請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28319
標題: 碳標籤於消費品市場之潛在需求研究
A Study on the Potential Demand Factors for Carbon Label in Consumer Good Market
作者: 王有利
Wang, Yu-Li
關鍵字: carbon label
碳標籤
willingness to pay
TOBIT model
MFCG
願付價格
TOBIT模型
頻繁使用消費品
出版社: 應用經濟學系所
引用: 一、中文部份 1.王偉勳(1994),「台灣地區汽車廠商訂價與品質關係之分析」,國立中興大學應用經濟學系碩士論文。 2.王家興(1996 ),「吉園圃安全用藥認證蔬菜之經濟效率評估」,國立中興大學應用經濟學研究所碩士論文。 3.江建良(2003),市場調查,台北:普林斯頓國際。 4.吳國卿譯(2008),碳交易,台北:財訊。 5.吳佩瑛、蘇明達(2001),「墾丁國家公園資源經濟效益評估-兼論資源保育之哲學觀與資源價值之內涵」,國家公園學報,第11卷,第1期,第1-29頁。 6.宋欣怡(2001),「民眾就醫選擇資訊的潛在需求研究」,國立台灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所碩士論文。 7.李俊鴻(2005),「洪災風險降低之健康效益評估」,國立中興大學應用經濟學系博士論文。 8.杜采藍(2007),「消費者對有機蔬菜購買認知與行為之研究」,國立中興大學應用經濟學研究所碩士論文。 9.林淑鈴(1999),「我國進出口商匯率風險規避之探討與新金融市場潛在需求之分析」,國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。 10.胡士文(1991),「台灣省肉類與魚介類營養含量及消費者需求之經 濟分析」,國立中興大學農業經濟研究所博士論文。 11.施能仁等(2004),計量經濟,台北:高立。 12.洪慧芳譯(2007),綠色商機:環保節能讓企業賺聰明財,台北:財訊,譯自 Daniel C. Esty等。 13.徐瑢恩(2007),「日本市場對台灣茶葉潛在需求可能性之研究」,國立台灣大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。 14.連子清(2006),「行動付款潛在需求與未來趨勢之探討」,國立台北大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 15.郭信霖、許淑卿(2005),統計學,台北:華立。 16.張永春(2006),「消費者對食品產銷履歷之願付價格研究」,國立中學大學應用經濟學系碩士論文。 17.張麗卿(2008),化妝品好壞知多少,台北:聯經。 18.陸雲(1990),「環境資源估價之研究-非市場估價法」,經濟論文,第18期,第1卷,第93-129頁。 19.陳明健(2003)主編,自然資源與環保經濟學,台北:雙葉。 20.陳麗婷(1997),「台灣有機蔬菜願付價格與消費決策之研究」,國立中興大學應用經濟學研究所碩士論文。 21.彭克仲、陳姿萍 (2004),「台灣即飲咖啡特徵價格之研究」,農業經濟半年刊,第75期,2004年6月。 22.蔡孟航(1997),「台灣乳品特徵價格之研究」,國立中興大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。 23.楊明憲(1998),個體經濟學,台中:滄海。 24.葉美秀(2008),「養禽業者風險趨避程度對疾病保險参與決策之反應分析」,國立中興大學應用經濟系碩士論文。 25.楊新怡(1998),「台灣雞蛋特徵價格之研究」,國立中興大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。 26.楊曉惠(2006),「男性臉部保養品之消費者生活型態區隔研究」,中原大學商業設計研究所碩士論文。 27.劉錦添、劉錦龍(1987),「台灣地區男女工資率的差異」,中國經濟學會年會論文。 28.劉人瑞(2002),「網路資料中心客戶潛在需求與滿意度之研究」,國立中山大學資料管理研究所碩士論文。 29.鄭志忠(1993), 「台灣地區汽車享用價格函數之推估」,逢甲大學經濟研究所碩士論文。 30.實力媒體(2003),廣告雜誌,第161期,第62-65頁。 31.蕭代基、鄭蕙燕、吳珮瑛、錢玉蘭、溫麗琪等(2002),環境保護之成本效益分析:理論、方法與應用,台北:俊傑。 32.蘇昭維(2002),「多種土地使用型態下停車需求與供給之分析-以台中市西區為例」,逢甲大學交通工程與管理研究所碩士論文。 二、網路資源 1.台灣環境資訊協會,2008年7月28日。 http://e-info.org.tw// 2.低碳生活部落格2008年9月15日。 http://lowestc.blogspot.com// 3.林金雀(2004),我國化妝保養品市場產業發展現況 ,2008年10月2日。http://www.itis.org.tw// 4.東安琪拉大學氣候研究網站,2008年10月11日。http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cut/info/warming// 5.碳信託網站,2008年11月17日。 http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/carbon/briefing/pre-measurement.htm// 6.遠見雜誌-全國第一 Web 2.0財經網,2008年10月4日。http://www.gvm.com.tw// 三、英文部份 1. Aira Virtala, Irma Virjo,(2005), “Consultations concerning contraception and induced abortions among university students-trends in Finland 1986-2003. ”Contraception,72:pp.372-376 2. Barner, Branvold,(2005), “Patients’willingness to pay for pharmacist-provided menopause and hormone replacement therapy. ”Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 1:pp77-100. 3. Boland, W.A.,P.V. Preckel, and A.P. Schinckel ,(1993), “Optimal Hog Slaughter Weights under Alternative Pricing System.”Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 25:pp.148-163. 4. Bowker, K. J., and J. R. Stoll,(1988),“Use of Dichotomous Choice Non Market Method to Value the Whooping Crane Resource.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics70:pp.372-381. 5. Becker, G.,(1965), “A Theory on the Allocation of Time.”Economic Journal. 75:pp.493-517 6.Box, G.E.P. and D.R. Cox,(1964), “An Analysis of Transformation.”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.Series B,26:pp.211-243. 7.Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V.,(1947), “Capital Returns from Soil-conservation Practices.” Journal of Farm Economics,29:pp.1181-1196. 8.Court, A.T.,(1939), “Hedonic Price Indexes with Automobile Examples.”The Dynamics of Automobile Demand. pp.99-117. 9.Davis, R. K.,(1963), “Recreational Planning as An Economics Problem.”Natural Resource Journal,3:pp.239-249 10.Feenstra, R.C.,(1988), “Quality Change Under Trade Restraints in Japanese Autos.”Quarterly Journal of Economics,103:pp.131-146. 11.Hanemann, W. M.,(1984), “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics,66:pp.332-341. 12.Hanemann, W. M., J.Loomis and B. Kanninen,(1991) “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73:pp.1255-1263. 13.Hogarty, T..F .,(1975), “Price-Quality Relation for Automobiles:A New Approach.”Applied Economics, 7:pp.41-51. 14.Houthakker, H.S.,(1952), “Compensated Changes in Quantities and Qualities Consumed.”Review of Economic Studies, 19:pp.155-164. 15.Johnson, B.K. and J.C. Whitehead,(2000), “Value of Public Goods from Sport Stadiums: The CVM Approach. ”Contemporary Economic Policy.18:pp.48-58. 16.Jorden, J.L., R.L. Shewfelt, S.E. Prussia and W.C. Hurst,(1985), “Estimating Lmplicit Marginal Price of Quality Characteristics of Tomatoes.”Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. 17:pp.139-146. 17.Kolter,P. and G.Armstrong,(2001), “Principle of Marketing. ”9th ed. PrenticeHall. 18.Ladd, G. and V. Suvannunt,(1976), “A Model of Cosumer Goods Characteristics.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 58:pp.504-510. 19.Lancaster, K.,(1966), “A new Approach to Cosumer Theory.”Journal of Political Economics. 74:pp.132-157. 20.Loureiro, M. L. and S. Hine,(2004),“Preferences and willingness to Pay for GM Labeling Policies.”Food Policy,29:pp.467-483. 21.Lucas, R. B.,(1975), “Hedonic Prices Function.”Economic Inquiry. 13:pp.157-158. 22.Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson,(1989), “Using Survey to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method.”Washington, D. C. 23.Pindyck, S. Robert ,Daniel L. Rubinfeld, and Winston, T. H. Koh,(2006), “Microecomics: An Asian Perspective. ”Singapore: Prentice Hall.pp.127-152. 24.Penny M. Simpson,(2003), “Marketing:best practices.”Australia,Mason,Ohio:Thomson/South-Western. 25.Randall, A. and J. Stoll,(1980),“Consumers Surplus in Commodity Space.”American Economic Review, 70:pp.449-455. 26.Rosen, S.,(1974), “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets :Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.”Journal of Political Economics. 82:pp.34-55. 27.Tronstad, R., L.S. Hutheofer and E. Monke,(1992), “Market Windows and Hedonic Price Analyses : An Application to the Apple Industry.”Western Journal of Agricultural Economics. 17:pp.314-322. 28.Wahl, T.I. , H. Shi, and R.C. Mittelhammer,(1995), “A Hedonic Price Analysis of Quality Characteristics of Japanese Wagyu Beef.”Agribusiness. 11:pp.35-44. 29.Waugh, F.V.,(1929), “Quality Factors Influencing Vegetable Prices.”Journal of Farm Economics. 10:pp.185-196.
摘要: 本研究利用Tobit 迴歸分析,以民眾頻繁使用的洗面乳產品,對於商品加註碳標籤後民眾的願付價格反應進行瞭解。基於現階段我國尚無「碳標籤」市場交易機制,因此本文採用條件評估法,透過支付卡與問卷調查方式研究其決價過程。問卷調查於2009年5月至6月間在台灣幾處都會地區進行後,共取得436份有效問卷。主要實證結果說明如下: 一、 受訪者對於近世紀以來,人類不斷過渡排放溫室氣體,尤其是二氧化碳,以致氣候變遷、全球災難不斷均有高度認知。 二、 在對於100元洗面乳商品的願付價格影響變數中,以「教育程度」、「自我認知」及「環保犠牲意願」呈現顯著正向關係;而「年齡」、「個人所得」及「自我風險與評估」則為顯著負向相關。 三、 影響受訪者在每次購買洗面乳的願付價格變數中,以「自我認知」、「環保犠牲意願」及「商品價格」呈現顯著正向關係;而「年齡」、「自我風險與評估」、「購買地點」及「購買因素」則為顯著負向相關。 四、 在影響受訪者對碳標籤標示願付價格水準高低程度的變數中,以「商品價格」及「環保犠牲意願」呈現顯著正向關係,而「個人所得」、「自我風險與評估」、「自我認知」、「購買地點」及「購買因素」則為顯著負向相關。 五、 依據Tobit 迴歸估計結果顯示,受訪者對於100元之洗面乳,其碳標籤之平均願付價格(WTP1)為 13.61元;在每次購買洗面乳時,其對碳標籤的願付價格(WTP2)為 11.57元;另外,在對碳標籤標示的政策偏好上,受訪者大多偏好強制性標示,而贊成自願性標示的人則較少。在每次購買時,願意為自己所選擇的政策(WTP3)支付7.09元。依此三種不同條件下,台灣地區洗面乳碳標籤的建置效益估計,分別約為新台幣 2.74億元、1.66億元及1.02億元。 六、 由結果而言,受訪者資料支持政府環保主管機關施行對相關商品加註碳標籤的政策,因此如何建立一個易於辨識的驗證系統,將有助於相關政策的永續執行。對企業而言,問卷統計結果亦顯示受訪者對於商品加註碳標籤的接受程度頗高,並且願意在環保意識下為碳標籤的標示,支付一定費用。因此企業應正視這一消費潮流,進而發展相關商品策略,提升企業形象。
This paper examines and measures the degree of the willingness to pay with the TOBIT model for the Carbon Label on facial cleaner - one of the most frequent consumer goods (MFCG). Due to the lack of actual implementation for the Carbon Label, the contingent valuation method (CVM), which coped up with payment cards method, was applied to elicit the willingness-to-pay level by interviewing 436 consumers from major Taiwanese metropolitan regions during May and June of 2009. Main empirical results are listed as follows: 1. The interviewee perceived high risks by excessive emission of green house gas, especially, on carbon dioxide, which caused climate change and mess devastation around globe. 2. The degree of WTP for each interviewee on per NT$100 to spend on facial cleaning product were correlated significantly positive with the following variables, say “education”, “self-reorganization” and “sacrifice for environment preservation,” but the coefficients for “age”, “income” and “self-valuation” were negative. 3. The degree of WTP of interviewee for purchasing facial cleaning products with carbon label were positive and significant for the coefficients on “self-confidence”, “sacrifice for environment preservation” and “price of product,” but “age”, “self-valuation”, “purchasing place” and “purchasing reason” were negative with statistical significance. 4. Survey result showed that the WTP for different policies for mandatory or voluntary labeling were diverted, “price of product” and “sacrifice for environment preservation” were positive and significantly differ from zero to the pricing decision. On the other side, the coefficients on “income”, “self-valuation”, “self-confidence”, “location concern” and “concerns for purchasing” were negative with statistical significance to the WTP pricing decision. 5. Based on the TOBIT regression estimation, this study calculated the three levels for WTP on carbon label for an interviewee under different conditions are: NT$ 13.61 for each hundred dollars facial cleaner spending, NT$ 11.57 for every facial cleaner purchasing, and NT$ 7.09 for the carbon labeling policy. Next, the total economical benefits in three distinct conditions are NT$ 274 million, 166 million, and 102 million, separately. 6. Major statistical results showed that the carbon labeling policy is acceptable and workable. Furthermore, the policy can be assured if a workable certification system for labeling under the manageable enforcement with public assistance is established. To enterprises, carbon label on product was highly accepted and was willing to pay certain amount by the interviewed customers. Therefore, enterprises should recognize this trend in consumers' behavior by adopting positive market strategies on industrial reputation.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28319
其他識別: U0005-1808200914043900
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1808200914043900
顯示於類別:應用經濟學系

文件中的檔案:
沒有與此文件相關的檔案。


在 DSpace 系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。