## 6 Conclusions  
The research object for this study's carbon footprint measurement was an apartment complex in Cixi City, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, China. The carbon footprint of the residence's materialization stage was calculated using the carbon emission factor method. To find out more about the factors influencing the carbon footprint when the prefabricateddwelling is materialized, the DEMATEL-ISM-MICMAC model was implemented. The study's particular findings are listed below. 1. For the materialization stage of the prefabricated housing, the carbon footprint of a residential home in Cixi City is calculated using the carbon emission coefficient approach [43]. The carbon footprint of the house throughout its physical phase was approximately 4.68 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) kg CO\({}_{2}\), and it was 377.98 kg CO\({}_{2}\) per square meter of floor area. The building material production phase, the building phase, the conveyance of building materials phase, the component phase of transportation, and the component manufacturing phase are the phases in order of their carbon footprint. The stage of building material creation and processing is the key to minimizing carbon emissions, rather than the outputs of attention. At this point, actions can be taken to minimize material waste, such as giving priority to construction materials derived from low-carbon waste or raw materials, enhancing the productivity of manufacturing machinery, and implementing sensible low-carbon waste disposal techniques. 2. By using DEMATEL analysis, it is determined that three factors--transport distance (S\({}_{7}\)), packaging and containers (S\({}_{11}\)), and transportation tool selection (S\({}_{5}\))--have large centrality values. As a result, the management of building material transport should be the primary focus of the materialization stage of prefabricated housing to minimize its carbon footprint. Construction planning and organization (S\({}_{15}\)), the energy consumption of raw materials (S\({}_{4}\)), packaging and containers (S\({}_{11}\)), the component production process (S\({}_{8}\)), construction assembly (S\({}_{17}\)), transportation emission factors (S\({}_{14}\)), and wear and tear during construction (S\({}_{18}\)) are listed in order of causality. Among these, packing and containers (S\({}_{11}\)) are associated with the prefabricated element-processing step, suggesting that they are necessary to minimize the environmental impact of the constructed house's materialization stage. 3. The transportation tool selection (S\({}_{5}\)) and transportation distance (S\({}_{7}\)) of L2 were found to have a strong correlation using ISM analysis. It was also found that in the carbon footprint assessment of the manufacturing phase of prefabricated housing, the logistics for the transportation of building supplies needed to be strengthened to reduce the carbon emissions connected with the building procedure. 4. The energy consumption of raw materials (S\({}_{4}\)), component production process (S\({}_{8}\)), and construction planning and organization (S\({}_{15}\)) were found to have a strong drive and low reliance, respectively, and were classified as independent factors based on the results of the MICMAC study. They are the primary elements influencing the objectification phase of the prefabricated housing's carbon footprint, having a considerable impact on other aspects while being less influenced by them. The production and processing of construction materials have the biggest influence on the carbon footprint of the objectification phase of constructed dwellings, according to both the simulation DEMATEL-ISM-MICMAC study of the contributing elements and the carbon footprint measurement of a construction endeavor in Cixi City. Construction planning and organization, equipment efficiency, and material generation and selection can all be emphasized to reduce carbon emissions.