(18.206.177.17) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/11 02:51
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:楊世豪
研究生(外文):Shih-Hao Yang
論文名稱:我國航運公司經營兩岸直航船舶設籍方案之評選
論文名稱(外文):Flag Selection for Taiwanese Shipping Companies: Direct Shipping across the Taiwan Strait
指導教授:鍾政棋鍾政棋引用關係
指導教授(外文):Cheng-Chi Chung
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:航運管理學系
學門:運輸服務學門
學類:運輸管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:94
中文關鍵詞:兩岸直航船舶設籍船籍選擇灰關聯分析模糊層級分析法
外文關鍵詞:Direct shippingShip registrationFlag selectionGRAFuzzy AHP
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:220
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:21
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  過去因政治因素,臺灣與中國彼此禁止國輪進入對方港口,權宜籍船(FOC)亦不得直航於兩岸港口間,是造成臺灣船舶高出籍率的重要原因之一。臺海兩岸雖於2008年簽署「海峽兩岸海運協議」後正式直航,但對經營兩岸航線之船舶資格,限制必須為兩岸資本,並設籍於臺灣、中國或香港,方能經營兩岸客貨運送。面對此航運環境之重要改變,本文研究目的有二:
(1)構建兩岸直航最適船舶設籍方案評選之層級架構,並尋求關鍵影響因素。
(2)評選我國航運公司經營兩岸直航最適船舶設籍方案。
  方法採用模糊層級分析法(FAHP),並進一步將樣本分為散裝航運公司與貨櫃航運公司,結合灰關聯分析(GRA)以及理想解類似度偏好順序評估法(TOPSIS)進行分析。經本文研究發現:
(1)影響兩岸船舶設籍選擇,最重要準則與子準則分別是「降低營運成本」與「航運稅捐負擔」。
(2)香港為兩岸直航最適船舶設籍替選方案、中國次之,而臺灣國輪因須負擔較高的營運成本與較低的營運彈性,評估結果則居末位,且經敏感度分析(SA)仍無法改變其方案次序。
  本文研究結果支持「海峽兩岸海運協議」允許兩岸資本的香港籍船參與兩岸運輸,導致我國輪船噸增長無法如預期發展之觀點。由此顯示,兩岸海運直航須輔以配套政策,方能有效提升國輪船噸。基於此,建議我國應修改相關航運政策,提供更低廉之稅率、放寬對外籍船員與中國船員之限制,同時也應協助我國航運公司取得中國政府的直航許可,方有助於激勵船舶入籍或回籍。研究結果可以提供政府機關擬定航運政策,以及航運公司經營兩岸直航船舶設籍決策之參考。

Due to political reasons from the past, ships registered in Taiwan and China were banned from sailing through the Taiwan Strait directly to the opposing coast, and ships registered in flag of convenience (FOC) were restricted from doing so as well. Evidently, this caused the flagging out of the Taiwanese fleet. Although the direct shipping link was established since the Cross-strait Sea Transport (CST) Agreement was signed on Nov. 4, 2008, both sides agreed only Taiwanese or Chinese ships registered in Taiwan, China, or Hong Kong may, with due approval, engage in direct cross-strait carriage of cargos and passengers. Confronted with the significant changes in the shipping environment, the aims of this study are as follow:
(1)To build a hierarchical structure and analyze the key influential factors of flag selection on direct shipping across the Taiwan Strait.
(2)To find out the optimal flag selection for Taiwanese shipping companies under the provisions of the CST Agreement.
The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method is applied to evaluate the weight of each criterion and subcriterion. The methods of Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) and Techniques for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) are conducted to evaluate the optimal flag selection. Results are shown as follow:
(1)The evaluating criterion and subcriterion having the most profound effect on the registry location decision of direct shipping ships are assigned to reducing operating costs and tax-related expenses respectively.
(2)Hong Kong is the optimal choice, followed by China, and Taiwan is the lowest priority with an unchangeable position in flag selection because Taiwanese national fleets mainly suffered higher operational costs and lower operational flexibility.
Results support the viewpoint that direct shipping is not an incentive for shipping companies to flag back and become part of the Taiwanese national merchant fleet because ships owned by companies on either side of the Taiwan Strait, and registered in Hong Kong may similarly engage in direct cross-strait transport of cargos and passengers. Therefore, for attracting shipping companies to flag back, cross-strait direct shipping must be supplemented by supporting policies. A lower tax rate and more relaxed regulations on not only foreign but also Chinese crew are therefore recommended in revising relevant shipping policies. Furthermore, to assist shipping companies to obtain China’s approval is also helpful to inspire ships flag in and flag back. The results can serve as a good reference not only for the Taiwanese government in policy implementation, but also for Taiwanese shipping companies in selecting appropriate flags for ships undertaking direct cross-strait shipping carriage.

謝 辭 i
摘 要 iii
ABSTRACT iv

目 錄 v
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 viii

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 8
1.3 研究問題與目的 9
1.4 研究範圍與對象 10
1.5 研究流程 10
1.6 研究架構 12

第二章 文獻回顧與評析 13
2.1 船籍選擇主要考量 13
2.2 船籍選擇影響因素 18
2.3 綜合評析 22

第三章 研究設計與方法 23
3.1 評選架構與問卷設計 23
3.1.1 評選架構之構建 23
3.1.2 問卷設計與調查 26
3.2 研究方法與步驟 29
3.2.1 決定準則權重 29
3.2.2 方案得點評估 34

第四章 經營兩岸直航船舶設籍方案之評選 38
4.1 回收樣本與基本資料分析 38
4.2 兩岸直航船舶設籍方案之評選 40
4.2.1 準則與子準則權重分析 40
4.2.2 方案評選結果 45
4.2.3 敏感度分析 53

第五章 綜合討論 56
5.1 經營兩岸直航船舶設籍方案評選分析 56
5.1.1 營運成本 57
5.1.2 政府政策 61
5.1.3 營運彈性 62
5.2 散裝航運與貨櫃航運差異分析 64
5.3 本章小結 66

第六章 結論與建議 69
6.1 結論 69
6.2 建議 73
6.2.1 政策建議 73
6.2.2 後續研究建議 78

參考文獻 80

附錄一 海峽兩岸海運協議 84
附錄二 兩岸直航船舶設籍方案評選問卷調查表 87

1.于惠蓉、曾文瑞、王克尹(2011),兩岸海運協議內涵及相關規定之問題探討,2011年臺灣港口面對兩岸直航之機會與挑戰研討會論文集,臺灣臺中:交通部運輸研究所,頁5-1-5-23。
2.包嘉源(2009),「2008年海峽兩岸海運通航協商之檢討」,運輸計劃季刊,第三十八卷第四期,頁407-428。
3.包嘉源、張志清、林光(2008),「影響兩岸海運通航之關鍵因素」,航運季刊,第十七卷第一期,頁63-78。
4.行政院大陸委員會(2008),海峽兩岸海運協議,臺灣。
5.林秀芬(2006),「應用模糊層級分析法於網路商店服務品質評估之研究」,電子商務學報,第八卷第三期,頁347-372。
6.林谷蓉(2008),「兩岸海運直航問題之探討-以基隆港郵輪旅遊發展為例」,海洋文化學刊,第五期,頁187-230。
7.林谷蓉(2009),「兩岸海運直航回顧與展望」,海峽評論,第二百一十七期,頁17-20。
8.許碧芳、吳政儒、李雅玎 (2006),應用德菲法及AHP評選最佳感染性醫療廢棄物清理廠商,2006臺灣健康管理學術研討會論文集,新竹:元培科學技術學院,頁1-11。
9.陳春益、楊清喬、朱金元(2012),「直航後我國國際貨櫃港埠面臨問題與因應策略之探討」,運輸計劃季刊,第四十一卷第一期,頁55-80。
10.黃承傳、鍾政棋(2005),「我國散裝船舶設籍關鍵影響因素之分析」,運輸計劃季刊,第三十四卷第一期,頁27-62。
11.曾國雄、胡宜珍(1996),「公車系統營運與服務績效指標擷之研究:灰色關聯分析之應用」,模糊系統學刊,第二卷第一期,頁73-82。
12.楊崇正(2009),「兩岸海運直航與產業商機前景之初探」,展望與探索,第七卷第一期,頁12-20。
13.鄧振源(2005),計畫評估-方法與應用,基隆:國立臺灣海洋大學。
14.鄧振源、曾國雄(1989),「層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下)」,中國統計學報,第二十七卷第七期,頁1-20。
15.鄧聚龍(2003),灰色系統理論與應用,臺北:高立圖書有限公司。
16.蔡孟娟(2008),「外資醫療機構進入中國區位評選模型之建構」,銘傳大學管理研究所博士論文。
17.Abo-Sinna, M. A. and Amer, A. H. (2005), “Extensions of TOPSIS for Multi-Objective Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming Problems,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 162, No. 1, pp. 243-256.
18.Ademun-Odeke (2005), “An Examination of Bareboat Charter Registries and Flag of Convenience Registries in International Law,” Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 339-362.
19.Alderton, T. and Winchester, N. (2002a), “Globalisation and De-regulation in the Maritime Industry,” Marine Policy, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 35-43.
20.Alderton, T. and Winchester, N. (2002b), “Flag State and Safety: 1997-1999,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 151-162.
21.Bergantino, A. and Marlow, P. B. (1998), “Factors Influencing the Choice of Flag: Empirical Evidence,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 157-174.
22.Bergantino, A. S. and O’Sullivan, P. (1999), “Flagging Out and International Registries: Main Developments and Policy Issues,” Journal of International Transport Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 447-472.
23.Celik, M., Er, I. D., and Ozok, A. F. (2009), “Application of Fuzzy Extended AHP Methodology on Shipping Registry Selection: the Case of Turkish Maritime Industry,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 190-198.
24.Celik, M. and Kandakoglu, A. (2012), “Maritime Policy Development against Ship Flagging Out Dilemma Using a Fuzzy Quantified SWOT Analysis,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 401-421.
25.Chang, C. C., Lin, K., and Bao, C. Y. (2006), “Developing Direct Shipping across the Taiwan Straits,” Marine Policy, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 392-399.
26.Chen, S. H. and Hsieh, C. H. (2000), “Representation, Ranking, Distance, and Similarity of L-R Type Fuzzy Number and Application,” Australian Journal of Intelligent Processing Systems, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 217-229.
27.Chung, C. C., Hwang, C. C., and Wong, Y. L. (2007), “An Analysis of Key Influence Factors for Containership Registration in Taiwan,” Journal of the East Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 3060-3072.
28.Chiu, R. H. (2007), “The Liberalization of Shipping in Taiwan,” Marine Policy, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 258-265.
29.Cockcroft, D. (1997), “Beyond 2000: Some Thoughts on the Future of Maritime Trade Unionism,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 3-8.
30.Csutora, R. and Buckley, J. J. (2001), “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis: the Lambda-max Method,” Fuzzy Set and Systems, Vol. 120, No. 2, pp. 181-195.
31.Cullianane, K. and Robertshaw, M. (1996), “The Influence of Qualitative Factors in Isle of Man Ship Registration Decisions,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 321-336.
32.Deng, H., Yeh, C.-H., and Willis, R. J. (2000), “Inter-Company Comparison Using Modified TOPSIS with Objective Weights,” Computers &; Operations Research, Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 963-973.
33.Goulielmos, A. M. (1998), “Flagging Out and the Need for a New Greek Maritime Policy,” Transport Policy, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 115-125.
34.Guo, J. L., Liang, G. S., Ye, K. D., and Wu, Y. (2007), “Impact of Special Shipping across the Taiwan Straits on the Employment of Taiwanese Ship Officers,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 21-36.
35.Haralambides, H. E. and Yang, J. (2003), “A Fuzzy Set Theory Approach to Flagging Out: towards a New Chinese Shipping Policy,” Marine Policy, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 13-22.
36.Hoffmann, J., Sanchez, R. J., and Talley, W. K. (2004), “Determinants of Vessel Flag,” Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 173-219.
37.Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey, New York: Springer-Verlag.
38.ISL (2012), Shipping Statistics and Market Review (SSMR), Germany: Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL).
39.Lam, J. S. L. (2011), “Patterns of Maritime Supply Chains: Slot Capacity Analysis,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 366-374.
40.Lee, A. H. I. (2009), “A Fuzzy Supplier Selection Model with the Consideration of Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 2879-2893.
41.Lee, T. W. (1996), “Flagging Options for the Future: a Turning Point in Korean Shipping Policy?” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 177-186.
42.Lin, C. W., Chung, C. C., and Yang, S. H. (2011), “An Evaluation of Containership Registrations in Taiwan: Application of the Grey Relation Analysis Model,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 1-9.
43.Llácer, F. J. M. (2003), “Open Registers: Past, Present, and Future,” Marine Policy, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 513-523.
44.Metaxas, B. N. (1985), Flags of Convenience: A Study of Internationalization, Aldershot: Gower.
45.Mitroussi, K. and Marlow, P. (2010), “The Impact of Choice of Flag on Ship Management.” In: The Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, edited by C. Th. Grammenos, London: Lloyd's List, pp. 579-601.
46.Olson, D. L. (2004), “Comparison of Weights in TOPSIS Models,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 40, No. 7-8, pp. 721-727.
47.Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Boston: McGraw Hill Inc.
48.Stopford, M. (2008), Maritime Economics, 3rd Ed., London: Routledge.
49.Sullivan, E. (1996), The Marine Encyclopaedic Dictionary, London: LLP.
50.Tenold, S. (2003), “A most convenient flag-the basis for the expansion of the Singapore fleet, 1969-82,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 255-268.
51.Toh, R. S. and Phang, S. Y. (1993), “Quasi-flag of Convenience Shipping: The Wave of the Future,” Transportation Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 31-39.
52.Tolofari, S. R. (1989), Open Registry Shipping: A Comparative Study of Costs and Freight Rates, New York: Gordon and Breach.
53.UNCTAD (2012), Review of Maritime Transport, New York and Geneva: United Nations.
54.van Laarhoven, P. J. M. and Pedryce, W. (1983), “A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty's Priority Theory,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 229-241.
55.Veenstra, A. W. and Bergantino, A. S. (2000), “Changing Ownership Structures in the Dutch Fleet,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 175-189.
56.Yang, Y. C. (2010), “Assessment Criteria for the Sustainable Competitive Advantage of the National Merchant Fleets from a Resource-based View,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 523-540.
57.Zadeh, L. A. (1965), “Fuzzy Set,” Information Control, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 338-353.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 14.鄧振源、曾國雄(1989),「層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下)」,中國統計學報,第二十七卷第七期,頁1-20。
2. 12.楊崇正(2009),「兩岸海運直航與產業商機前景之初探」,展望與探索,第七卷第一期,頁12-20。
3. 11.曾國雄、胡宜珍(1996),「公車系統營運與服務績效指標擷之研究:灰色關聯分析之應用」,模糊系統學刊,第二卷第一期,頁73-82。
4. 10.黃承傳、鍾政棋(2005),「我國散裝船舶設籍關鍵影響因素之分析」,運輸計劃季刊,第三十四卷第一期,頁27-62。
5. 9.陳春益、楊清喬、朱金元(2012),「直航後我國國際貨櫃港埠面臨問題與因應策略之探討」,運輸計劃季刊,第四十一卷第一期,頁55-80。
6. 7.林谷蓉(2009),「兩岸海運直航回顧與展望」,海峽評論,第二百一十七期,頁17-20。
7. 6.林谷蓉(2008),「兩岸海運直航問題之探討-以基隆港郵輪旅遊發展為例」,海洋文化學刊,第五期,頁187-230。
8. 5.林秀芬(2006),「應用模糊層級分析法於網路商店服務品質評估之研究」,電子商務學報,第八卷第三期,頁347-372。
9. 3.包嘉源、張志清、林光(2008),「影響兩岸海運通航之關鍵因素」,航運季刊,第十七卷第一期,頁63-78。
10. 2.包嘉源(2009),「2008年海峽兩岸海運通航協商之檢討」,運輸計劃季刊,第三十八卷第四期,頁407-428。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔