臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來生態旅遊成為國際間觀光的發展趨勢，而交通部觀光局於2002年所提出的「生態旅遊白皮書」亦針對國家公園、森林遊樂區與國家風景區等提出相關推動策略與具體執行計畫。然而，可進行生態旅遊之國家風景區多位於偏遠郊區，加上當地大眾運輸之班次規劃並不密集導致其使用率低，且觀光局《中華民國99年國人旅遊狀況調查報告》提及民眾旅遊時主要利用的交通工具仍以自用汽車為主（65%），此種以私人運具為主的交通模式將會排放大量的二氧化碳，若能以較永續的綠色運輸（green transport）作為主要交通方式，則對當地環境有較低程度之衝擊，也才能實現生態旅遊之理念。
以往研究顯示，旅遊系統中所消耗之能源比例又以交通運輸占大多數，是故本研究目的為進行運具間整合之政策評估，以提供便捷的及門服務（door-to-door passenger journey），並藉由降低大眾運輸系統間之轉乘成本來改善服務品質，進而吸引私人運具之使用者，以達成推動永續運輸之目的。本研究選定位於西拉雅國家風景區的關子嶺風景特定區為實證地區，應用敘述性偏好法（SP）並以多項羅吉特模式（MNL）與巢式羅吉特（NL）建立旅運需求模式，以瞭解遊客和居民運具選擇的影響因子。
研究結果顯示，以遊客模式而言，針對願意轉乘大眾運輸工具之遊客，車內時間、車外時間、旅行成本、轉乘距離、職業、年齡與教育程度對接駁運具選擇有重要影響；針對不願意轉乘而傾向使用原有運具之遊客，車內時間與車外時間對於原有運具選擇有重要影響，旅行成本則否；最後，性別、所得、同行人數與旅次起點區則為遊客是否願意轉乘大眾運輸工具之重要影響因子。以居民模式而言，針對願意轉乘大眾運輸工具之居民，旅行成本、轉乘距離與教育程度對接駁運具選擇有重要影響，旅行時間則否；針對不願意轉乘而傾向使用原有運具之居民，車內時間與車外時間對於原有運具選擇有重要影響，旅行成本則否；最後，年齡與職業則為居民是否願意轉乘大眾運輸工具之重要影響因子。

In recent years, eco-tourism has become the intermational trend of tourism, and the Ecotourism White Paper published by Tourism Bureau R.O.C. in 2002 also proposed related strategies and specific implementation plans for national parks, forest recreation areas and national scenic areas. However, most of the attractions for ecotourism usually lie in rural areas, where the usage rate of public transport was low resulting from inefficient timetables, and 2010 Survey of Travel by R.O.C. Citizens showed the majority of tourists, 65 percent, tend to go to these destinations by car. This kind of private mode of transport contributes carbon dioxide emissions though. If we use green transport which is more sustainable, then we could minimize the impact on local environment so as to achieve the concept of ecotourism.
Previous studies showed that transportation typically accounts for the majority of energy consumption in tourism so this research aims to evaluate intermodal integration strategies which could provide door-to-door passenger journey and improve the quality of public transport service by reducing the transfer costs so as to attract users from private modes of transport and to promote sustainable transport. This research selects Guan-Zi-Ling Designated Scenic Area in National Scenic Area to be the research scope and then applies stated preference approach, multinomial logit model and nested logit model to construct the travel demand model and then to understand the factors of tourists’ and residents' mode choice.
The result shows that, in terms of tourist model, in-vehicle time, out-of-vehicle time, travel cost, transfer distance, career, age and education level are the important factors to tourists who are willing to transfer by public transport; in-vehicle time and out-of-vehicle time are important factors, but travel cost is not, to tourists who are unwilling to transfer and tend to use their existing transport; finally, gender, income, number of peers and origin are important factors of willing to transfer public transport or not to tourists. In terms of resident model, travel cost, transfer distance and education level are the important factors, but travel time is not, to residents who are willing to transfer by public transport; in-vehicle time and out-of-vehicle time are important factors, but travel cost is not, to residents who are unwilling to transfer and tend to use their existing transport; finally, age and career are important factors of willing to transfer public transport or not to residents.

摘要.......................................................I
Abstract.................................................III
誌謝......................................................VI
目錄.....................................................VII
表目錄.....................................................IX
圖目錄....................................................XII

第一章 緒論...............................................1
第一節 研究動機與目的.......................................1
第二節 研究範圍與內容.......................................5
第三節 研究方法與流程.......................................7
第二章 文獻回顧...........................................11
第一節 旅遊交通運輸行為相關理論回顧...........................11
第二節 無縫運輸相關理論回顧.................................14
第三節 個體選擇模式相關理論回顧..............................18
第四節 實證地區現況資料蒐集.................................21
第三章 模式理論及原理......................................27
第一節 基礎模式理論與建構...................................27
第二節 敘述性偏好法........................................32
第三節 總計預測...........................................35
第四章 資料蒐集與統計......................................37
第一節 問卷設計...........................................37
第二節 資料蒐集與調查......................................43
第三節 樣本特性分析........................................45
第四節 運具偏好關聯性分析...................................56
第五章 模式建構與分析......................................61
第一節 外地遊客運具選擇模式.................................61
第二節 當地居民運具選擇模式.................................78
第三節 總計預測...........................................92
第六章 結論與建議........................................107
第一節 結論.............................................107
第二節 後續研究與建議.....................................113
參考文獻..................................................119
附錄.....................................................124

中文文獻
方偉達（2008）。生態旅遊。臺北：五南圖書出版公司。
交通部觀光局（2002）。生態旅遊白皮書。臺北：交通部觀光局。
交通部觀光局（2010）。中華民國99年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。臺北：交通部觀光局。
林國顯等（2010）。行車成本調查分析與交通建設計畫經濟效益評估之推廣應用。交通部運輸研究所。
周宏彥、許玄岡（2007）。接駁服務對城際運具選擇之影響分析。運輸學刊，19（3）， 271-300。
邱裕鈞、周榮昌、蕭任谷、王穆衡、陳其華、曾幸敏（2011）。公共運輸發展政策之推動效益評估－運具選擇行為模式與調查計畫初擬。交通部運輸研究所（計畫編號99-MDA010）。
邱靜淑（2004）。都市通勤者運具選擇行為之研究。國立暨南國際大學土木工程學系碩士論文，南投。
段良雄、施怡玫（2000）。城際客運運具選擇之所得效果。運輸計畫季刊，29（3），583-615。
倪佩貞等（2006）。運輸部門能源節約及溫室氣體減量潛力評估與因應策略規劃。交通部運輸研究所。
徐翊庭（2008）。高鐵通車前後台灣西部走廊旅客運具選擇行為之比較分析。國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文，新竹。
葉文健等（2011）。交通部部屬機關（構）性別影響評估作業指南。交通部運輸研究所。
陳存永、吳嘉昌、黃育仁（2012）。從亞洲新灣區啟動高雄綠色運輸走廊計畫。城市發展，14，115-159。
陳彥仲（1991）。Fortran程式碼。Northwestern U., IL., USA。
陳運玲（2010）。公車服務IPA分析與運量提升策略之研究：以臺南市市公車為例。國立成功大學交通管理學系碩士論文，臺南。
陳餘鋆、張清標、張文娟（2009）。關子嶺生態旅遊規劃與調查之研究。休閒事業研究，7（3），117-141。
馮正民、邱裕鈞、張勝雄、王晉元、蘇昭銘、林幸加、胡凱傑、葉文健、王穆衡、陳其華、曾幸敏（2011）。強化公路公共運輸發展政策研析。交通部運輸研究所（計畫編號97-MEB013）。
劉匡英（2009）。都市生態旅遊資源非市場價值之研究－以貓空地區為例。國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文，臺北。
蕭銘雄（1997）。考慮活動與旅運的時間價值研究。國立成功大學交通管理學系博士論文，臺南。

外文文獻
Augustyn, M. (1998). National Strategies for Rural Tourism Development and Sustainability: The Polish Experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(3), 191-209.
Ben-Aakiva, M., ＆ Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. The MIT press.
Buckley, R. (2004). Environmental impacts of ecotourism (2nd ed.). Wallingford, Oxon, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA: CABI Pub.
Buckley, R. (1993). A Framework for Ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 661-669.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). (1998). A new deal for transport: Better for everyone. Cmnd 3950, The Stationery Office, London.
Engels, D., Ambrosino, G., ＆ Boero, M. (2004). Service typologies and scenarios. Demand Responsive Transport Services: Towards the Flexible Mobility Agency.ENEA, Rome, 55-73.
Espino, R., Román, C., ＆ De Ortúzar, J. D. (2006). Analysing demand for suburban trips: a mixed RP/SP model with latent variables and interaction effects. Transportation, 33(3), 241-261.
Fennell, D. A., ＆ Dowling, R. K. (2003). Ecotourism Policy and Planning. Wallingford, Oxon, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA: CABI Pub.
Great Britain. Ministry of Transport. (1963). Traffic in Towns: A study of the long term problems of traffic urban area. London: H. M. Stationery Off.
Guo, Z., ＆ Wilson, N. H. (2011). Assessing the cost of transfer inconvenience in public transport systems: A case study of the London Underground. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(2), 91-104.
Hine, J., ＆ Scott, J. (2000). Seamless, accessible travel: users’ views of the public transport journey and interchange. Transport Policy, 7(3), 217-226.
Hull, A. (2005). Integrated transport planning in the UK: From concept to reality. Journal of Transport Geography, 13, 318-328.
Lumsdon, L., ＆ Page, S. J. (2004). Tourism and transport: issues and agenda for the new millennium. Elsevier Science Ltd.
McFadden, D., Train, K., ＆ Tye, W. B. (1977). An application of diagnostic tests for the independence from irrelevant alternatives property of the multinomial logit model. Transportation Research Record, (637), 39-46.
Nvight, P. A. (1996). North American Ecotourism Markets Motivations, Preferences, and Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(1), 3-10.
Orbaşlı, A. (2000). Tourists in Historic Towns: Urban Conservation and Heritage Management. London and New York: E＆FN Spon.
Pearmain, D. ＆ Swanson, J. (1991). Stated Preference Techniques: a Guide to Practice (2nd ed.). Steer Davies Gleave.
Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., ＆ Rietveld, P. (2003). Access to and competition between airports: a case study for the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(1), 71-83.
Reilly, J., Williams, P., ＆ Haider, W. (2010). Moving towards more eco-efficient tourist transportation to a resort destination: The case of Whistler, British Columbia. Research in Transportation Economics, 26(1), 66-73.
Renjie, L. I., Zi, L. U., ＆ Jifeng, L. I. (2012). Quantitative calculation of Eco-tourist's landscape perception: Strength, and spatial variation within ecotourism destination. Ecological Informatics, 10, 73-80.
Ross, S., ＆ Wall, G., 1999, Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management, 20, 123-132.
Steiner, T. J., ＆ Brisstow, A. L. (2000). Road pricing in National Parks: A case study in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Transport Policy, 7, 93-103.
Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press.
Valentine, P. S. (1990). Nature-based tourism: A review of prospects and problems. Peter Valentine.
Valentine, P. S. (1993). Ecotourism and nature conservation: a definition with some recent development in Micronesia. Tourism Management, 14(2), 107-115.
Weiner, Richard. (2008). Integration of paratransit and fixed-route transit services (Vol. 76). Transit Cooperation Research Program. Transportation Research Board.
Welsh Office. (1998). Transporting Wales into the future. Cardiff: Welsh Office.