## 1 Introduction  
The application of the circular economy and resource efficiency principles to buildings has become essential. Its life cycle is associated with various environmental and socioeconomic impacts. In the EU (including extraction, manufacturing, transport, construction, and end-of-life), it accounts for approximately 50% of total energy use, 40% of total GHG emissions, 50% of raw material extraction, and one-third of all water use [1]. To this end, the EU Circular Economy Action Plan has set objectives and targets to significantly reduce resource use and develop circular flows of materials in buildings [2]. It is therefore necessary to evaluate buildings environmentally through a circularity analysis, using methodologies and tools easy to understand by potential users. Methodologies should assess the impact through indicators so that the weight of environmental impacts can be qualified and quantified throughout their life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to their demolition. Tools that analyse such impacts have generally followed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies [3; 4; 5]. In the search for simpler methodologies, other indicators have been incorporated into the construction sector that were not initially intended for this sector. Starting from this idea, this article will develop a methodology to evaluate sustainability in housing construction in Andalusia based on the use of environmental indicators based on the concept of footprint family (FF). In this case, the FF indicators used will be carbon footprint (CF), ecological footprint (EF), and water footprint (WF). The EF [6; 7], the CF [8; 9], and WF [10; 11] are the most prominent indicators based on FF. [PERSON] et al. [12] studied the term footprint through a coword analysis, and the terms that appeared the most were CF, LCA, WF, and EF. [PERSON] [13] identifies two common elements among existing footprints: the capacity to provide both a consumer and a producer viewpoint on a given environmental externality; and the possibility of being applicable on multiple geographical scales. Other authors, such as [PERSON] and [PERSON] [14], consider that the term footprint extends to the concept of \"indicators of human pressure on the environment\", although it should be clarified that there are not only environmental footprints, but also social and economic footprints whose aim is to capture the entire triple bottom line of sustainability [15]. These indicators owe their success to the fact that not only are they simple to analyse, but that they are also easily applicable to environmental policies [16], such as Green Public Procurement (GPP) in the European Union [17]. As authors such as [PERSON] [12] point out, no single footprint member is capable of capturing the full complexity of the footprint family. Therefore, in order to analyse the joint complexity of these indicators, the term footprint family is introduced, which was initially used simultaneously but independently by [PERSON] et al. [18] and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [19]. Subsequently, [PERSON] et al. [20] also used this concept to refer to an indicator composed of several fingerprint subindicators. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15] consider that the term footprint family generally encompasses the three most studied and analysed footprints, CF, EF, and WF, due to the intuitiveness of the term footprint, but the concept has not reached the same level of standardisation as that of LCA [21]. According to these first studies, the footprint family can be considered as an indicator that brings together various indicators in an effort to obtain basic information from each of the footprints, with special emphasis on comparative aspects [22]. It has been shown that these indicators are very interesting for use in GPP, although it is necessary to advance in their standardisation since research combining multiple footprints remains very limited in contrast to studies on a single footprint [23]. The footprint family is seldom used in building assessment.