【正文】 包含市場，規(guī)則，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和科學(xué)信息 —— 能最高效地提高社會生產(chǎn)力，以指引 自然和社會間的相互作用使其向著更加可持續(xù)性的路線邁進(jìn)？”這是一個核心問題，即 Kates et al.（ 2020）要求理解可持續(xù)性的含義。這種必要的轉(zhuǎn)變是巨大的，以至于將在新的建設(shè)部門中發(fā)生顯而易見的改變（ Glass et al. 2020）。能源定價同樣是提高能源性能的有力杠桿。 歐洲聯(lián)盟委員會建議為可持續(xù)建筑和施工工程促進(jìn)以下刺激：低額稅收，良好的銀行產(chǎn)品，有利貸款利率，良好的保險產(chǎn)品及保險費率（ Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2020）。這樣就形成了對未來的挑戰(zhàn)（ Curwell et al. 1999）。 BEA 也能反映這些含義和觀點，要通過不同的工具來比較這些評估結(jié)果或者判斷哪種方法有用都是很困難的。另外一方面，地方的情況也要在全球社區(qū)中為維持多樣性做出同時性的調(diào)整，因為這些方法是根據(jù)共同知識被予以評估而不是根據(jù)定量數(shù)據(jù)。 在考慮可持續(xù)性問題時，一個整體的方式顯得尤為重要。在可持續(xù)性的評價模式和其他問題上，這些獨特多樣的方法要是可靠的，并能涵蓋大多數(shù)環(huán)境標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。因為在建筑環(huán)境評估領(lǐng)域做出了巨大努力，這些方法結(jié)構(gòu)也可以用于其它領(lǐng)域。 在比較了綠色建筑中購買者的假象行為和實際行為間的本質(zhì)差距后， Brown 和Cole（ 2020）強調(diào)了知識，個人控制和舒適之間的關(guān)系更加復(fù)雜。臆測方法和群體行為可能會展現(xiàn)出我們社會和生活及探尋方向的未來預(yù)期。 另一個需要關(guān)注的要點是規(guī)則和自主性。當(dāng)前系統(tǒng)要求產(chǎn)品（材料）和 /或建筑水平 IEA(IEA ANNEX 2020)達(dá)到以下系統(tǒng)的包容性水平，在提升包容性和寬帶要求方面：（ 1）產(chǎn)品水平，（ 2）建筑水平，（ 3）建筑和附屬設(shè)施水平，（ 4）社區(qū)水平，（ 5）建筑存貨水平。這種如同在不同水平線上授權(quán)和漸長的顯著設(shè)計和行為的模式作為一種聯(lián)系，是對 BEA 中權(quán)益者的下個巨大挑戰(zhàn)。 Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, United Nations University, and Springer 2020 Abstract Green construction is gaining increasing attention in the global context. However, the construction of sustainable green buildings and environments involves different tools and systems and diverse perspectives. Therefore, the development of environmental assessment tools is an important task for managing green housing and green building projects. In this paper, we discuss the benefits, limitations, and future directions of the assessment framework. To develop an effective assessment framework, the following three factors must be considered: knowledge, power, and implementation. We propose that knowledge innovation, a credible approach for a salient solution, and collective action represent the future challenges of the assessment framework. Keywords Sustainability science . Indicators . Knowledge innovation . Green building . Sustainable construction Text Signaling The scoring and labeling system of BEA enables not only the benchmarking of the buildings and houses but also can work as signs of their ecoconsciousness, and environmentally friendly design and actions. The assessment methods give outes as credits. A high assessment score can psychologically encourage environmentally friendly design and actions. The score encourages building owners to aspire to greater levels of performance. Indeed, given the incentive nature of many existing methods, only positive points are typically assigned, ., points are given for what is included and are not deducted from what is not. This feature of BEA is promising for management of green building construction. Communication tool While an early contribution of BEA was to acknowledge and institutionalize the importance of assessing buildings across a broad range of considerations, the increased use of BEA methods has begun to make these learning and munication tools as drivers promoting society in a sustainable direction. These roles relate primarily to the facilitation of munication between stakeholders as the focus shifts to addressing sustainability and changing the culture of the building industry. Current expectations for assessment methods are ‘market transformation tools’ through munication among designers, planners, constructors, policymakers, and owners, and the ability to enhance dialogue among a range of stakeholders broader than a design team. In addition, an important indirect bene?t is that the broad range of issues incorporated in environmental assessments requires greater munication and interaction between members of the design team and various sectors within the building industry, ., environmental assessment methods encourage dialogue and teamwork (Cole 1998). Limitations of BEA However, BEA has some limitations. The pros and cons of prehensiveness, design guidelines, signaling, and munication are shown in Table 2. The following points hamper the wider use of BEA, and contribute to current low peration rates. Comprehensiveness The ?rst limitation results from the prehensive and wide scope of BEA. One controversy centers around BEA’s mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures and weighting schema of those measures. BEA covers a wide range of sustainability issues. Such prehensive methods pare pletely different criteria, which include both quantitative and qualitative performance criteria. Quantitative criteria (., energy use, water consumption, and gas emissions) can be evaluated readily based on the total consumption level, and points can be awarded accordingly. Energy consumption factors, for example, can be used to calculate the total amount of the consumption in the building over its life time using lifecycle assessment tools. However, other criteria are mainly qualitative (., impact on the ecological value of the site, impact on local wind patterns), which cannot be measured and evaluated quantitatively and are dif?cult to count in a parative is inherent to such systems and, when not explicitly stated, all criteria are given equal weight (Todd et al. 2020). For example, different criteria of BEA are summarized by simply weighting each factor, such as the sum of the energy score and the water score. Weighting is at the heart of all assessment schemes since it will dominate the overall performance score of the building being assessed (Lee et ). However, at present there is neither a consensusbased approach, nor a satisfactory method to guide the assignment of weightings (Ding 2020). The weighting of the criteria should be derived on a projectbyproject basis and should re?ect the objective of a development. Design guidelines The next shorting is the feasibility of BEA as a design guideline. BEA is claimed to work as a design guideline that encourages better design and action. However, BEA does not usually include ?nancial aspects in its evaluation framework even at the stage of academic research (Issa et al. 202