臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　本研究藉由建立多目標最佳化 (Multi-objective Optimization, MOO) 之互動式趨近法 (Interactive Approach) 模型，探討國人對於人體必需營養素其補充飲食攝取偏好之權衡選擇。
　　全球迅速發展的同時，國人生活飲食習慣改變，慢性疾病發生機率隨之增長，欲透過改善國人飲食習慣，攝取補充飲食以滿足一天營養所需，進而提升國人健康狀況。本研究以台灣20至40歲女性為研究對象，將額外的價格成本及熱量攝取列為消費者(即決策者)主要考量因素，並利用多目標最佳化互動式趨近法中之加權法 (Weighting Approach) 及達成尺度化函數法 (Achievement Scalarizing Functions, ASF) 與受測者進行互動式之研究。藉由反覆互動的過程，瞭解並修正其對於額外價格成本及熱量攝取之權衡選擇，直至獲得妥協滿意解。經由兩方法之建構模型分析，並以視覺化圖形提供受測者多個介於極值範圍之間之柏雷多解，由受測者選擇最終滿意解，進而探討加權法及達成尺度化函數法與最終選擇之差距。
　　案例研究中，結果發現相較於達成尺度化函數法，受測者在加權法中對於兩目標之權重意涵表達直接感受不如達成尺度化函數直接訂定理想目標明確，故與受測者以視覺化圖形所選擇之最終理想解有較大差距，且數據較為分散。判斷受測者對於權重之理念與實際確切數值之概念相比較為模糊，較難掌握其權衡之選擇。而本研究以兩種方法探討改善國人健康品質之飲食決策問題，具有實用性且有效降低研究之成本，並藉由方法之比較，提供決策者一種較可信之方法。然而，本研究案例為線性多目標最佳化之應用，若有非線性現象則需擴充，進行更深入之探討。未來研究建議可依照案例之不同階段選用不同特性的方法，以增進決策方法於實際生活所應用。

　　In this study, we constructed a Multi-objective Optimization (MOO) interactive approach model to explore the trade-off choices of Taiwanese people for their dietary supplements.
　　With the rapid development of the world, people’s daily life and eating habits have changed, and the probability of the occurrence of chronic diseases has increased. In order to improve the dietary habits of Taiwanese people, through the intake of supplementary diets and thus promote the health of people. This study is based on women aged 20 to 40 in Taiwan, the additional cost and calorie intake are the main considerations for consumers (i.e. decision makers). Using the Weighting Approach and the Achievement Scalarizing Functions (ASF) in the interactive approach of Multi-objective Optimization to interact with the subjects through a process of repeated interactions. To understand and correct the trade-offs between additional price costs and calorie intake, reciprocate the process of interaction until a satisfactory solution is obtained. This study provides information about the model before being tested, and then conducts tests in two ways. The subject chooses the final satisfied solution through the construction model analysis of the two methods, and then discusses the difference between the Weighting Approach and the Achievement Scalarizing Functions.
The results of this study, the weighted expression of the Weighting Approach for two goals is not as distinct as the Achievement Scalarizing Functions Approach. So there is vary widely between the final ideal solution selected by the subject, and the data is scattered. Judging the concept of weight is vaguer than the concept of actual exact value because it is difficult to grasp the choice of its trade-off for the subjects. This study explores dietary decision-making problem that improve the health of Taiwanese people in two ways. It is practical and effective in reducing the cost of research. By comparing methods, a more plausible method for decision makers is provided. However, this research case is the application of linear multi-objective optimization. If there is a nonlinear programming, it needs to be expanded. It is suggested that future research can select different characteristics according to different stages of the case to enhance the application of decision-making approach in life.

致　謝 I
中文摘要 III
英文摘要 V
目　錄 VII
圖目錄 X
表目錄 XI
第一章　緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究架構 3
第二章　文獻探討 6
2.1 全民健康 6
2.2 國人十大死因 7
2.3 飲食營養 9
2.3.1 人體所需營養素 11
2.3.2 國人膳食營養素參考攝取量 12
2.3.3 國人營養攝取情形 12
2.4 多目標最佳化 19
2.4.1 性質特徵 20
2.4.2 多目標最佳化之分類 24
2.5 互動式趨近法 29
2.5.1 互動式趨近法之分類 30
2.5.2 互動式趨近法之程序 33
2.5.3常用方法 34
2.6 小結 40
第三章　研究方法 41
3.1 模型建構 41
3.2 互動程序 43
3.3 小結 46
第四章　案例分析 47
4.1 案例說明 47
4.1.1 研究對象 47
4.1.2 研究資料 48
4.2 案例求解 50
4.2.1 模型規劃求解 50
4.2.2 加權法求解 52
4.2.3 達成尺度化函數法求解 54
4.2.4 視覺化圖形 54
4.3 結果分析 56
4.4 管理意涵 60
第五章　結論與建議 61
5.1 結論與建議 61
5.2 研究貢獻及未來發展 62
參考文獻 63
附　錄 72
附錄A Excel加權法求解巨集程式碼 (D. Podkopaev提供)　72
附錄B Excel達成尺度化函數法求解巨集程式碼 (D. Podkopaev提供) 74
附錄C Excel視覺化圖形巨集程式碼 (D. Podkopaev提供)　76
附錄D 補充飲食攝取案例之參考解 (柏雷多解) 78
 
圖目錄
圖1-1 本研究架構 5
圖2-1 影響國人健康的四大因素 9
圖2-2 柏雷多最佳解目標空間圖 24
圖2-3 互動式趨近法流程圖 30
圖2-4 達成尺度化函數示意圖 37
圖3-1 加權法互動流程圖 44
圖3-2 達成尺度化函數法互動流程圖 45
圖4-1 補充飲食攝取問題之視覺圖 56
圖4-2 補充飲食攝取問題之盒鬚圖(Box Plot) 60

 
表目錄
表2-1 國人十大死因死亡年齡中位數 7
表2-2 不健康的生活型態與慢性病的關聯 10
表2-3 國人膳食營養素參考攝取量表 13
表2-3 國人膳食營養素參考攝取量表(續1) 14
表2-3 國人膳食營養素參考攝取量表(續2) 15
表2-3 國人膳食營養素參考攝取量表(續3) 16
表2-4 台灣高中學生2011年每日營養攝取情形 17
表2-5 多目標決策分類表 28
表4-1 食物價格及營養成分表 49
表4-2 補充飲食攝取之多目標最佳化模型 51
表4-3 加權法之求解結果 52
表4-4 受測者加權法之決策過程 53
表4-5 達成尺度化函數法之求解結果 54
表4-6 受測者達成尺度化函數法之決策過程 55
表4-7 補充飲食攝取之受測結果 58
表4-8 研究資料分析 59

中文文獻
刁培正 (2014) 多準則非凌越解評選方法之探討。東吳大學，企業管理系碩士論文，臺北。
王小璠 (2005) 多準則決策分析。滄海書局，臺中。
王果行、許瑞芬、吳敏瑄 (2015) 國人膳食營養素參考攝取量修訂紀要。臺灣營養學會雜誌，40(1)，53-60，臺北。
林瑞雄 (1991) 國民健康調查之規劃與試驗。行政院衛生署，臺北。
胡運權 (2003) 運籌學教程。清華大學出版社有限公司，421-423，中國北京。
郭耿南 (2009) )2020健康國民白皮書。國家衛生研究院，臺北。
許志義 (2003) 多目標決策。五南圖書，臺北。
張李淑女、張育嘉、林慧美、陳逸卉、鄭怡娟、蒙美津、邱駿紘、蘇完女、林秀珍、鄭秀敏、陳怡如、汪在莒、林承鋒 (2016) 健康與生活：開創樂活幸福人生。新文京出版社，新北。
陳拱北 (1976) 十大死因的意義是什麼。健康世界，(1) ，8-9，臺北。
陳凌焜 (2004) 多目標供應鏈生產規劃之研究。國防管理學院資源管理研究所碩士論文，桃園。
陳曉紅 (2000) 决策支持系统理論和應用。清華大學出版社有限公司，中國北京。
董曙望 (2006) 運用決策理論提升軍事決策效益之探討-以陸軍現行指參作業程序為例。中華大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，新竹。
廖淑觀 (2004) 非量化評估模糊決策方法之研究。義守大學，資訊管理學所碩士論文，高雄。
劉庭豪 (2011) 應用多目標規劃法於低碳運輸計畫之預算分配。國立交通大學，運輸與物流管研究所碩士論文，新竹。
衛生署 (1993) 衛生政策白皮書。行政院衛生署，臺北。
衛生署 (2005) 台灣地區2010年衛生指標白皮書。行政院衛生署，臺北。
衛生福利部 (2016) )105年死因統計結果分析。衛生福利部，國民健康署
，臺北。
衛生福利部 (2013) )2011台灣國民營養健康狀況變遷調查結果。衛生福利部，國民健康署，臺北。

衛生福利部 (2017) 台灣地區食品成分資料庫。衛生福利部，食品藥物管理署，臺北。
賴素純、李俊民、陳裔專 (2010) 多準則決策應用於學生課程規劃之研究。管理與資訊學報，(15)，131-182，新北。
戴東原 (1984) 從糖尿病躍居全國十大死因之第八位一事談起。健康世界，(108)，10-13，新北。 

英文文獻
Bellows, L., Moore, R., Anderson, J., & Young, L. (2012a). Fat-soluble vitamins: A, D, E, and K. Food and Nutrition Series. Health; No. 9., 315. U.S.
Bellows, L., Moore, R., Anderson, J., & Young, L. (2012b). Water-soluble vitamins: B-complex and vitamin C. Food and Nutrition Series. Health; No. 9, 312. U.S.
Berkey, C. S., Rockett, H. R., Field, A. E., Gillman, M. W., & Colditz, G. A. (2004). Sugar‐added beverages and adolescent weight change. Obesity, 12(5), 778-788. U.S.
Buchanan, J. T. (1997). A naive approach for solving MCDM problems: The GUESS approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(2), 202-206. London.
Buchanan, J., & Gardiner, L. (2003). A comparison of two reference point methods in multiple objective mathematical programming. European Journal of Operational Research, 149(1), 17-34. London.
Branke, J., Deb, K., Miettinen, K., & Slowiński, R. (Eds.). (2008). Multiobjective Optimization: Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches (Vol. 5252). Springer Science & Business Media. Berlin.
Burci, G. L., Vignes, C. H., & World Health Organization. (2004). Kluwer Law International. The Hague, 255. Switzerland.
Coello, C. A. C., Lamont, G. B., & Van Veldhuizen, D. A. (2007). Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-objective Problems (Vol. 5). Springer. U.S.
Doll, R., & Peto, R. (1981). The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 66(6), 1192-1308. U.S.
Gettinger, J., Kiesling, E., Stummer, C., & Vetschera, R. (2013). A comparison of representations for discrete multi-criteria decision problems. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 976-985. U.S.
Hwang, C. L., & Masud, A. S. M. (1979). Multiple Objective Decision Making-Approaches and Applications: A State-of-the-Art. Survey. Berlin.
Kaliszewski, I., Miroforidis, J., & Podkopaev, D. (2016). Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Multiobjective Optimization-A Toolbox. In International Workshop on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Generalized Nets, 135-142. Springer, Cham. Switzerland.

Korhonen, P. J. & Wallenius J. (2010). Interactive Multiple Objective Programming Approaches. In C. Zopounidis, P. M. Pardalos. (eds) Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis, 263-286. Berlin.
Lalonde, M. (1974). A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians. Minister of National Health and Welfare. Canada.
Lean, M. E. (2015). Principles of Human Nutrition. Medicine, 43(2), 61-65. Berlin.
Li, K., Deb, K., & Yao, X. (2017). R-Metric: Evaluating the Performance of Preference-Based Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization Using Reference Points. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. U.S. DOI 10.1109/TEVC.2017.273778
Lippard, S. J., & Berg, J. M. (1994). Principles of Bioinorganic Chemistry. University Science Books, Mill Valley. U.S.
Luque, M., Caballero, R., Molina, J., & Ruiz, F. (2007). Equivalent information for multiobjective interactive procedures. Management Science, 53(1), 125-134. U.S.
Luque, M., Miettinen, K., Ruiz, A. B., & Ruiz, F. (2012). A two-slope achievement scalarizing function for interactive multiobjective optimization. Computers & Operations Research, 39(7), 1673-1681. U.S.
McGloin, A. F., Livingstone, M. B. E., Greene, L. C., Webb, S. E., Gibson, J. M. A., Jebb, S. A., Cole, T. J., Coward, W. A., Wright, A., & Prentice, A. M. (2002). Energy and fat intake in obese and lean children at varying risk of obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 26(2), 200-207. London.
Miettinen, K. (1999). Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science (Vol.12). Berlin.
Miettinen, K., Hakanen, J., & Podkopaev, D. (2016). Interactive nonlinear multiobjective optimization approaches. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, 927-976. U.S.
Miettinen, K., & Mäkelä, M. M. (2006). Synchronous approach in interactive multiobjective optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(3), 909-922. London.
Pazirandeh, S., Burns, D., & Griffin, I. (2012). Overview of dietary trace minerals. In UpToDate. Wolters Kluwer Health. U.S.
Prentice, A. M. (2005). Macronutrients as sources of food energy. Public Health Nutrition, 8(7a), 932-939. London.
Reinehr, T., de Sousa, G., Toschke, A. M., & Andler, W. (2006). Long-term follow-up of cardiovascular disease risk factors in children after an obesity intervention. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(3), 490-496. U.S.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2010). Management. Pearson Education, 179-182. London.
Shils, M. E., & Shike, M. (Eds.). (2006). Modern nutrition in health and disease. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. U.S.
Stein, A. J. (2010). Global impacts of human mineral malnutrition. Plant and Soil, 335(1-2), 133-154. Berlin.
Steuer, R. E. (1986). Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application. Willey. New York.
Steuer, R. E., & Choo, E. U. (1983). An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Mathematical Programming, 26(3), 326-344. London.
Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Approaches and applications. CRC Press. U.S.
Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R. A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2016, April). Normalization Techniques for Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Analytical Hierarchy Process Case Study. In Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, 261-269. Springer, Cham. U.S.

Wallenius, J. (1975). Comparative evaluation of some interactive approaches to multicriterion optimization. Management Science, 21(12), 1387-1396. Finland.
WHO, F. (2004). Vitamin and mineral requirements in human nutrition. World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization. Switzerland.
Wierzbicki, A. P. (1982). A mathematical basis for satisficing decision making. Mathematical Modelling, 3(5), 391-405. U.S.
Yoshimi, M., Kuhara, T., Nishimoto, K., Miki, M., & Hiroyasu, T. (2012). Visualization of pareto solutions by spherical self-organizing map and it’s acceleration on a GPU. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 5(3), 129. Kyoto.