## 4 Discussion
### Technical and Policy Implications  
Through our analysis, it seems obvious that cities are in the frontline of the impacts of a changing climate and are essential for achieving sustainability goals. The following technical and policy recommendations were provided to promote and accelerate sustainable CO2 emission reduction in the energy sector:  
Environmental Sustainability: As mentioned above, environmental performance criteria (i.e., environmental benefits and climate benefit as GHG mitigation) had the lowest score in the sustainability assessment. According to Thailand's Second National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conducted by the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, human resource and technical limitations in developing GHG inventory and climate change mitigation scenarios are key constraints in promoting low and zero-carbon solutions at the sub-national level [28]. It should be highlighted that the integration of climate change mitigation opportunities, particularly with energy as the priority sector, into sub-national policies, plans, and development projects in Thailand is urgently needed. More specifically, the feasibility of implementing technical measures (High Energy Performance Standard (HEPS), Economic Building (EB), and Zero Energy Building (ZEB)) for reducing energy-related CO2 emissions in commercial buildings should be studied from a holistic perspective. Moreover, GHG emission reduction targets should be linked with the green industry scheme. Achieving higher sustainability in production systems in industries (i.e., food industry) is urgently needed. A combination of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis for energy saving and GHG mitigation measures in residential buildings should be also conducted in conjunction with the sustainability assessment scheme [29]. Human and Social Sustainability: Value creation through household energy efficiency and saving presented the lowest AHP score among the social sustainability criteria. This result is supported by [PERSON] et al. [30], who found that there was an urgent need to address the current mismatch between the roles conveyed by climate mitigation policies and households' perceptions of their individual responsibility. In this context, based on the model of goal-directed behavior (MGB), [PERSON] et al. [31] reported that self-determined motivations and intrinsic motivation were important predictors of pro-environmental intentions and actions, particularly for household energy consumption behavior. In short, participants with high self-determined motivation are more likely to take pro-environmental actions. Therefore, improving residents' self-determined motivation is considered the most effective and long-lasting solution to drive their willingness to adopt energy-saving measures and consequently mitigate GHG emissions [32]. Economic incentives as external rewards could effectively encourage people to adopt energy-saving behaviors and proactive climate actions in a comparatively short period of time. Local governments may consider cooperating with local authorities and electricity companies to offer financial rewards to residents instead of subsidizing residential electricity bills [31]. From a long-term sustainability perspective, both self-organizing behavior and participation in climate governance (i.e., planning and priority-setting) should be promoted by providing long-term environmental education to nurture environmentally conscious and aware residents. From a wider perspective, as hotels and apartment services were determined to be one of the largest sources of GHG emissions among commercial buildings in this study, sustainable tourism practices should be promoted and maintained in the long run.