【導(dǎo)讀】摘要綠色建筑在全球范圍內(nèi)得到越來越廣泛的關(guān)注。建筑和環(huán)境涉及不同的工具，系統(tǒng)以及不同的觀點(diǎn)。個(gè)管理綠色房屋和綠色建設(shè)項(xiàng)目的重要任務(wù)環(huán)節(jié)。在本文中，我們討論它的效益、限。這三個(gè)因素必須考慮到。動(dòng)是未來評(píng)估框架的挑戰(zhàn)。保的設(shè)計(jì)及行為的標(biāo)志。心理上鼓勵(lì)環(huán)保設(shè)計(jì)和行為。對(duì)評(píng)估方法目前的期望是通過設(shè)計(jì)人員，然而，BEA也有一些局限性。接下來的觀點(diǎn)將局限BEA作用的擴(kuò)寬，同時(shí)減。一個(gè)爭(zhēng)論的問題就是圍繞BEA方。BEA包含廣泛的可持續(xù)問題。第二個(gè)弊端就是BEA作為設(shè)計(jì)指南的可行性。BEA被聲稱為能夠促進(jìn)更好的設(shè)。然而即使是在學(xué)術(shù)研究階段，在BEA的評(píng)價(jià)模式中也通常不包。由于缺乏財(cái)務(wù)因素，在考量環(huán)境指標(biāo)時(shí)BEA. 的調(diào)查，作出了回應(yīng)。滿意度范圍的限制。本身的發(fā)展，因?yàn)锽EA開發(fā)人員和學(xué)術(shù)界之間的交流和意見交換受到了制約。同時(shí)我們可以通過下式合理預(yù)測(cè)BEA效。識(shí)創(chuàng)新，突出問題的可靠解決方案和集體行動(dòng)等。上述等式的右邊首項(xiàng)表明，當(dāng)現(xiàn)存

　　

【正文】 e context of BEA, the issues to be focused on are also broad and dif?cult to capture. But, even under this situation, assessment methods are prehensive in making their tools useful, accessible and understandable for the many stakeholders. On the other hand, the wide range of methods used need to be reliable, with distinct approaches that cover most environmental criteria within their evaluation framework, and must be salient, credible, and retain legitimacy (Parris and Kates 2020). Contributors from diverse academic ?elds must enter this arena to keep the knowledge base growing, integrate fruitful outes from plementary ?elds, update BEA tools, and promote environmentally friendly design and actions in a feasible manner. Not only reliable mon knowledge but also data on local environments and society should be explored and stored in a manner whereby anyone can access them ef?ciently and utilize them effectively. A credible approach to a salient solution To utilize knowledge effectively, in addition to innovation in knowledge, innovation in knowledge systems are needed to reform knowledge utilization and the creation process. BEA is applied on a projectbyproject basis and re?ects the objective of a development. Therefore, greater power is needed for assessors in investigating the real context of each project, the design options suitable for each context, and the expected oute of that design. Building environmental assessment methods have been developed for over two decades to seek thousands of options to achieve sustainability. The simpli?ed prehensive approaches have led many stakeholders to ?nd additional options. To a certain extent, weighting systems can offer opportunities to revise assessment scales to re?ect regional variations and criteria order. However, regional, social, and cultural variations are plex and the boundaries are dif?cult to de?ne. These variations include differences in climatic conditions, building materials and techniques, ine levels, building stocks and appreciation of historic value (Kohler 1999). However, BEA tools are currently supplied in the form of spreadsheets or checklists with text. Although a simple representation is easy to understand, especially for owners of buildings, more powerful analytical and design tools are needed to integrate diverse knowledge and tools such as life cycle assessment, life cycle cost accounting, puteraided design, materials and inventory databases, etc., to offer credible and salient solutions. In addition to the need for tools to enhance analytical power, more intensive munication among stakeholders is needed to improve the saliency of solutions and to con?rm the credibility of assessment processes. One of the underlying reasons is because people’s expectations of fort have changed signi?cantly over the last few decades (Chappells and Shove 2020). Gann et al. (2020) describes how the most important measure in any evaluation of a building’s design quality is whether it satis?es user requirements and what users think and feel about the design and the evaluation. The criteria itself will change in the near future because of technological innovation, new regulations, lifestyle and preference changes. Another reason is legitimacy to reach a consensus and thus increase the feasibility of a framework. Actually, some organizations use ‘consensusbased’ weighting in the absence of scienti?cally based weights. The GBC provides an opportunity for experts to participate in an indepth discussion of these and other issues related to assessment by bringing together researchers and practitioners from around the world (Todd et al. 2020). GBC has been remarkably successful at focusing international dialogue and bringing the design and research munity together (Cole 2020). Another example is the SUEMot project where ontology in the construction sector is cobuilt along with the method of focus group interaction (EdumFotwe and Price 2020). In the SUEMot project, social issues, stakeholders and related factors were ?rst prehensively listed by piling the existing literature, including journals, research reports, trade and the government literatures. The list was rati?ed through a Delphi exercise in a series of workshops that employed a small focus group consisting of a variety of stakeholders. Such an exercise is crucial not only for BEA but also for other issues in sustainability science. Promoting collective action The ?nal challenge is to promote collective action of wider coverage of stakeholders for accelerating implementation. When the current varying expectations of assessment methods are examined, assessment methods have enjoyed considerable success and their widespread awareness has created the critical mass of interest necessary to cement their role in creating positive change (Cole 2020). But how can we achieve the critical mass to drive social movement? ―What systems of incentive structures—including markets, rules, norms and scienti?c information—can most effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories?’’ This is one of the core questions that Kates et al. (2020) asked to understand what is meant by sustainability. Since BEA methods are mainly voluntary assessment systems, systems of incentive are required without relying on the cost bene?ts or regulations. Currently, energy is clearly too inexpensive to provide a meaningful direct ?nancial incentive for substantial performance improvements (Larsson 1999) because, even when the option is economically feasible, people do not always behave rationally due to personal, organizational, and institutional barriers (Hoffman and Henn 2020). In the short term at least, change needs to be imposed topdown, and supported bottomup with encouragement and reward. The transition that is