre of floor ([PERSON] et al., 2018). In Spain, the WF of the complete life cycle of single-family dwellings is 27 m\({}^{3}\)/m\({}^{2}\)([PERSON] et al., 2018). Therefore, the results are within the parameters analysed, although it will be necessary to delve deeper into other building typologies. Finally, the results of the CDW generated by the tool (Table 2) are comparable to previous work ([PERSON] et al., 2018). The ratios managed by studies of the quantification of CDW in Spain ([PERSON] et al., 2018) for new construction show values between 0.1 and 0.17 t/m\({}^{2}\). In relation to obtaining the I. CEACE (Table 3), we can affirm that it is sensitive to changes, for example, in social parameters. Thus, if the H and S indicator passes from 0% to 80% and local materials pass from 60 to 80%, then the social indicator (Su) passes from 0.35 to 0.1. The I.CEACE in Table 3, which is in the range 0.305-0.824, passes to 0.268-0.786. Regarding the total values of I.CEACE (Table 3), Project 14, with a value above 0.80, is the worst performing overall. Projects with lower impact move in a range between 0.30 and 0.50. In relation to the analysis by chapters (Figure 5), carried out on Project 14, it can be observed that the chapter that has the most influence on the indicators is that of structures, since it is representative in the four indicators: CF, EF, WF, and CDW, with percentages between 20 and 25%, except in the CDW, which is even higher, at 35%. The chapter on