(54.236.62.49) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/06 11:25
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:夏靖喬
研究生(外文):HSIA,CHING-CHIAO
論文名稱:以計畫行為理論探討民眾捐贈物資的意圖與行為之研究 —以食物銀行為例
論文名稱(外文):Exploring People Intentions and Behaviors of Donated Materials based on The Theory of Planned Behavior - A Case Study of Food Bank
指導教授:陳珍珍陳珍珍引用關係
指導教授(外文):CHEN,CHEN-CHENG
口試委員:陳珍珍楊大輝李恒綺沈宗緯
口試委員(外文):CHEN,CHEN-CHENGYANG,TA-HUILEE, HENG-CHISHEN,CHUNG-WEI
口試日期:2020-05-20
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄科技大學
系所名稱:運籌管理系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:行銷與流通學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2020
畢業學年度:108
語文別:中文
論文頁數:70
中文關鍵詞:計畫行為理論捐贈結構方程式食物銀行
外文關鍵詞:TPBDonationSEMFood bank
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:98
  • 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:11
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
台灣每年糧食總損耗約147萬噸,足以讓25萬名低收入戶,吃上34年的便當,雖然2016通過《食物銀行法》欲解決資源分配不均的問題,但還是存在飢餓人口等問題。由於法案僅針對政府機關、學校、部隊、公營事業募集多餘物資,一般民眾不知道如何將多餘物資做捐贈,因此民間機構的食物銀行既可解決民眾問題,更可達到減少浪費的目的。

本研究為了解民眾捐贈給食物銀行的動機,以計畫行為理論作為研究架構,採用問卷調查法的方式收集數據,再以SPSS進行基本資料分析、可靠性分析、獨立樣本t檢定及單因子變異數分析、相關分析,最後再以AMOS進行結構方程模式分析。研究結果顯示,三個構面對捐贈意圖都有顯著影響。其中,知覺行為控制對行為意圖有最高正向的顯著影響,次之為主觀規範,影響最不顯著的為態度。由此可知,在捐贈意圖上,有足夠的能力是影響捐贈意圖的關鍵因素。

The total number of food wastage is about 1.47 million tons per year in Taiwan. This amount is enough to provide lunches to 250,000 low-income households for 34 years. In order to solve the problem of uneven distribution of resources, the Food Bank Law was passed in 2016 but there are still people starving. Most people do not know how to donate the surplus materials, because the bill only collects surplus materials from government agencies, schools, troops, and public utilities. However, the food banks of private institutions can not only collect surplus form the Public but also reduce the food.wastage.

In order to explores the Public’s donating motives for food bank, this study utilized the theory of planned behavior as the research framework, collects data by questionnaires, and finally employed SPSS to analyze by reliability analysis, independent sample t test and Analysis of Variance, Pearson’s correlation analysis, and SEM. The results of the study shows that the three constructs have a significant impact on donation intentions. Among them, perceived behavioral control is the most significant influence on behavior intention. Subjective norm is the second significant influence on behavior intention. Attitude is the least significant on behavior intention. According to that, sufficient ability is the key factor which could affect people’s donation intention.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 v
圖目錄 vi
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
第二章 文獻探討 3
2.1 食物銀行意涵 3
2.2 捐贈動機 14
2.3 計畫行為理論 19
2.4 歸納小結 23
第三章 研究方法 25
3.1 研究方法 25
3.2 問卷設計 25
3.3 數據分析 29
第四章 研究結果 33
4.1 基本資料分析 33
4.2 可靠性分析 36
4.3 變異數分析 38
4.4 相關分析 41
4.5 結構方程模式分析 42
4.6 本章總結 51
第五章 結論與建議 52
參考文獻 54
附錄一 59


1.Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
2.Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Journal of applied social psychology,32(4),665-683
3.Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of public Economics, 88(7-8), 1605-1623.
4.Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12), 1035-1054.
5.Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 40(5), 924-973.
6.Breeze, B. (2010). How Donors Choose Charities: Findings of a study of donor perceptions of the nature and distribution of charitable benefit: Alliance Publishing Trust. Alliance Publishing Trust, 2010
7.CARITAS, I. (2011). Brauchen wir Tafeln, Suppenküchen und Kleiderkammern. Hilfen zwischen Sozialstaat und Barmherzigkeit, Freiburg, Fourth edition
8.Carlson, R. W., & Zaki, J. (2018). Good deeds gone bad: Lay theories of altruism and selfishness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 36-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.005
9.Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 453-461.
10.Grell, B. (2010). Feeding America and the World Kritik der Tafeln in Deutschland (pp. 129-146): Springer.
11.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey. humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
12.Hu, A. (2014). Gifts of money and gifts of time: Folk religion and civic involvement in a Chinese society. Review of Religious Research, 56(2), 313-335.
13.Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774-1793.
14.Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling: psychology press.
15.MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193-210.
16.Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 391.
17.Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural equation modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
18.Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological bulletin, 97(3), 562.
19.Marshall, D. W. (1995). Food choice and the consumer: Springer Science & Business Media.
20.McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological methods, 7(1), 64.
21.Parsons, L. M. (2003). Is accounting information from nonprofit organizations useful to donors? A review of charitable giving and value-relevance. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 104.
22.Parsons, L. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures on contributions to not-for-profit organizations. Behavioral research in accounting, 19(1), 179-196.
23.Poppendieck, J. (1999). Sweet charity?: Emergency food and the end of entitlement: Penguin.
24.Quested, T. E., Parry, A., Easteal, S., & Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from households in the UK. Nutrition Bulletin, 36(4), 460-467.
25.Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155-165.
26.Scharf, K., & Smith, S. (2016). Relational altruism and giving in social groups. Journal of public Economics, 141, 1-10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.06.001
27.Selke, S. Hg.)(2009): Tafeln in Deutschland. Aspekte einer sozialen Bewegung zwischen Nahrungsmittelumverteilung und Armutsintervention: Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
28.Selke, S. (2013). Schamland: Die Armut mitten unter uns: Ullstein eBooks.
29.Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386.
30.Trimmel, M., Lattacher, H., & Janda, M. (2005). Voluntary whole-blood donors, and compensated platelet donors and plasma donors: Motivation to donate, altruism and aggression. Transfusion and Apheresis Science, 33(2), 147-155. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2005.03.011
31.Turner, J. C. (2010). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior.
32.van der Horst, H., Pascucci, S., & Bol, W. (2014). The “dark side” of food banks? Exploring emotional responses of food bank receivers in the Netherlands. British Food Journal, 116(9), 1506-1520.
33.Vlaholias, E., Thompson, K., Every, D., & Dawson, D. (2015). Charity starts… at work? Conceptual foundations for research with businesses that donate to food redistribution organisations. Sustainability, 7(6), 7997-8021.
34.Ye, N., Teng, L., Yu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). “What's in it for me?”: The effect of donation outcomes on donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 480-486. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.015

中文文獻
1.林江亮. (2009). 資訊透明度對捐款收入影響之實證研究-以臺灣公益團體爲例. 經濟研究, 45(1), 65-102.
2.林辰晏. (2017). 大臺北地區民眾對非營利組織捐款行為與幸福感之相關研究. , 中國文化大學生活應用科學系碩士在職專班碩士論文, 台北市.
3.林鴻文. (2013). 以計畫行為理論探討影響消費者購買非營利組織產品決定因素. 臺北大學企業管理學系學位論文, 1-111.
4.邱家淮. (2005). 影響非營利組織捐款人行為關鍵因素之研究: 從計劃行為理論 (TPB) 之觀點探討.中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,1-128
5.邱皓政. (2011). 結構方程模式: LISREL 的理論. 技術與應用: 雙葉書廊.
6.洪偉誠(2019). 以計畫行為理論探討消費者參與抵制企業的意圖與行為之研究.國立高雄科技大學運籌管理所碩士論文,1-87
7.馬彩瑛. (2015). 從協力創新觀點探討臺中市愛心食物銀行之運作. 國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文,1-275
8.許崇源. (2001). 我國非營利組織責任及透明度提升之研究—德爾菲法之應用: 中山管理評論,9(4),541-566
9.郭彰仁, 楊明青, 許亦萱, & 劉盈嬋. (2018). 以計畫行為理論建構遊客臉書炫耀性打卡行為模式之研究. 戶外遊憩研究, 31(4), 31-62.
10.陳湘晴. (2014). 政府與非營利組織之協力關係: 以台中市政府愛心食物銀行為例. 臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系學位論文, 1-175.
11.黃全慶. (2015). 邁向多元化、去標籤化的食物銀行. 社區發展季刊, 150, 264-274.
12.黃芳銘. (2007). 結構方程模式: 理論與應用 (五版). 台北: 五南.
13.黃馨儀, & 王瑞霞. (2016). 影響學齡前兒童父母高熱量飲食餵養行為因素之探討-計畫行為理論之應用. 長庚護理, 27(2), 167-179.
14.練安倢. (2011). 個體捐款者捐款決策之探究: 以勵馨基金會中區辦事處之捐款人為例. 東海大學社會工作學系碩士論文,1-159
15.賴麗惠. (2015). 應用計畫行為理論探索知識工作者參與無酬社會服務行為之影響因素研究-以工業技術研究院為例. 成功大學老年學研究所學位論文, 1-84.
網路文獻
1、美國食物券計畫的便民措施與實施成效(2014)。陳雅琴。取自
file:///C:/Users/%E6%88%91%E6%98%AF%E5%B0%8F%E8%B1%AC/Downloads/%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E9%A3%9F%E7%89%A9%E5%88%B8%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB%E7%9A%84%E4%BE%BF%E6%B0%91%E6%8E%AA%E6%96%BD%E8%88%87%E5%AF%A6%E6%96%BD%E6%88%90%E6%95%88(200306)%E3%80%80.pdf
2、台灣剩食之旅(2013)。天下雜誌製作。取自https://viewpoint.pts.org.tw/ptsdoc_video/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E5%89%A9%E9%A3%9F%E4%B9%8B%E6%97%85/
3、剩食中的希望——食物銀行(2016-3-24) 台灣國際農業學生協會 IAAS-Taiwan。取自https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/83319/
4、40家食物銀行成立聯合會 分享食物分享愛(2016/12/30)。中時。取自
https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20161230006180-260405?chdtv
5、領取社會救助,好難!(2017-04-23 10:17)。自由評論網。取自
https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/2044982
6、公糧持續扶助弱勢 供應量連續三年正成長(2019-09-11) 。農糧署糧食儲運組。取自https://www.afa.gov.tw/cht/index.php?code=list&flag=detail&ids=113&article_id=45497
7、1919食物銀行 ─2018年年度分析報告(2019-4)。1919食物銀行。取自
http://www.ccra.org.tw//uploads/epaper/foodbank/2018%E5%B9%B41919%E9%A3%9F%E7%89%A9%E9%8A%80%E8%A1%8C%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A0521.pdf
8、便利做公益!超商ibon認捐民生物資 幫助邊緣戶(2018-06-21)。聯合報。取自
https://udn.com/news/story/7266/3209142
9、「溫暖大臺南~實物愛心銀行」臺南市各據點接受物資捐贈情形彙整
(2015/8/13)。台南市社會局。取自
https://social.tainan.gov.tw/social/cenpage.asp?id=046BA0D8-9CF4-43CA-A666-87B2784A6EAE
10、從台灣到英國 全球共同對抗食物浪費(2019-01-20)。環境資訊中心。取自
https://e-info.org.tw/taxonomy/term/42516
11、價值鏈上的糧食損耗與浪費(107/10/17)。台灣農業故事館。取自
https://theme.coa.gov.tw/storyboard.php?type=c&web=C&id=409
12、PK實物給付專章 《食物銀行法》草案詳細解析(2018-05-16)。社區力點線面。取自https://ms-community.azurewebsites.net/foodbank_20180516_1/
13、實物給付協助弱勢民眾及學校弱勢學生用餐(108-01-31)。內政衛福勞動處。取自https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/78430c13-d177-44f2-8cfe-6d0ffabb84ab
14、廢棄物清理法(106 年 06 月 14 日)。行政院環境保護署。取自
https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=O0050001

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔