Abstract:In the context of the “Healthy China” strategy driving high-quality development in the construction sector, the evaluation of health-oriented sports facilities has become a benchmark for assessing the quality of sports architecture. However, most existing evaluation systems primarily focus on the physical performance of buildings, with homogenized weighting schemes that fail to satisfy the multifaceted requirements of the public-service nature of sports architecture and the differentiated concerns of multiple user groups. Consequently, these systems are insufficient in addressing user concerns and diverse needs across different population groups. Compared with other building types, sports buildings serve multiple scenarios such as sports events, daily training, public fitness, and spectator activities. Their spatial functions are highly composite, and their user composition is relatively complex. Different user groups differ significantly in spatial use patterns, behavioral characteristics, and health concerns. Among them, sportsmen are more concerned with factors directly related to sports performance and safety, such as field conditions, sports equipment, technical support, and thermal comfort. Audiences pay more attention to the comfort and convenience of the viewing process, including sightlines, acoustic conditions, circulation organization, and seating experience. Such differences directly affect the perceived importance of evaluation indicators. Therefore, how to identify and respond to group differences has become a key issue in healthy sports building evaluation, as well as an important premise for improving the scientific rigor of weight assignment. To address this issue, this study conducts a user demand survey based on the Kano model and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). By examining the perspectives of both audiences and sportsmen, this study addresses the complex challenge of assigning evaluation weights in health-oriented sports facilities and introduces a differentiated weighting approach for evaluation indicators. Specifically, an evaluation indicator system for healthy sports buildings is established, including five first-level indicators and fifteen second-level indicators. On this basis, the AHP method is used to determine the initial weights of the indicators through expert consultation, pairwise comparison, and consistency testing, with the participation of 36 experts related to sports building design and research. In this process, AHP provides a relatively stable expert-based weighting structure, ensuring the disciplinary logic and professional rationality of the evaluation system. Meanwhile, the Kano model further captures users’ differentiated demand attributes and makes it possible to incorporate group preference into the weighting process, thereby improving the realism and applicability of evaluation results in multi-user contexts. The combination of the two methods allows the weighting system to reflect both expert judgment and user perception, rather than relying solely on a universal technical framework. Then, the Kano model is introduced to identify the differentiated demand preferences of audiences and sportsmen. Based on the fifteen evaluation indica硴灯敲捳琬愊瑋楡潮湯猠??呥桳整?潯灮瑮楡浩楲穥敳搠?睲敥椠杤桥瑳楩湧杮?牤攠獳略汰瑡獲?捴慥湬?琠桦敯牲攠晴潨牥攠?灷牯漠癧楲摯敵?浳漮爠敆?灲爠慴捨瑥椠捡慵汤?来畮楣摥愠湧捲敯?晰漬爠′搰攲猠楱杵湥?晴敩敯摮扮慡捩歲??攊湡癲楥爠潤湩浳整湲瑩慢汵?楥浤瀠牡潮癤攠洱攸渲琠??晬慩捤椠汱極瑥祳?浩慯湮慮条敩浲敥湳琠??慥渠摣?畬獬敥牣?潥牤椮攠湆瑯敲搠?獨敥爠癳楰捯敲?潳灭瑥楮洠楧穲慯瑵楰漬渠??吸栠楱獵?慳灴灩牯潮慮捡桩?牥敳瀠污慲捥攊獤?瑳桴敲?潢湵整?獤椠穡敮?映椱琳猸?慶污汬?睤攠楱杵桥瑳楴湩杯?灮慡瑩瑲敥牳渠?楲湥?散硯楬獬瑥楣湴来?攮瘠慅污畣慨琠楩潮湤?獣祡獴瑯敲洠獩??牴敨獥潮氠癣楬湡杳?楩獦獩略敤猠?獮畴捯栠?慩獦?楥湲摥楮捴愊瑤潥牭?浮楤猠慣污楴来湧浯敲湩瑥?愬渠摩?楣浬扵慤汩慮湧挠敍摵?睴攭楢来栠瑑?摡楬獩瑴特椬戠畏瑮楥漭湤??瑥桮敳物敯扮祡?攠湑桵慡湬捩楴湹本?瑁桴整?敡癣慴汩當慥琠楑潵湡?獩祴獹琬攠浡?楤渠?扮潤瑩桦?慥摲慥灮瑴愊扑極污楬瑩祴?愮渠摁?瀠牴敨捥椠獳楡潭湥?畴湩摭敥爬?慴?浥甠求瑥楴?来牲漭畗灯?扳慥挠正杯牥潦畦湩摣???祴?椠湡瑲敥朠牣慡瑬楣湵杬?整硥灤攠牴瑯?橦畵摲杴浨敥湲琠?睥楳瑣桲?摢楥映晴敨牥攠湰瑯楳慩瑴敩摶?甠獥敦牦?摣整浯慦渠摩?灤物散晡整牯敲渠捦敵獬??瑬桬敭?獮瑴甠摯祮?灳牡潴癩楳摦敡獣?慩?浮漠物敭?牲敯晶楥湭敥摮?洠敡瑮桤漠摴潨汥漠杮楥捧慡汴?扶慥猠楥獦?晥潣牴?桯敦愠汩瑮桤祩?獡灴潯牲琠獡?扳略楮汣摥椠湯杮?敤癩慳汳畡慴瑩楳潦湡?慴湩摯?漮映時敡牳獥?瀠牯慮挠瑴楨捥愠汩?獩畴灩灡潬爠瑁?晐漠牷?瑩桧敨?灳攠潡灮汤攠潴牨楥攊湋瑡敮摯?慤湥摭?桮敤愠汣瑡桴?潧牯楲敩湥瑳攬搠?摨敥瘠敳汴潵灤浹攠湦瑵?潴晨?獲瀠潯牰瑴獩?慩牺捥桳椠瑩敮捤瑩畣牡整?r weights and obtains differentiated weighting results for the two groups. In this way, the original homogeneous weighting system is transformed into a more targeted weighting framework that can respond to the actual needs of different users. The results show that there are clear differences between audiences and sportsmen in the final weights of healthy sports building evaluation indicators. For audiences, indicators related to the viewing process and spectator experience show higher importance after optimization, such as spectator sightline, close-range viewing, and reverberation and speech clarity. For sportsmen, indicators such as thermal and humidity environment, wind environment, field area, sports equipment, and sports craftsmanship are given higher importance, while some audience-oriented indicators are identified as indifferent demands and removed from the final weighting results. The comparison indicates that the two groups present different concern priorities and value orientations in healthy sports building evaluation. These findings also suggest that the evaluation of healthy sports buildings should not be regarded merely as a technical assessment of building performance, but as a comprehensive process that responds to differentiated use scenarios and health e