城市交通從傳統僅以滿足人類為了生活而產生的移動需求，隨著科技發展，人們越趨於重視整個交通體驗過程中，透過科技的結合所帶來的便利、樂趣與安全性。智慧交通的推展已在全球迅速蔓延，然而城市的複雜性往往是智慧交通發展的最大阻礙，不同群體組織的人們對於智慧城市的計畫發展有不同的觀點，著重項目也不相同，且許多智慧交通推動計畫在新技術尚未成熟以及對於人民的了解尚不足夠的狀況下即欲發展智慧交通，導致開發工程往往處於混亂，無法成功運作，甚至阻礙發展。因此，本研究認為在各個城市積極發展智慧交通之前，應優先考慮人們對於智慧交通項目的感受，這是智慧交通得以順利推展之不可忽視的關鍵環節。本研究首先搜集了全球50個智慧交通案例，從中萃取出24個智慧交通項目，以Kano model為理論框架，發展本研究問卷，並搜集到369個樣本數，探索智慧交通項目之Kano需求屬性分類，另外，本研究考慮CS係數方法為智慧交通項目做進一步的排序，並整理出四種優先執行的項目排序。綜合所有排序，結果發現，以搭乘公共交通工具之支付服務與太陽能充電道路為最應優先發展之項目，此排序將提供政府與各個相關單位在未來發展智慧交通時，進行資源優先配置與服務改善之參考依據，決策者可根據不同的規則與方法考量，拉近政策實施與實際需求之間的間隙。

The traditional urban transport had only considered how to meet to the mobile needs of human beings for the sake of life. So far, it has been paying more attention to the convenience, fun, and security that brings by the combination of science and technology in the entire transportation experience process. However, the complexity of the city is often the biggest obstacle to the development of smart transportation. Different Groups of People have different views on the development plan of the smart city, and the points of emphasis are also different. The traffic promotion program wants to develop smart transportation under the condition that the new technology is not yet mature or the people's understanding of the situation is not enough, then it caused the development project is often in confusion, unable to operate successfully, and even hinder development. In this paper, we propose that prior to the active development of smart transporation in various cities, priority should be given to the people's opinion on smart transportation projects. This is a key link that can't be ignored in the smooth development of smart transportation. This paper collected 50 smart traffic cases from all over the world at first and extracted 24 smart transportation projects from them. The questionnaire is based on the Kano model and classifies 369 samples of smart transportation projects by the Kano demand attributes. In addition, this paper also uses the CS coefficient method for further sorting of smart transportation projects and gets the top four projects in each results.
Payment by public transport and Solar charging road have the highest priority in the development of smart transportation by analyzing the results we mention above. The final result can provide a reference for governments and various related organizations for the priority allocation of resources and service improvement in the development of smart transportation in the future.
Policy makers can consider different rules and methods to narrow the gap between policy implementation and actual needs.

中文部分
1.內政部(2017)。歷年人口統計。取自http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/
2.行政院環境保護署(2017)。空氣污染防制新作為。國土及公共治理季刊。取自https://goo.gl/SKfRtN

英文部分
1.Abella, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & De-Pablos-Heredero, C. (2017). A model for the analysis of data-driven innovation and value generation in smart cities' ecosystems. Cities, 64, 47-53.
2.Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?. Cities, 60, 234-245.
3.Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21.
4.Allwinkle, S., & Cruickshank, P. (2011). Creating smart-er cities: An overview. Journal of urban technology, 18(2), 1-16.
5.Allwinkle, S., & Cruickshank, P. (2011). Creating smart-er cities: An overview. Journal of urban technology, 18(2), 1-16.
6.Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3-S11.
7.Anthopoulos, L. (2017). Smart utopia VS smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities, 63, 128-148.
8.Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. (1988). “On the evaluation of structural equation models.” Journal of the academy of marketing science 16 (1): 74–94.
9.Battarra, R., Gargiulo, C., Pappalardo, G., Boiano, D. A., & Oliva, J. S. (2016). Planning in the era of information and communication technologies. Discussing the “label: Smart” in South-European cities with environmental and socio-economic challenges. Cities, 59, 1-7.
10.Behrendt, F. (2016). Why cycling matters for Smart Cities. Internet of Bicycles for Intelligent Transport. Journal of transport geography, 56, 157-164.
11.Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Orús, C. (2016). City attachment and use of urban services: Benefits for smart cities. Cities, 50, 75-81.
12.Berger, C., Blauth R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., ... Walden, D. (1993). Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality Management Journal, 2(4), 3 –35.
13.British Standards Institute (BSI) . PAS 180 smart city framework standard. https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PAS-181-smart-cities-framework/ (2014)
14.Bu, K., & Park, S. Y. (2016). Are consumers in collectivist culture mostly indifferent to sports lesson programs?: A DAQ simulation on the Kano fuzzy model. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1656-1660.
15.Calzada, I., & Cobo, C. (2015). Unplugging: Deconstructing the smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 23-43.
16.Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2016). Do smart cities invest in smarter policies? Learning from the past, planning for the future. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 657-672.
17.Castillo, H., & Pitfield, D. E. (2010). ELASTIC–A methodological framework for identifying and selecting sustainable transport indicators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(4), 179-188.
18.Chang, S. F., Chang, J. C., Lin, K. H., Yu, B., Lee, Y. C., Tsai, S. B., ... & Yan, Z. C. (2016). Measuring the service quality of e-commerce and competitive strategies.
19.Cohen, B. (2013). Key components for smart cities.
20.Dameri, R. P., & Benevolo, C. (2017). ICT Intensity in Smart Mobility Initiatives. In Smart City Implementation (pp. 85-108). Springer International Publishing.
21.Dameri, R. P., & Cocchia, A. (2013, December). Smart city and digital city: Twenty years of terminology evolution. In X Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS, ITAIS (pp. 1-8).
22.Datta, A. (2015). A 100 smart cities, a 100 utopias. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), 49-53.
23.Debnath, A. K., Chin, H. C., Haque, M. M., & Yuen, B. (2014). A methodological framework for benchmarking smart transport cities. Cities, 37, 47-56.
24.Evans, D., 2011. The internet of things: How the next evolution of the internet is changing everything, CISCO white paper, 1(2011), 1-11.
25.Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. (1981). “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.” Journal of marketing research 18 (3): 382–388.
26.Fu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2017). Trajectory of urban sustainability concepts: A 35-year bibliometric analysis. Cities, 60, 113-123.
27.Garau, C., Masala, F., & Pinna, F. (2015, June). Benchmarking smart urban mobility: A study on Italian cities. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 612-623). Springer, Cham.
28.Garau, C., Masala, F., & Pinna, F. (2016). Cagliari and smart urban mobility: Analysis and comparison. Cities, 56, 35-46.
29.Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G., & Kramar, H. (2010). The role of rankings in growing city competition. Urban Research & Practice, 3(3), 299-312.
30.Gregory, A. M., & Parsa, H. G. (2013). Kano's model: an integrative review of theory and applications to the field of hospitality and tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22(1), 25-46.
31.Haghshenas, H., & Vaziri, M. (2012). Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 115-121.
32.Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Englewood Cliff.
33.Harrington, R. J., von Freyberg, B., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Schmidt, L. (2017). The different effects of dis-satisfier, satisfier and delighter attributes: Implications for Oktoberfest and beer festivals. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 166-176.
34.Hashem, I. A. T., Chang, V., Anuar, N. B., Adewole, K., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., ... & Chiroma, H. (2016). The role of big data in smart city. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5), 748-758.
35.Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, and Snyderman, B. (1959), ¡The Motivation to Work¡, New York.
36.Higón, D. A., Gholami, R., & Shirazi, F. (2017). ICT and environmental sustainability: A global perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 85-95.
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_Volume-II-Demographic-Profiles.pdf
37.Ilarri, S., Stojanovic, D., & Ray, C. (2015). Semantic management of moving objects: A vision towards smart mobility. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(3), 1418-1435.
38.International Telecommunications Union (ITU) (2014). Smart sustainable cities: An analysis of definitions. Accessed at:www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ssc/Documents/Approved_Deliverables/TR-Definitions.docx
39.Kano, N. (2001). Life cycle and creation of attractive quality, Paper presented at the 4th International QMOD Quality Management and Organisation Development Conference, Sweden: Linkoping University.
40.Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality ands must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39–48.
41.Kim, J. M., & Choi, S. B. (2017). An integrated application of Kano’s model and AHP to Korean online open market services. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76(19), 19621-19634
42.Kim, J. M., & Choi, S. B. (2017). An integrated application of Kano’s model and AHP to Korean online open market services. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76(19), 19621-19634.
43.KLIMOVSKÝ, D., PINTERIČ, U., & ŠAPARNIENĖ, D. (2016). Human limitations to introduction of smart cities: Comparative analysis from two CEE cities. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 12(47), 80-96.
44.Ko, H. T., Lu, H. P., & Yu, H. (2012). Comparative analysis of experience-oriented customer needs based on the Kano model: an empirical study. The Service Industries Journal, 32(12), 1973-1990.
45.Kummitha, R. K. R., & Crutzen, N. (2017). How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary perspective. Cities, 67, 43-52.
46.Lee, S. H., & Lee, D. W. (2015). Review on Present Situations of Smart City.Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 98, 31-33.
47.Letaifa, S. B. (2015). How to strategize smart cities: Revealing the SMART model. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1414-1419.
48.Lin, F. H., Tsai, S. B., Lee, Y. C., Hsiao, C. F., Zhou, J., Wang, J., & Shang, Z. (2017). Empirical research on Kano’s model and customer satisfaction. PloS one, 12(9), e0183888.
49.Liu, C., Ramirez-Serrano, A., & Yin, G. (2011). Customer-driven product design and evaluation method for collaborative design environments. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 22(5), 751-764.
50.Lou, S., Feng, Y., Tian, G., Lv, Z., Li, Z., & Tan, J. (2017). A cyber-physical system for product conceptual design based on an intelligent psycho-physiological approach. IEEE Access, 5, 5378-5387.
51.Lyons, G. (2016). Getting smart about urban mobility–aligning the paradigms of smart and sustainable. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
52.Marek, L., Campbell, M., & Bui, L. (2017). Shaking for innovation: The (re) building of a (smart) city in a post disaster environment. Cities, 63, 41-50.
53.Marsal-Llacuna, M. L., Colomer-Llinàs, J., & Meléndez-Frigola, J. (2015). Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the Smart Cities initiative. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 611-622.
54.Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25-38.
55.May, A. D., Jarvi-Nykanen, T., Minken, H., Ramjerdi, F., Matthews, B., & Monzon, A. (2001). Cities’ Decision-making Requirements–PROSPECTS Deliverable 1. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds.
56.Mulley, C., & Moutou, C. J. (2015). Not too late to learn from the Sydney Olympics experience: Opportunities offered by multimodality in current transport policy. Cities, 45, 117-122.
57.Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25-36.
58.Nilsson-Witell, L., & Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service attributes: A test of Kano’s theory of quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2), 152–168.
59.Ning, Z., Xia, F., Ullah, N., Kong, X., & Hu, X. (2017). Vehicular social networks: enabling smart mobility. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(5), 16-55.
60.Olszewski, R., Pałka, P., & Turek, A. (2018). Solving “Smart City” Transport Problems by Designing Carpooling Gamification Schemes with Multi-Agent Systems: The Case of the So-Called “Mordor of Warsaw”. Sensors, 18(1), 141.
61.Papa, E., & Lauwers, D. (2015). Smart mobility: opportunity or threat to innovate places and cities.
62.Pinna, F., Masala, F., & Garau, C. (2017). Urban Policies and Mobility Trends in Italian Smart Cities. Sustainability, 9(4), 494.
63.Solanas, A., Patsakis, C., Conti, M., Vlachos, I. S., Ramos, V., Falcone, F., ... & Martínez-Ballesté, A. (2014). Smart health: a context-aware health paradigm within smart cities. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(8), 74-81.
64.Tontini, G., Søilen, K. S., & Silveira, A. (2013). How do interactions of Kano model attributes affect customer satisfaction? An analysis based on psychological foundations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(11-12), 1253-1271.
65.United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017). World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. New York: United Nations.
66.Violante, M. G., & Vezzetti, E. (2017). Kano qualitative vs quantitative approaches: An assessment framework for products attributes analysis. Computers in Industry, 86, 15-Harrington, R. J., von Freyberg, B., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Schmidt, L. (2017). The different effects of dis-satisfier, satisfier and delighter attributes: Implications for Oktoberfest and beer festivals. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 166-176.
67.Wang, C. H., & Chin, H. T. (2017). Integrating affective features with engineering features to seek the optimal product varieties with respect to the niche segments. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 33, 350-359.
68.Wang, C. H., & Wang, J. (2014). Combining fuzzy AHP and fuzzy Kano to optimize product varieties for smart cameras: A zero-one integer programming perspective. Applied Soft Computing, 22, 410-416.
69.Xie, Y., Hui, C.L., & Ng, S.F. (2010). The evaluation of quality attributes of NPO products: A case in medical garments. Total Quality Management, 21(5), 517–535.
70.Yadav, H. C., Jain, R., Singh, A. R., & Mishra, P. K. (2017). Kano integrated robust design approach for aesthetical product design: a case study of a car profile. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 28(7), 1709-1727.
71.Zawieska, J., & Pieriegud, J. (2018). Smart city as a tool for sustainable mobility and transport decarbonisation. Transport Policy, 63, 39-50.
72.Zheng, J., Garrick, N. W., Atkinson-Palombo, C., McCahill, C., & Marshall, W. (2013). Guidelines on developing performance metrics for evaluating transportation sustainability. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 7, 4-13.