臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來由於雲端技術及共享經濟的興起，將行動裝置結合旅運需求之「多元整合出行服務」(Mobility as a Service, MaaS)成為各國交通運輸部門積極推動的政策。然而，多元整合出行服務為一新興之概念，推動MaaS服務之各國對於其配套方案及價格訂定仍處於摸索階段。因此，本研究目的係以條件評估法結合量化模式對於MaaS潛在使用者之願付價格進行分析。本研究透過條件評估法中的開放雙界二元法之詢價方式取得受訪者之願付價格，並透過Tobit模式及起始點偏誤模式校正受訪者之願付價格及其影響因素。針對高雄哈馬星地域實證研究之結果顯示，產品認知、旅次經驗、社經背景等因素皆對願付價格有顯著影響。對於願付價格之金額分析結果顯示，若依據受訪地區最常使用運具前三名組合而成之套裝方案，包含捷運、公車及公共自行車，在全部樣本之情況下，所估計之平均金額約為954元，95%之信賴區間為930至978元；單就非學生族群樣本之情形分析，所估計之平均金額約為981元，95%之信賴區間為949至1014元；若僅統計學生族群樣本，所估計之平均金額約為900元，95%之信賴區間為873至928元。研究成果可作為未來MaaS定價與服務規劃設計之參考。

In recent years, due to the rise of cloud computing and sharing economy, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) which combines the functions of mobile devices with needs of travel demand has become one of the most important policy in transportation departments around the world. However, MaaS is a brand new concept, the way to decide the service package and price are still in the stage of development. Hence, this study aims to use the contingent valuation method (CVM) and Tobit model to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) of Mobility as a Service. The study obtained the information from questionnaires by double-bounded dichotomous choice with open-ended followed up method and explored user’s willingness to pay and its influence factors by Tobit model and starting point bias model. Hamasen District in Kaohsiung City has been selected for case study. The findings of case study show that the influence factors of willingness to pay include perception of products, travel experience and social background. It is also shown from the estimation results of Tobit analysis that if the service package including bus, MRT and pubic bike, which are the most popular transportations in Kaohsiung, the user’s willingness to pay of MaaS is NT$ 954 in all samples with the confidence interval between NT$ 930 to NT$ 978. The willingness to pay in the same condition is NT$ 900 for student group with the confidence interval between NT$ 873 to NT$ 928 while it is NT$ 981 for non-student group with the confidence interval NT$ 979 to NT$ 1,014. Research results could be considered as references for planning and design of service package for MaaS.

口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 ii
摘要 iii
ABSTRACT iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 viii
表目錄 ix
第1章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究範圍與對象 2
1.4 研究方法 2
1.5 研究內容與流程 3
第2章 文獻回顧 5
2.1 多元整合出行服務(MaaS) 5
2.1.1 多元整合出行服務發展背景與定義 5
2.1.2 多元整合出行服務基本架構 6
2.1.3 MaaS發展案例 7
2.2 願付價格 15
2.2.1 願付價格定義 15

2.2.2 條件評估法 16
2.2.3 以條件評估法探討願付價格文獻彙整 20
2.3 文獻評析 23
第3章 研究方法 24
3.1 研究架構 24
3.2 條件評估法問卷設計 25
3.2.1 問卷設計規劃 25
3.2.2 假設性市場設計 26
3.2.3 願付價格設計 28
3.2.4 抽樣設計 31
3.3 模型建置 33
3.3.1 Tobit模型 33
3.3.2 起始點偏誤校正模型 35
3.3.3 Tobit結合起始點偏誤校正模型 37
第4章 實證分析 39
4.1 問卷調查結果與分析 39
4.1.1 問卷調查 39
4.1.2 問卷基本統計 41
4.1.3 MaaS套裝方案 54
4.2 實證模型 56
4.2.1 變數定義 56
4.2.2 實證模型推估結果 59
第5章 結論與建議 69
5.1 結論 69
5.2 建議 70
參考文獻 71

中文部分
[1]陳敦基、洪鈞澤、陳奕廷、張學孔等人 (2016)，公共運輸行動服務(MaaS, Mobility as a Service)發展應用分析與策略規劃，中華智慧運輸協會與交通部運輸研究所合作研究計畫報告。
[2]陳明健、莊慶達、陳凱俐、鄭蕙燕等人 (2003)，自然資源與環境經濟學:理論基礎與本土案例分析(初版)，台北：雙葉書廊。
[3]李昀蓁 (2016)，計程車共乘願付價格之研究，逢甲大學運輸科技與管理學系學位論文。
[4]朱純孝、凃維穗、蔣昭弘 (2012)，休閒自行車道使用者願付價格之研究—以淡水金色水岸為例，公共事務評論，13(1)，45-63。
[5]陳凱俐、林和萱、陳正虎 (2011)，體驗型電動交通工具願付價格之評估-以東部休閒區域遊客為例，宜蘭大學生物資源學刊，7(1)，25-39。
[6]楊鎧綸 (2015)，運輸服務屬性之願付價格-以臺鐵為例，交通大學運輸與物流管理學系學位論文。
[7]劉祐毓 (2015)，LED球泡燈願付價格研究分析，中央大學產業經濟研究所學位論文。
[8]覃皓儀 (2011)，電子收費系統下高速公路小客車駕駛者對車上單元、計次及計程之願付價格，暨南大學土木工程學系學位論文。
[9]郭奕妏 (2010)，高速公路實施電子計程收費之駕駛人願付通行費率分析，運輸計劃季刊，39(2)，223-249。
[10]交通部 (2016)，105年民眾日常使用運具狀況調查摘要分析，交通部統計處。
[11]陳凱俐 (1999)，臺灣富水鳥濕地的保護效益評估，國家科學委員會研究彙刊，9 (1)，182-200。
[12]高雄市政府 (2016)，高雄市戶籍人口統計月報表，高雄市政府民政局。
[13]吳明隆 (2009)，SPSS操作與應用-問卷統計分析實務，台北市：五南圖書。
英文部分
[14]Adele, P. (2014). This Brilliant New App Calculates Where You Need To Go And Sends You A Bike Or A Tesla In Five Minutes. webpage. https://www.fastcompany.com/3038920/this-brilliant-new-app-calculates-where-you-need-to-go-and-sends-you-a-bike-or-a-tesla-in-fi
[15]Bishop, R. C., & Heberlein, T. A. (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased?. American journal of agricultural economics, 61(5), 926-930.
[16]Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of farm economics, 29(4), 1181-1196.
[17]Chang, S.K. (2016). Green Mobility and Sustainable Development, Lecture Notes, National Taiwan University.
[18]Eco-mobility-festival (2017). webpage. http://www.ecomobilityfestival2017.org/
[19]Erdem, C., Şentürk, İ., & Şimşek, T. (2010). Identifying the factors affecting the willingness to pay for fuel-efficient vehicles in Turkey: a case of hybrids. Energy Policy, 38(6), 3038-3043.
[20]Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. The American Economic Review, 81(3), 635-647.
[21]Haraya, E. (2011). Clarifying the Factors to Decide to Purchase Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) and Electric Vehicles (EVs). Doctoral dissertation, Duke University.
[22]Heikkilä, S. (2014). Mobility as a Service-A Proposal for Action for the Public Administration, Case Helsinki. Master''s thesis, Aalto University.
[23]Herriges, J. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1996). Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of environmental economics and management, 30(1), 112-131.
[24]Kanninen, B. J. (1995). Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of environmental economics and management, 28(1), 114-125.
[25]MaaS Global (2016). Whim is ready to go!. webpage. http://maas.global/our-solutions.
[26]Marshall, A. (1892). Elements of economics of industry (Vol. 1). Macmillan.
[27]Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future.
[28]Siemens (2016). Integrated Mobility. webpage. https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/integrated-mobility/Pages/integrated-mobility.aspx
[29]Tisdell, C., & Wilson, C. (2001). Wildlife-based tourism and increased support for nature conservation financially and otherwise: evidence from sea turtle ecotourism at Mon Repos. Tourism economics, 7(3), 233-249.
[30]Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 24-36.
[31]Ubigo (2016). Attractive and Sustainable Urban Mobility. webpage. http://ubigo.se/
[32]Yoo, S. H., & Kwak, S. Y. (2009). Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5408-5416.