請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/95713完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 何率慈 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Shuay-Tsyr Ho | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 張睿恩 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Rui-En Chang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-09-15T16:56:12Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-09-16 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-09-15 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-08-07 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
Ipsos（2020）。《打敗傳統電視，異軍突起的串流影音平台! 》。取自https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2020-12/n131_msu_the_streaming_wars_post_covid_1.pdf 資誠聯合會計師事務所（PwC）（2023）。《2023 全球與臺灣娛樂暨媒體業展望報告》。取自https://www.pwc.tw/zh/publications/global-insights/2023-outlook.html 國家傳播通訊委員會（2023）。《112 通訊傳播市場報告》。取自https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/23122/5023_49716_231228_1.pdf 資誠聯合會計師事務所（PwC）（2024）。《2024消費者之聲調查》。取自https://www.pwc.tw/zh/publications/global-insights/voice-of-the-consumer-survey.html 吳俊賢，林俊成，王培蓉，陳溢宏與吳孟珊（2014）。 臺灣綠色消費產業之探討-消費者對森林驗證衛生紙願付價格溢價之研究。林業研究季刊，36(1)，17-27。 董時叡，廖苑君與蔡嫦娟（2016）。消費者對在地有機農產品願付溢價之研究。農業推廣文彙， 129-139。 薛伊評、李明聰（2014）。高雄市消費者對有機咖啡的願付價格之探討。觀光與休閒管理期刊，2()，251-272。https://doi.org/10.6510/JTLM.2(S).21 蕭傑諭、王溥琳（2022）。臺鐵旅運者之服務水準選擇與願支付價格研究。運輸計劃季刊，51(3)，169-194。 戚永年與許慧苓（2001）。 新環境典範自環境態度分析上之應用。臺灣林業，27(4)，47-53。 張春興（1992）。社會變遷與青少年問題-臺灣地區事實的觀察與分析。教育心理學報，(25)，1-12。 侯錦雄與郭彰仁（1998）。公園遊客之環境態度與不當行爲管理策略認同之關係。戶外遊憩研究，11(4)，17-42。 李永展（1991）。環境態度與保育行為之研究: 美國文獻回顧與概念模式之發展。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，(6)，73-90。 張怡萱，林喻東，鄧書麟與劉癸君（2011）。新環境典範態度與負責任親環境行為關係之探討—以嘉義樹木園的遊客為例。林業研究季刊，33(2)，13-27。 Gupta, G., & Singharia, K. (2021). Consumption of OTT Media Streaming in COVID-19 Lockdown: Insights from PLS Analysis. Vision, 25(1), 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262921989118 The Shift Project (2019). Climate crisis: The unsustainable use of online video. https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/unsustainable-use-online-video/ International Energy Agency (2020). The carbon footprint of streaming video: fact-checking the headlines. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines Carbon Trust (2021). Carbon Impact if Video Streaming. https://www.carbontrust.com/our-work-and-impact/guides-reports-and-tools/carbon-impact-of-video-streaming Intergovernmental Panel on Climare Change (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ NETFLIX (2021). Environmental Social Governance 2020. https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_downloads/2021/03/2020-SASB-Report_FINAL.pdf Bell, M. L., & Emory, C. W. (1971). The Faltering Marketing Concept. Journal of Marketing, 35(4), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297103500407 Kotler, P. (1976). Marketing management: analysis, planning, and control. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. McDaniel, S. W., & Rylander, D. H. (1993). Strategic green marketing. Journal of consumer marketing, 10(3), 4-10. Kapelianis, D., & Strachan, S. (1996). The price premium of an environmentally friendly product. South African Journal of Business Management, 27(4), 89-95. Hirshleifer, D. (1988). Residual risk, trading costs, and commodity futures risk premia. The Review of Financial Studies, 1(2), 173-193. Casado-Díaz, A. B., Sellers-Rubio, R., Rodriguez-Sanchez, C., & Sancho-Esper, F. (2020). Predictors of willingness to pay a price premium for hotels’ water-saving initiatives. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(7), 773-784. Xu, B., Ahmad, S., Charles, V., & Xuan, J. (2022). Sustainable commercial aviation: What determines air travellers’ willingness to pay more for sustainable aviation fuel?. Journal of cleaner production, 374, 133990. Carpio, C. E., & Isengildina‐Massa, O. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown products: The case of South Carolina. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 25(3), 412-426. Joung, S. H., Park, S. W., and Ko, Y. J. (2014). Willingness to pay for eco-friendly products. Asia Marketing Journal, 15(4), Article 2. Min, S. H., Lim, S. Y., & Yoo, S. H. (2017). Consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for eco-labeled LED TVs in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Sustainability, 9(5), 814. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of farm economics, 29(4), 1181-1196. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development. Loomis, J. B., & Walsh R. G. (1997). Recreation Economic Decisions; Comparing Benefits and Costs (No. Ed. 2). Venture Publishing Inc. Carson, R. T., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(5), 1263-1267. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180348 Hanemann, W.M. (1984), Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800 Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double‐bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American journal of agricultural economics, 73(4), 1255-1263. Whitmarsh, L., & Capstick, S. (2018). Perceptions of climate change. In S. Clayton & C. Manning (Eds.), Psychology and climate change: Human perceptions, impacts, and responses (pp. 13–33). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813130-5.00002-3 van Baal, K., Stiel, S., & Schulte, P. (2023). Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Health-A Cross-Sectional Survey Study. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(2), 1464. https:/ doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021464 Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., & Cutler, M. (2017). Climate change in the American mind: May 2017. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear Won’t Do It”: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201 Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Seyfang, Gill & O’Neill, Saffron. (2011). Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’?. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 56-65. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.011. Basannagari B, Kala CP. (2013). Climate Change and Apple Farming in Indian Himalayas: A Study of Local Perceptions and Responses. PLOS ONE 8(10), e77976.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077976 Sánchez-Cortés, M.S., Chavero, E.L. (2011). Indigenous perception of changes in climate variability and its relationship with agriculture in a Zoque community of Chiapas, Mexico. Climatic Change 107, 363–389 Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C. & Hmielowski, J. (2012). Extreme Weather, Climate & Preparedness in the American Mind. 10.13140/RG.2.2.26022.52809. Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic change, 77(1), 45-72. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy sciences, 9, 127-152. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(4), 616-632. Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk analysis, 33(6), 1049-1065. Menny, C., Osberghaus, D., Pohl, M., & Werner, U. (2011). General knowledge about climate change, factors influencing risk perception and willingness to insure. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, (11-060). Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(1), 31-42. Heberlein, T. A. (1989). Attitudes and environmental management. Journal of Social Issues, 45(1), 37-57. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. The journal of environmental education, 9(4), 10-19. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442. 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. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(3), 309-317. Mesmer-Magnus, J., Viswesvaran, C., & Wiernik, B. M. (2012). The role of commitment in bridging the gap between organizational sustainability and environmental sustainability. In S. E. Jackson, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability 155–186. Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Tian, H., & Liu, X. (2022). Pro-environmental behavior research: Theoretical progress and future directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6721. Hungerford, H. R., & Peyton, R. B. (1977). A Paradigm of Environmental Action. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998) Factorial analysis. Multivariate Data Analysis. Fifth edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/95713 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 影音串流平台（Video Streaming）改變了人們看影片的行為，近年來在臺灣可以看到越來越多通信業、影視龍頭業者等爭相發展出自有串流影音平台。然而永續發展議題在世界各地受到越來越多關注，影音串流平台的碳排放、環境治理也受到熱議。對此，NETFLIX積極制定計畫，致力於減少內部碳排、投資相關計畫以及生態系統的重建，落實淨零碳排。隨著NETFLIX朝向永續的方向發展，訂閱者是否願意為了NETFLIX的環境行動，支付溢價以減少環境成本，為本研究目的。本研究運用條件評估法設計問卷，加入雙界二元選擇模型與三界二元選擇模型進行實證分析，並探討環境感知、環境態度、科技接受變數以及社會人口變數等，是否對於NETFLIX環境願付溢價造成影響。研究總體結果發現，雙界二元選擇模型估計之溢價為14.128%，三界二元選擇模型估計之溢價為13.683%。其中，科技接受變數對於溢價有顯著正向影響；另發現當性別為男性，對於願付溢價亦有正向影響；月收入為10000~15000元之群組之願付溢價顯著較高。比較雙界二元選擇模型與三界二元選擇模型，發現後者估計的係數以及整體模型有較高顯著性，且估計之溢價結果與標準差整體較小。但並非所有情況都有一致的結果，仍需評估受試者的填答狀況、變異程度與樣本數量。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Video streaming platforms have changed the way people watch videos. More and more telecom companies and film industry are developing their own streaming platforms. Meanwhile, there is an increasing focus on sustainability issues worldwide. Carbon emissions and environmental governance of video streaming platforms are also widely discussed. In this regard, NETFLIX has actively formulated plans to reduce internal carbon emissions, invest in related projects, and restore the ecosystem to realize net-zero emissions. As NETFLIX moves towards sustainability, this study aims to explore whether subscribers are willing to pay a premium to support NETFLIX’s action and reduce environmental costs. This study utilizes the contingent valuation method to conduct a survey, incorporating double-bounded dichotomous choice and triple-bounded dichotomous choice models for empirical analysis. It also examines whether variables such as environmental perception, environmental attitude, technology acceptance, and socio-demographic factors affect the willingness to pay a premium for NETFLIX's environmental efforts. The overall results of the study found that the estimated premium was 14.128% using the double-bounded dichotomous choice model and 13.683% using the triple-bounded dichotomous choice model. Technology acceptance variables had a significant positive impact on the willingness to pay a premium. Additionally, it is found that males have a positive impact on the willingness to pay a premium; the group with a monthly income of 10,000 to 15,000 NTD shows significantly higher willingness to pay a premium. Comparing the double-bounded dichotomous choice model and the triple-bounded dichotomous choice model, the latter showed higher significance in estimated coefficients and smaller overall premium estimates and standard deviations than the former. However, the results were not consistent in all cases, and it remains necessary to assess respondents' answering conditions, variability, and sample size. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-09-15T16:56:12Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-09-15T16:56:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目次
謝辭 i 摘要 ii Abstract iii 目次 v 表次 vi 圖次 vii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究目的 5 第二章 文獻回顧 6 第一節 願付溢價 6 第二節 條件評估法 10 第三節 環境感知、環境態度與親環境行為 12 第三章 研究方法 18 第一節 理論模型 18 第二節 問卷設計 22 第四章 研究結果 27 第一節 敘述性統計 27 第二節 實證結果 39 第五章 結論與建議 51 第一節 研究結論 51 第二節 綜合討論 56 參考文獻 58 附錄一 問卷調查表 66 附錄二 信效度分析 77 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.title | NETFLIX訂閱者對環境成本願付溢價之實證研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Empirical evidence from the willingness-to-pay premiums of NETFLIX subscribers in response to the environmental cost | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陸怡蕙;胡明哲 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yir-Hueih Luh;Ming-Che Hu | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 願付溢價,影音串流平台,NETFLIX,條件評估法,實證分析, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Willingness to Pay a Premium,Video Streaming Platforms,NETFLIX,Contingent Valuation Method,Empirical Analysis, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 78 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202402826 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-08-09 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 農業經濟學系 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 農業經濟學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf | 2.29 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。