隨著全球都市化加速，「宜居城市」已成為地方治理的核心目標。然而，現行國際評比多依賴主觀調查，在地適用性不足；國內研究則長期受限於資料匱乏，難以建構完整的客觀評估體系。本研究旨在以我國政府開放資料為唯一數據來源，整合環境永續、都市韌性、智慧治理、社會公平與包容、公共健康與安全，以及文化參與與生活品質等六大治理構面，建構一套符合本土脈絡、可複製且具持續追蹤效能之宜居城市評估指標體系。
本研究以我國六個直轄市為實證對象，秉持「資料可行性優先」原則，篩選出36項具官方開放資料來源之評估指標。權重測算採雙軌設計：主觀層面運用層級分析法，透過專家成對比較問卷凝聚共識，所有有效問卷均通過一致性檢定；客觀層面引入熵權法，依六都數據之離散程度量化各指標之鑑別度，並建構「主客觀權重四象限交叉分析矩陣」進行診斷分析。
實證結果顯示，「公共健康與安全」與「都市韌性」累計主觀權重超過五成，反映專家對基本安全保障的施政優先性。客觀權重則以「文化參與與生活品質」與「社會公平與包容」最高，顯示六都硬體設施已趨同，社會與文化面向方為區辨城市差異之關鍵。四象限診斷中，犯罪率、交通事故死亡人數等指標鑑別度受限，其原因在於現行開放資料多以行政區平均值發布，導致六都數據趨同，掩蓋都市內部空間差異，構成評估體系的方法論侷限。
本研究證實，主客觀權重之落差本身即具備獨立診斷價值，可作為地方政府分層資源配置之實證依據。建議中央資料治理部門推動開放資料品質提升，引進細緻化的在地數據，以強化評估體系的空間解析能力，為我國數據驅動治理決策奠定方法論基礎。

As global urbanization accelerates, building livable cities has become a central objective of local governance. However, existing international indices rely predominantly on subjective surveys with limited local applicability, while domestic research in Taiwan has long been constrained by data scarcity, hindering the construction of a comprehensive and objective evaluation system. This study uses Taiwan's government open data as the sole data source, integrating six governance dimensions — environmental sustainability, urban resilience, smart governance, social equity and inclusion, public health and safety, and cultural participation and quality of life — to construct a localized, replicable, and longitudinally trackable livable city evaluation indicator system.

Focusing on Taiwan's six special municipalities as the empirical context and guided by the principle of prioritizing data availability, this study selects 36 indicators with verified official open data sources. Weights are determined through a dual-track design: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) captures expert consensus through pairwise comparison questionnaires, with all valid responses passing the consistency test, while the Entropy Weight Method quantifies each indicator's discriminatory power based on data dispersion across the six municipalities. A four-quadrant cross-analysis matrix of subjective and objective weights is then constructed for diagnostic purposes.

Empirical findings show that public health and safety, together with urban resilience, account for a subjective weight exceeding 50%, reflecting experts' emphasis on ensuring basic safety in policy. By contrast, cultural participation and quality of life, along with social equity and inclusion, rank highest in objective weight, indicating that the six municipalities have largely converged in physical infrastructure, while social and cultural dimensions serve as the key sources of inter-city variation. In the four-quadrant diagnosis, indicators such as crime rates and traffic fatalities exhibit limited discriminatory power, as open data are predominantly published as administrative-district-level averages; this practice leads to data convergence across the six municipalities and obscures intra-urban spatial disparities, constituting a methodological limitation of the evaluation system.

This study demonstrates that the gap between subjective and objective weights carries independent diagnostic value and can inform evidence-based resource allocation by local governments. Central data governance authorities are advised to improve open data quality and incorporate fine-grained, locality-sensitive data to enhance the spatial resolution of the evaluation system, thereby laying a methodological foundation for data-driven governance in Taiwan.

中文參考文獻
1. 天下雜誌（2024）。2024永續幸福城市大調查。天下雜誌（808）。
2. 行政院（2014）。智慧城市推動方案。 https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/9277F759E41CCD91/fecb7039-e570-4794-a0cb-6867bbb4b987
3. 行政院國家永續發展委員會（2018）。臺灣永續發展目標（T-SDGs）。 https://ncsd.ndc.gov.tw/
4. 李永展、陳錦賜（2001）。永續發展之反思。建築與規劃學報，2（1），43-57。
5. 李永展、林士堅、黃慶銘（2008）。台北市永續發展指數之建構及應用。建築學報（65），1-26。
6. 郭信霖、李素惠（2013）。基於熵權法的模糊綜合評價之研究。管理科學研究，2013（特刊），43-48。
7. 翁栢萱（2020）。政府開放資料應用與法制之探討。立法院法制局。
8. 國家發展委員會（2023）。政府資料開放平臺。 https://data.gov.tw/
9. 許志義、王筑、柳育林、許懷元（2019）。政府資料開放與資料管理。公共行政學報，56，131-162。
10. 陳菊（2011）。宜居城市．幸福高雄－創造特色提升城市競爭力。研考雙月刊，35（6），130-136。
11. 陳俊合（2020）。臺灣縣市永續競爭力及其關鍵影響因素評估－熵權法應用。規劃學報，38（1），15-43。
12. 葉晉嘉（2010）。大高雄宜居城市指標及策略之研究。高雄市政府研究發展考核委員會。
13. 臺北市政府主計處（2021）。臺北市與國際都市 ISO 37120 指標分析報告。
14. 臺北市政府（2023）。2023臺北市自願檢視報告。
15. 褚志鵬（2009）。層級分析法（AHP）理論與實作。國立東華大學企業管理學系教學講義。
16. 蔡欣嶧（2012）。高雄作為宜居城市之發展分析。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文
17. 鄧振源、曾國雄（1989）。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（上）。中國統計學報，27（6），5-22。
18. 賴泱州、楊東謀（2017）。地方政府機關之開放資料影響因素探討:以台中市政府為例。教育資料與圖書館學，54（2），185-219。

外文參考文獻
1. Abou-Zekry, T., Elmenshawy, A., & Mubarak, A. (2021). The just city: A socio-economic and environmental perspective. The Egyptian International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Technology, 35(1), 27–36.
2. Astana Civil Service Hub & United Nations Development Programme. (2022). Open [Government] Data Policies and Practices: Select Country Cases. United Nations Development Programme.
3. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
4. Berners-Lee, T. (2010). 5-Star Open Data. http://5stardata.info/en/
5. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart Cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2011.601117
6. Casellati, A. (1997). The Nature of Livability. In S. Lennard, & S. von Ungern-Sternberg, & H. Lennard (Eds.), Making Cities Livable. Gondolier Press.
7. Caves, R. W. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge.
8. Cohen, S. (2017). The sustainable city. Columbia University Press.
9. Core Group, National Police Mission. (2019). Project proposal on “Safe City Indicators”. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
10. Dlabac, O., Zwicky, R., Hoole, C., Chu, E., & Lee, P. (2019). Spatializing ‘just city planning’. City Futures IV Conference (EURA/UAA), Dublin. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-178803
11. Duhl, L., & Sanchez, A. (1999). Healthy Cities and the City Planning Process: A Background Document on Links between Health and Urban Planning. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
12. Evans, P. (Ed.). (2002). Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability. University of California Press.
13. Fainstein, S. (2010). The Just City. Cornell University Press.
14. Frigerio, A. (2024). Reconceptualising sustainable city: A literature review. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 16(1), 11–22.
15. Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., & Meijers, E. (2007). City-ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Department of Spatial Development, Infrastructure and Environmental Planning, Vienna University of Technology.
16. Granberg, M., & Glover, L. (2021). The climate just city. Sustainability, 13(3), 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031201
17. Grooms, W. (2018). The ‘just city’ or just a city? Evaluating social justice and equity in planning education [Unpublished thesis]. University of Louisville.
18. Hahlweg, D. (1997). The City as a Family. In S. Lennard, & S. von Ungern-Sternberg, & H. Lennard (Eds.), Making Cities Livable. Gondolier Press.
19. Hochholdinger, N., & Schantl, A. (2021). The resilient city – state of the art. KDZ Centre for Public Administration Research.
20. Institute for Quality of Life (2025). Happy City Index. https://happy-city-index.com/
21. International Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 37120:2018, Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for city services and quality of life. International Organization for Standardization.
22. James, L. (2013). Defining Open Data. https://blog.okfn.org/2013/10/03/defining-open-data/
23. Janssen, C., Daamen, T., & Verheul, W. (2024). Governing capabilities, not places: How to understand social sustainability implementation in urban development. Urban Studies, 61(2), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231179554
24. Lennard, S. H. C., von Ungern-Sternberg, S., & Lennard, H. L. (Eds.)(1997). Making Cities Livable. Gondolier Press.
25. Liverman, D., Hanson, M., Brown, B., & Merideth, R. (1988). Global sustainability: toward measurement. Environmental Management, 12(2), 133-143.
26. Malamud, C. (2007). Open Government Data Principles [Paper presented]. Open Government Data Working Group, Sebastopol, CA.
27. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Farrell, D., Van Kuiken, S., Groves, P., & Almasi Doshi, E. (2013). Open data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/open-data-unlocking-innovation-and-performance-with-liquid-information
28. Matsumoto, T., & Ledesma Bohorquez, M. (2023). Building systemic climate resilience in cities. OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 56. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f2f020b9-en
29. Mercer (2024). Quality of living city ranking 2024. https://www.mercer.com/en-ch/about/newsroom/quality-of-living-2024/
30. Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2016). On the Engagement of Excluded Groups in Inclusive Cities: Highlighting Good Practices and Key Challenges in the Global South. World Bank, Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23944
31. Mohamed, K. (2022). Liveable City Centre: Livability through The Lens of The Singaporean Experience (Case of Singapore City Center). Engineering Research Journal, 176, A16–A28.
32. Mori Memorial Foundation (2024). Global Power City Index 2024: Summary Report. Institute for Urban Strategies. https://mori-m-foundation.or.jp/pdf/GPCI2024_summary.pdf
33. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. (2011). Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions [Paper presented]. 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, College Park, MD, USA.
34. National Research Council (2002). Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed Decision Making. The National Academies Press.
35. OECD (2011). How's life?: Measuring well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-en
36. OECD (2023). Smart City Data Governance: Challenges and the Way Forward. OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/e57ce301-en
37. Open Knowledge Foundation (2015). The Open Definition 2.1. https://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/
38. Oxford Economics (2025). Global Cities Index 2025. https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/OEGCI2025.pdf
39. Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—A social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1–2), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00234-7
40. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
41. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266
42. Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill.
43. Salzano, E. (1997). Seven aims for the livable city. In S. Lennard, & S. von Ungern Sternberg, & H. Lennard (Eds.), Making cities livable. Gondolier Press.
44. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland.
45. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
46. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. University of Minnesota Press.
47. Soyer, K., & Ayberk, A. (2023). A systematic literature review: Setting a basis for smart and sustainable city performance measurement. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2693
48. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2024). The Global Liveability Index 2024: The world’s most liveable cities. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/global-liveability-index-2024/
49. Tutak, M., & Brodny, J. (2023). A Smart City Is a Safe City: Analysis and Evaluation of the State of Crime and Safety in Polish Cities. Smart Cities, 6, 3359-3392.
50. UN-Habitat (2020). World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. https://unhabitat.org
51. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
52. von Lucke, J., & Gollasch, K. (2022). Open Government: Offenes Regierungs- und Verwaltungshandeln – Leitbilder, Ziele und Methoden. Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36795-4
53. World Council on City Data (2015). CityNet–WCCD ISO 37120 pilot program: Information for cities. https://dataforcities.org/
54. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (1998). Baseline Healthy Cities Indicators: Questionnaire. WHO Regional Office for Europe.