請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94688完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 詹瀅潔 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Ying-Chieh Chan | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 彭永椿 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Christian Kurniawan Bambang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-16T17:31:56Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-17 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-08-16 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-08-09 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2009). How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 711-720.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. Anable, J. (2005). ‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or ‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy, 12(1), 65-78. ASEAN Centre for Energy. (2021). Regional Energy Trends Report. Azhar, S. (2011). Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 11(3), 241-252. Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2021). Taiwan Energy Statistics. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). Routledge. Chang, H. (2019). Public Opinion on Electricity Price Hike in Taiwan. Journal of Energy Policy. Chen, T. B. (2015). The role of education in shaping pro-environmental behavior: A study in the Taiwanese context. Environmental Education Research, 21(4), 507-519. Chung, M.-K., Ching, F., & Chen, L.-J. (2022). From participatory sensing to public-private partnership: The development of AirBox project in Taiwan. ACM International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3356250.3360024 Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1-8. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465-480. Dolnicar, S., & Grün, B. (2009). Environmentally friendly behavior: Can heterogeneity among individuals and contexts/environments be harvested for improved sustainable management? Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 693-714. Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 482-524). Greenwood Press. Dupont, D. P. (2004). Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 49(3), 273-286. Energy Star. (2020). Most Efficient 2020 — Washing Machines. Retrieved from https://www.energystar.gov/products/most_efficient/washing_machines Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster Analysis (5th ed.). Wiley. Faruqui, A., & Sergici, S. (2010). Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: A survey of the experimental evidence. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 38(2), 193-225. Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157. Gillingham, K., Newell, R. G., & Palmer, K. (2009). Energy efficiency economics and policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1(1), 597-620. Greenpeace Southeast Asia. (2020). The Impact of Forest Fires in Indonesia. Griesinger, S., et al. (2010). Analysis of the environmental impacts of laundry detergents by means of LCA—a case study in Spain. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(5), 490-498. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic Econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8. Hoerl, A. E., & Kennard, R. W. (1970). Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1), 55-67. Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 677-694. Indonesian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Indonesia Statistical Yearbook. International Energy Agency and United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Global Status Report 2017: Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient buildings and construction sector. International Energy Agency. (2021). Energy Prices Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Sixth Assessment Report. Jessoe, K., & Rapson, D. (2014). Knowledge is (less) power: Experimental evidence from residential energy use. American Economic Review, 104(4), 1417-1438. Kats, G. (2003). Green building costs and financial benefits. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. Koenker, R., & Hallock, K. F. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 143-156. Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2007). Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(1), 1-16. Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583-621. Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50-60. Matisoff, D. C., Noonan, D. S., & Flowers, M. E. (2016). Green buildings: Economics and policies. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 8, 61-75. Moot, D., et al. (2021). Climate-friendly rice: Adoption of AWD in Southeast Asia. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 34(1), 75-92. Morris, C., & Jungjohann, A. (2016). Energy democracy: Germany’s Energiewende to renewables. Springer. NASA. (2022). Global Temperature. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. OECD. (2020). Environmental Performance Reviews: Comparative Analysis. Sapci, O., & Considine, T. (2014). The link between environmental attitudes and energy consumption behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 52, 29-34. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611. Shin, S. (2020). Electricity Consumption and Price Response in Taiwan. Energy Economics. Smith, P., et al. (2008). Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1492), 789-813. Sonenshein, S., DeCelles, K. A., & Dutton, J. E. (2014). It's Not Easy Being Green: The Role of Self-Evaluations in Explaining Support of Environmental Issues. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 7-37. Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72-101. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97. Taipei Times. (2021). Public Response to Electricity Price Adjustments in Taiwan. Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. (2022). Annual Environmental Report. Taiwan National Statistics. (2023). Demographic and Economic Indicators. Taiwan Power Company. (2021). Annual Report. Tan, C., Lee, S., & Gan, W. (2023). Demographic factors influencing environmental choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 89-103. Tan, J., Li, X., & Wang, S. (2023). Demographic and cognitive determinants of willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Environmental Economics, 14(2), 123-134. Tan, X., Liu, S., & Shao, L. (2023). Factors influencing demand for green buildings: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 15(3), 1295. Thomas, C., & Sharp, V. (2013). Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: A review of social norms and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 11-20. Thøgersen, J., & Noblet, C. (2012). Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy, 51, 854-862. Tibebu, T. B., Hittinger, E., Miao, Q., & Williams, E. (2024). Adoption model choice affects the optimal subsidy for residential solar. Energies. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies U.S. Global Change Research Program. (2017). Fourth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 2: Our Changing Climate. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2), 181-197. Wiser, R., & Pickle, S. (1998). Financing investments in renewable energy: the impacts of policy design. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2(4), 361-386. Wood, W., Quinn, J. M., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1281-1297. World Bank. (2022). World Development Indicators. Wu, X., Huang, L., Wang, J., & Zuo, J. (2020). The impact of sustainable practices in hospitals on environmental and health outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120902. Zhang, J., & Dong, H. (2019). Environmental knowledge and willingness to pay for air quality improvements: Evidence from China. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 21(4), 675-699. Zhang, Y., & Dong, Y. (2019). Determinants of willingness to pay for air quality improvements in China: Evidence from household survey data. Environmental Research, 172, 14-21. Zhang, Y., He, M., Zhou, H., & Wang, H. (2019). Benefits of using recycled materials in construction: A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 145, 197-207. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94688 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究探討了台灣與印尼民眾為改善環境條件的支付意願（WTP），並著重於經濟、教育和認知因素對環保行為的影響。透過全面的問卷調查和先進的統計分析，本研究提供了影響居民環境態度和行為的人口統計和認知驅動因素的見解。主要研究結果表明，性別差異顯著，女性表現出更高的支付意願。此外，教育和收入顯著影響印尼的環境承諾，而內在的環境價值在台灣則更具影響力。研究也強調了環境意識和態度在兩國中作為支付意願強烈預測因素的重要性。比較分析強調了在兩國制定提升環境永續性的策略時需要量身定制的必要性。在台灣，應著重提升自我效能感並利用高教育水準來促進對永續實踐的更深入參與。而在印尼，明確的事實資訊和經濟誘因對於彌補環境知識差距和鼓勵對永續改善的投資至關重要。研究也擴展了其探索範圍，建議未來的研究應涉及商業、工業和公共機構，以提供對環境永續性的整體觀點。透過識別環保行為的主要驅動因素和障礙，本研究為政策制定者、教育工作者和環境倡議者提供了製定有干預措施的可行見解，旨在促進節能和永續性。總體而言，本研究不僅為環境經濟學和行為學的學術討論做出了貢獻，也為在不同社會經濟和文化背景下增強永續性努力提供了實用建議。研究結果對制定旨在培養永續文化的政策和策略具有關鍵意義，最終推動台灣和印尼的長期行為改變。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study explores the willingness to pay (WTP) for improved environmental conditions in Taiwan and Indonesia, focusing on the impact of economic, educational, and cognitive factors on pro-environmental behavior. Through comprehensive surveys and advanced statistical analyses, this research provides insights into the demographic and cognitive drivers influencing residents' environmental attitudes and behaviors. Key findings indicate significant gender differences, with women demonstrating higher WTP. Additionally, education and income significantly affect environmental commitments in Indonesia, while intrinsic environmental values are more influential in Taiwan. The study also highlights the critical role of environmental awareness and attitudes as strong predictors of WTP in both countries. The comparative analysis underscores the necessity of tailored strategies to enhance environmental sustainability in both countries. In Taiwan, the focus should be on boosting self-efficacy and leveraging high educational attainment to foster deeper engagement with sustainable practices. In Indonesia, clear, factual information and financial incentives are essential to bridge the gap in environmental knowledge and encourage investment in sustainable improvements. The study extends its exploration beyond residential buildings, proposing future research into commercial, industrial, and public institutions to provide a holistic view of environmental sustainability. By identifying the key drivers and barriers to pro-environmental behavior, this research offers actionable insights for policymakers, educators, and environmental advocates to develop targeted interventions that promote energy conservation and sustainability. Overall, this study not only contributes to the academic discourse on environmental economics and behavior but also provides practical recommendations for enhancing sustainability efforts in diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts. The findings are pivotal for informing policies and strategies aimed at fostering a culture of sustainability, ultimately driving long-term behavioral change in Taiwan and Indonesia. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-08-16T17:31:55Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-08-16T17:31:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents
List of Tables.................iii List of Figures.................iv Acknowledgement.................v Abstract.................vii I. Introduction.................1 1.1. Background.................1 1.2. Building Energy Consumption.................3 1.3. Environmental Trend in Taiwan and Indonesia.................4 1.4. Motivation for the Study.................7 1.5. Research Objective.................10 II. Literature Review.................12 2.1. Value-Action Gap.................12 2.2. Factors that Create the “Gap”.................13 2.3. Environmental Cognition.................15 2.4. Demographic Aspects of Taiwan and Indonesia.................17 2.5. Comparative Analysis Between Taiwan and Indonesia.................18 2.6. Willingness To Pay.................21 2.7. Green Building Demand and Consumer Behavior.................24 2.8. Previous Study on Statistical Analysis.................26 III. Methodology.................31 3.1. Research Framework.................31 3.2. Hypothesis Formulation.................33 3.3. Survey Design and Distribution.................36 3.4. Data Pre-Processing and Cleanup.................38 3.5. Statistical Analysis.................39 IV. Results.................43 4.1. Descriptive Statistics.................43 4.2. Normality Test.................62 4.3. Correlation Analysis.................64 4.4. Multicollinearity Test.................70 4.5. Ridge Regression Analysis.................72 V. Discussion.................87 5.1. Finding Explorations.................87 5.2. Relations between Demographic Factors and WTP.................88 5.3. Relations between Environmental Cognition Factors and WTP.................91 5.4. Relations between Self-Evaluated Knowledge and "Real" Knowledge.................92 5.5. Comparative Analysis of Taiwan and Indonesia.................93 5.6. Potential Scenarios for Stakeholders.................95 5.7. Addressing the Research Objectives and Questions.................100 5.8. Research Limitations.................102 5.9. Future Research Directions.................104 VI. Conclusion.................107 VII. References.................110 Appendix – Survey Questions.................117 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 環保行為 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 環境永續性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 印尼 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 台灣 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 支付意願（WTP） | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | pro-environmental behavior | en |
| dc.subject | Indonesia | en |
| dc.subject | Taiwan | en |
| dc.subject | environmental sustainability | en |
| dc.subject | Willingness to Pay (WTP) | en |
| dc.title | 影響民眾其環境友善支付意願之因子分析：臺灣與印尼之比較研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Analysis of Factors Influencing Residents Intentions Regarding Willingness to Pay for Better Environment: A Comparative Study Between Taiwan and Indonesia | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 謝尚賢;林偲妘 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Shang-Hsien Hsieh;Szu-Yun Lin | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 支付意願（WTP）,環境永續性,環保行為,台灣,印尼, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Willingness to Pay (WTP),environmental sustainability,pro-environmental behavior,Taiwan,Indonesia, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 119 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202403586 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-08-10 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 土木工程學系 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 土木工程學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf | 2.95 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。