淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1501202014341600
中文論文名稱 以「社會價值創造」為考量之短距運輸服務系統效益評估研究:以公共自行車系統為例
英文論文名稱 A Social Value Oriented Evaluation Model for Assessing the Benefit of Micro-mobility Transportation Service System : Using Public Bike System as Case Study
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 運輸管理學系運輸科學碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Transportation Management
學年度 108
學期 1
出版年 109
研究生中文姓名 簡安耘
研究生英文姓名 An-Yun Jean
學號 606660032
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2019-12-25
論文頁數 165頁
口試委員 指導教授-許超澤
委員-王中允
委員-劉建浩
委員-許超澤
中文關鍵字 短距運輸服務系統  社會價值  效益評估  修正式社會投資報酬 
英文關鍵字 Micro-mobility Transportation Service System  Social Value  Benefit Assessing  Modified Social Return on Investment 
學科別分類
中文摘要 隨著全球永續思潮的興起,各國政府導入短距運輸服務系統以完善整體公共運輸路網。由於政府財政預算有限,全球各大城市的短距運輸服務系統大多是公辦民營或私人企業,但私部門的營利理念與公部門期望的目標不同,容易對社會帶來非預期影響,因此評估導入短距運輸服務系統對社會帶來的影響效益已成為重要的研究課題。傳統評估的方法為成本效益分析,只注重財務層面的衡量,因而許多研究採用社會成本效益分析,進行財務、社會與環境層面的評估,但此研究方法是以單一價值作為考量,難以落實真正的社會價值評估,為此本研究運用社會投資報酬,以利益相關者為考量進行標準化評估。然而傳統社會投資報酬的部分程序過於主觀,且忽略成果的重要程度並非相等,故而本研究提出結合修正式德爾菲法與最佳最差法的修正式社會投資報酬,提升傳統社會投資報酬的政策評估功能,並以公共自行車系統的有樁式自行車(YouBike)與無樁式自行車(oBike)為研究對象。
修正式社會投資報酬運用修正式德爾菲法,快速收斂所有成果,有效評選出導入公共自行車系統所帶來的重要成果,並利用最佳最差法,以較少的成對比較數,得到高一致性的重要成果權重,接著導入修正式德爾菲法,得到客觀評定的影響因子百分比。本研究利用修正式社會投資報酬的標準化流程,期望能有效提高成本所帶來的效益,並探討產業界、學術界與公部門重視的導入公共自行車系統產生之社會影響差異與原因。
研究結果顯示,為了提升公共自行車系統的影響效益,須要公私部門共同投入,建立短、中及長期的整合計畫。短期策略主要是解決有樁式與無樁式自行車系統的發展限制,降低站點設置成本與實施停車管制。中期策略著重產業界、學術界與公部門皆期望的目標,透過公部門持續推動自行車車道建置,私部門升級公共自行車系統,以及公私部門通盤考量站點配置,能加強整體運輸路網的連結性,有效連接第一哩路/最後一哩路。長期策略方向是以產業界、學術界與公部門之不同面向的目標為主,重新考量現有的道路空間配置,配合限制汽機車使用者政策與安全騎乘教育,提供人本化的運輸環境。
英文摘要 As the rise of global sustainable trend, the governments import Micro-Mobility to improve the overall public transportation network. Due to limited government budget, most of the Micro-Mobility in major cities around the world are public-to- private or individual enterprises. However, the profit concept of private sector is different from what public sector expects, it may bring unintended effects on society easily. Therefore, it has become an important research topic to evaluate the impact and benefit of the import of Micro-Mobility on society. The traditional method of evaluation is Cost-Benefit Analysis, focusing only on financial assessments. Therefore, many studies use Social Cost-Benefit Analysis to conduct financial, social, and environmental assessments. However, this research method is based on a single value and it is difficult to implement a true social value assessment. For the purpose, this research uses Social Return on Investment to be consideration standardized evaluation based on the view of stakeholders. Because of part of steps of traditional Social Return on Investment are too subject and ignoring the important level of outcomes is not equal. Therefore, this research proposes Modified Social Return on Investment that combined Modified Delphi Method and Best Worst Method. It can promote policy evaluation function of traditional Social Return on Investment. This research is taking Public Bike System of Public Bike Sharing (YouBike) and Free-Floating Bike Sharing (oBike) as study objects.
Modified Social Return on Investment import Modified Delphi Method, it can quickly converge all outcomes and effectively select important outcomes brought by import of the Public Bike System. Then, this research uses the best worst method with fewer pairwise comparisons to get highly consistency important results weights. Next, this research imported the modified Delphi method to get the objectively evaluated impact factor percentage. This study used a standardized process for Modified Social Return on Investment, hoping costs that can effectively increase benefits, and also discussing the differences and reasons for the social impact of the introduction of the public bicycle system that industry, academia and the public sector attach importance to.
Research shows that in order to improve the impact benefits of Public Bike System. It is necessary to combine the public and private sectors to establish a short, medium and long-term integration plan. The short-term strategy is mainly to solve the development restrictions of Public Bike Sharing and Free-Floating Bike Sharing. Reduces the cost of station setting and implements parking control. Then, the medium-term strategy focuses on the goals that are all expected by industry, academia and the public sector. Continuously promoting the construction of bicycle lanes through the public sector, and private sector upgrade of public bicycle system, and public and private sector consider location of station deployment. It can connect the first mile/the last mile to strengthen the close connection with the overall public transport network. The long-term target mainly based on different goals of industry, academia and the public sector, re-examine the existing road space deployment, cooperate with the policy of restricting users of motorcycles and automobiles and education on safe riding, provide humanized transportation environment.
論文目次 目錄
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 研究模型 3
1.4 研究貢獻 6
1.5 研究範圍 6
1.6 研究流程 7
第二章 文獻回顧 8
2.1 短距運輸服務 8
2.2 公共自行車系統發展 8
2.2.1 有樁式自行車系統發展 9
2.2.2 無樁式自行車系統發展 11
2.3 國內公共自行車系統發展 12
2.3.1 國內公共自行車系統比較 13
2.3.2 小結 20
2.4 公共自行車系統相關研究 21
2.4.1 公共自行車系統研究領域 21
2.4.2 公共自行車系統社會影響 24
2.5 社會價值創造 28
2.6 社會成本效益分析 28
2.7 社會投資報酬 29
2.7.1 社會投資報酬之局限性 32
2.7.2 社會投資報酬之應用 32
2.8 修正式德爾菲法 34
2.8.1 修正式德爾菲法之應用 36
2.9 最佳最差法 37
2.9.1 最佳最差法之應用 37
2.10 小結 39
第三章 研究方法 40
3.1 研究架構 40
3.2 問卷設計與對象 42
3.3 公共自行車社會影響構面與準則確立 43
3.4 研究方法 45
3.4.1 社會投資報酬 45
3.4.2 修正式德爾菲法 50
3.4.3 最佳最差法 52
3.5 小結 54
第四章 實證分析 55
4.1 多評準決策分析 55
4.1.1 修正式德爾菲法 55
4.1.2 最佳最差法 60
4.1.3 敏感度分析 70
4.2 社會投資報酬分析 72
4.2.1 定義範圍 72
4.2.2 描繪成果 74
4.2.3 成果定價 76
4.2.4 確定影響範圍 88
4.2.5 計算社會投資報酬率 90
4.3 觀點分析 101
4.3.1 學術界觀點 101
4.3.2 產業界觀點 107
4.3.3 公部門觀點 112
4.4 小結 119
第五章 結論 122
5.1 研究摘述 122
5.2 討論 123
5.3 研究限制與建議 127
參考文獻 129

圖目錄
圖 1.1研究流程架構圖 7
圖 2.1德爾菲法研究流程圖 34
圖 3.1研究架構圖 41
圖 3.2導入公共自行車系統帶來的社會影響評估構面與準則 44
圖 3.3社會投資報酬六大階段 46
圖 3.4修正式德爾菲法研究流程圖 50
圖 4.1「提升可達性」對SROI數值變動結果 71

表目錄
表 2.1公共自行車系統的世代發展 9
表 2.2 YouBike與oBike的營運層面比較 14
表 2.3 YouBik與oBike的設施層面比較 15
表 2.4 YouBik與oBike的使用層面比較 17
表 2.5 YouBik與oBike的影響層面比較 19
表 2.6導入公共自行車系統產生的社會影響相關文獻 24
表 2.7 SROI與CBA比較表 31
表 3.1社會投資報酬的七大基本原則 45
表 3.2一致性指數(CI)表格 54
表 4.1未刪減之導入公共自行車系統產生的社會影響評估構面與準則 56
表 4.2修正式德爾菲法的評估準則篩選結果 58
表 4.3導入公共自行車系統產生的社會影響評估構面與準則 59
表 4.4評估構面的最佳準則與最差準則 60
表 4.5交通層面的最佳準則與最差準則 60
表 4.6財務層面的最佳準則與最差準則 61
表 4.7經濟層面的最佳準則與最差準則 61
表 4.8環境層面的最佳準則與最差準則 61
表 4.9評估構面的BO向量 62
表 4.10交通層面的BO向量 63
表 4.11財務層面的BO向量 64
表 4.12經濟層面的BO向量 65
表 4.13環境層面的BO向量 66
表 4.14評估構面的OW向量 67
表 4.15交通層面的OW向量 67
表 4.16財務層面的OW向量 67
表 4.17經濟層面的OW向量 68
表 4.18環境層面的OW向量 68
表 4.19評估準則的權重 69
表 4.20「提升可達性」權重變動結果 71
表 4.21 YouBike利益相關人 72
表 4.22 oBike利益相關人 73
表 4.23 YouBike的固定資產 74
表 4.24 YouBike成本 74
表 4.25 自行車相關數據 77
表 4.26 YouBike成果定價表 78
表 4.27 oBike成果定價表 84
表 4.28 YouBike與oBike影響因子百分比 89
表 4.29 YouBike的社會投資報酬率 91
表 4.30 oBike的社會投資報酬率 93
表 4.31 YouBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 97
表 4.32 oBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 99
表 4.33學術界觀點之YouBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 103
表 4.34學術界觀點之oBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 105
表 4.35產業界觀點之YouBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 108
表 4.36產業界觀點之oBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 110
表 4.37公部門觀點之YouBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 113
表 4.38公部門觀點之oBike的修正式社會投資報酬率 115
表 4.39不同觀點的權重與SROI比較 117

附錄
附錄一 修正式德爾菲問卷 140
附錄二 最佳最差法問卷 145
附錄三 敏感度分析 155
參考文獻 〈中文文獻〉
1. YouBike官網 (2018),設備介紹。擷取日期:西元2018年12月,網站:https://www.youbike.com.tw/intro.html。
2. 中華民國內政部警政署全球資訊網 (2019),警政統計通報。擷取日期:西元2019年7月,網站:https://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/ct?xItem=92989&ctNode=12594&mp=1。
3. 中華民國交通部 (2015),全國自行車友善環境路網整體規劃及交通部自行車路網建置計畫。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://www.motc.gov.tw/ch/index.jsp。
4. 中華民國交通部 (2016),民眾日常使用運具狀況調查。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://www.motc.gov.tw/ch/index.jsp。
5. 中華民國交通部 (2017),交通統計縣市指標。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:http://geostat.motc.gov.tw/dmz/mocdx/stat-o.html。
6. 中華民國交通部觀光局 (2017),國人旅遊狀況調查。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://admin.taiwan.net.tw/。
7. 中華民國教育部 (2015),自行車道整體路網串連建設計畫。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://www.ey.gov.tw/Index。
8. 王倫光 (2012),「論人的價值追求與社會共同價值觀」,理論探討,第一百六十九期,頁30-33。
9. 蘋果日報 (2018年9月25日)。台大淪oBike墳場 全台輛數砍半 臺灣高層紛離。蘋果日報。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/daily/20180925/38134999/。
10. 生活中心 (2019年1月12日)。臺灣經營團隊易手 北市oBike現僅1800輛。蘋果日報。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20190112/1499454/。
11. 江宥寬 (2016),「導入社會投資報酬率評估社會住宅效益之個案初步研究」,國立中央大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
12. 江穎慧、莊喻婷、張金鶚 (2017),「台北市公共自行車場站對鄰近住宅價格之影響」,運輸計畫季刊,第四十六卷第四期,頁399-428。
13. 巫昱德 (2018),「大數據隱私議題及我國隱私保護改善方向之探討」,國立成功大學電信管理研究所碩士學位論文。
14. 李宜樺、吳佳餘、朱恩言 (2017),「公共服務影響評估工具─社會投資報酬率(SROI)介紹」,國土及公共治理季刊,第五卷第一期,頁30-41。
15. 沈建文 (2017),「社會價值創造導向之公共服務新趨勢-以英國為例」,國土及公共治理季刊,第五卷第一期,頁19-29。
16. 余書玫 (2008),「公共自行車租借系統選擇行為之研究」,國立交通大學運輸與物流管理學系碩士論文。
17. 林媛玲 (2018年2月4日)。玩真的!北市單車違停拖吊 首月603件。蘋果日報。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20180204/1291755/。
18. 胡守任、劉昭堂 (2014),「公共自行車租賃站最佳區位選擇模式:以高雄市公共自行車為例」,運輸計劃季刊,第四十三卷第四期,頁367-392。
19. 徐耀賜、林壯宇、張舜棋、莊昆財 (2011),「新建自行車道之績效預測評估方法」,民國一百年道路交通安全與執法研討會論文集,頁515-528。
20. 陳定銘、彭蕙妤 (2016),「社會企業經營模式對於原住民部落之效益與影響:以光原與瑪納為例」,國家與社會,第十八期,頁61-109。
21. 陳宥伃、林承萓、廖邕 (2016),「公共自行車使用行為之研究動向」,休閒與社會研究,第十三期,頁201-210。
22. 陳菁萍、郭倩瑜 (2010),「高雄地區接駁型公共自行車租賃系統探討」,生活科技教育,第四十三卷第六期,頁51-62。
23. 莊裕澤、羅愛雁 (2018年4月12日)。投資報酬率概念如何應用於政府科技計畫效益評估。科技政策觀點。擷取日期:西元2019年4月,網站:https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10390。
24. 許雅嵐 (2014),「以社會投資報酬率評估公共圖書館改善成果之研究」,國立中興大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文。
25. 許超澤、王中允、王蕾絜 (2018),「導入社會投資報酬評估公共自行車系統效益之研究」,中華民國運輸學會107年學術論文研討會。
26. 聯合報導 (2019年2月19日)。停車亂象未改善 oBike遭形容成街頭垃圾。公視新聞網。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://news.pts.org.tw/article/422960。
27. 新北市政府 (2015),公共自行車YouBike營運資料分析及精進作為。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://www.ntpc.gov.tw/ch/index.jsp。
28. 臺北市交通局 (2009),民國97年度年刊。
29. 臺北市交通統計查詢系統 (2019),綠運輸。擷取日期:西元2019年7月,網站:http://dotstat.taipei.gov.tw/pxweb2007P/Dialog/。
30. 臺北市停車管理工程處 (2019),臺北市自行車停放空間設置地點、數量列表。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://pma.gov.taipei/Default.aspx。
31. 管倖生、郭辰嘉、阮綠茵、王明堂、王蘭亭、李佩玲、高新發、黃鈴池、黃瑞菘、陳思聰、陳雍正、 張文山、楊基昌、楊清田、董皇志、童鼎鈞、鄭建華、盧麗淑 (2006)。《設計研究方法》,頁249-266。台北:全華。
32. 魯皓平(2017年4月7日)。經濟學人智庫最新調查報告:全球物價指數排名出爐!臺灣物價其實很便宜?。遠見。擷取日期:西元2019年10月,網站:https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/37449。
33. 潘懷宗議員研究室新聞稿 (2018年5月4日)。自行車違停不斷,oBike又來攪局? 民眾不該為不負責的市府買單!。臺北市議員潘懷宗市政資訊網。擷取日期:西元2018年12月,網站:http://tcc9104.tcc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=B97CEDE4415ED041&s=BE6AD3BC6CC22E21。
34. 劉光瑩、林昭儀 (2013年12月10日)。YouBike幕後英雄 打造新「世界第一」。天下雜誌537期。擷取日期:西元2019年3月,網站:https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5054497。
35. 鍾智林、李舒媛 (2018),「以悠遊卡大數據初探 YouBike 租賃及轉乘捷運行為」,都市交通,第三十三卷第一期,頁16-36。
36. 顏上堯、林漢俊、張勻威 (2011),「自行車租賃佈署暨調度最佳化之研究」,都市交通,第二十六卷第二期,頁1-12。
37. 羅孝賢、劉力銘 (2010),「接駁型公共自行車租賃系統辦理經驗與未來展望」,都市交通,第二十五卷第一期,頁56-61。

〈英文文獻〉
1. Aasebø, H. K. W. (2019), “Shared Micro Mobility: What is happening in our streets?,” Master's thesis.
2. Ahillen, M., Mateo-Babiano, D. and Corcoran, J. (2016), “Dynamics of bike sharing in Washington, DC and Brisbane, Australia: Implications for policy and planning,” International journal of sustainable transportation, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 441-454.
3. Ahmad, W. N. K. W., Rezaei, J., Sadaghiani, S. and Tavasszy, L. A. (2017), “Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using Best Worst Method,” Journal of cleaner production, Vol. 153, pp. 242-252.
4. Ahmadi, H. B., Kusi-Sarpong, S. and Rezaei, J. (2017), “Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 126, pp. 99-106.
5. Al Wattar, B. H., Tamilselvan, K., Khan, R., Kelso, A., Sinha, A., Pirie, A. M., ... and Thangaratinam, S. (2017), “Development of a core outcome set for epilepsy in pregnancy (E‐CORE): a national multi‐stakeholder modified Delphi consensus study,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 661-667.
6. Aldred, R., Watson, T., Lovelace, R. and Woodcock, J. (2017), “Barriers to investing in cycling: Stakeholder views from England,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
7. Andersen, M. (2019), How much does each bike share ride cost a system? Let’s do the math, Better Bike Share Partnership, Retrieved March 21, 2019, website:http://betterbikeshare.org/2016/08/16/much-bike-share-ride-cost-system-lets-math/.
8. Anonymous (February 19, 2019), 5 things you should know about micromobility, seat.com, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://www.seat.com/company/news/company/micromobility.html.
9. Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S. and Moro, D. (2010), “The Ambitions and Challenges of SROI,” Third Sector Research Centre, Working Paper 49, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham.
10. Beroud, B. and Anaya, E. (2012), “Private Interventions in a Public Service: An Analysis of Public Bicycle Schemes,” Cycling and sustainability, pp. 269-301, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
11. Bianchini, F. and Hewage, K. (2012), “Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: a lifecycle approach,” Building and Environment, Vol. 58, pp. 152-162.
12. Bopp, M., Sims, D. and Piatkowski, D.P. (2018), Bicycling for Transportation—An Evidence-Base for Communities, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 21-44.
13. Bordagaray, M., dell’Olio, L., Fonzone, A. and Ibeas, Á. (2016), “Capturing the conditions that introduce systematic variation in bike-sharing travel behavior using data mining techniques,” Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, Vol. 71, pp. 231-248.
14. Borgnat, P., Abry, P., Flandrin, P., Robardet, C., Rouquier, J. B. and Fleury, E. (2011), “Shared bicycles in a city: A signal processing and data analysis perspective,” Advances in Complex Systems, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 415-438.
15. Bruce, O. (September 4, 2018), Episode 2: What is micromobility, how do we define it, and why is it disruptive?, Medium.com, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://medium.com/micromobility/episode-2-what-is-micromobility-how-do-we-define-it-and-why-is-it-disruptive-4653ef260492.
16. Burke, C. M. and Scott, D. M. (2016), “The space race: A framework to evaluate the potential travel-time impacts of reallocating road space to bicycle facilities,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 56, pp. 110-119.
17. Caulfield, B., O'Mahony, M., Brazil, W. and Weldon, P. (2017), “Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city. Transportation research part A: policy and practice,” Vol. 100, pp. 152-161.
18. Cavill, N., Kahlmeier, S., and Racioppi, F. (2006), Physical activity and health in Europe: evidence for action. World Health Organization.
19. Chen, H., Goldberg, M. and Villeneuve, PJ. (2008), “A systematic review of the relation between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and chronic diseases,” Reviews on environmental health, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 243-298.
20. Cordes, J. J. (2017), “Using cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment to evaluate the impact of social enterprise: Promises, implementation, and limitations,” Evaluation and program planning, Vol. 64, pp. 98-104.
21. Curran, A. (2008), “Translink public bike system feasibility study,” Quay Communications Inc., Vancouver.
22. de Chardon, C. M., Caruso, G. and Thomas, I. (2017), “Bicycle sharing system ‘success’ determinants,” Transportation research part A: policy and practice, Vol. 100, pp. 202-214.
23. Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963), “An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts,” Management science, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 458-467.
24. Dediu, H. (February 23, 2019), The Micromobility Definition, Micromobility Industries, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://micromobility.io/blog/2019/2/23/the-micromobility-definition.
25. Dell'Amico, M., Hadjicostantinou, E., Iori, M. and Novellani, S. (2014), “The bike sharing rebalancing problem: Mathematical formulations and benchmark instances,” Omega, Vol. 45, pp. 7-19.
26. DeMaio, P. (2009), “Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future,” Journal of public transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 41-56.
27. De Nooij, M. (2011), “Social cost-benefit analysis of electricity interconnector investment: A critical appraisal,” Energy Policy, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 3096-3105.
28. Dhanju, A. and Racca, D. P. (2006), Project Report for Property Value/Desirability Effects of Bike Paths Adjacent to Residential Areas, Center for Applied Demography and Survey Research.
29. Du, M. and Cheng, L. (2018), “Better Understanding the Characteristics and Influential Factors of Different Travel Patterns in Free-Floating Bike Sharing: Evidence from Nanjing, China,” Sustainability, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 1244-1257.
30. Dutta, D. and Sutarwala, A. (August 22, 2019), Micromobility : What Does It Mean For The Future Of Transportation?, dataconomy.com, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://dataconomy.com/2019/08/micromobility-what-does-it-mean-for-the-future-of-transportation/.
31. Erdoğan, G., Battarra, M. and Calvo, R. W. (2015), “An exact algorithm for the static rebalancing problem arising in bicycle sharing systems,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 245, No. 3, pp. 667-679.
32. Fishman, E. (2016), “Bikeshare: A review of recent literature,” Transport Reviews, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 92-113.
33. Fishman, E., Washington, S. and Haworth, N. (2013), “Bike share: a synthesis of the literature,” Transport reviews, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 148-165.
34. Frade, I. and Ribeiro, A. (2015), “Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 82, pp. 216-227.
35. Gambhir, V. K., Majmudar, N., Sodhani, S. and Gupta, N. (2017), “Social Return on Investment (SROI) for Hindustan Unilever’s (HUL) CSR initiative on livelihoods (Prabhat),” Procedia computer science, Vol. 122, pp. 556-563.
36. García-Palomares, J. C., Gutiérrez, J. and Latorre, M. (2012), “Optimizing the location of stations in bike-sharing programs: A GIS approach,” Applied Geography, Vol. 35, No. 1-2, pp. 235-246.
37. Garrett-Peltier, H. (2010), Estimating the Employment Impacts of Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Road Infrastructure-Case Study: Baltimore, Political Economy Reserch Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
38. Gavilan, A., Pardo, R. and Ortiz, C. (2019), “Analysis to predict Active and Micro Mobility Users for the Management of Public Spaces,” Research Gate.
39. Gordon, T. J. (1994), “The delphi method,” Futures research methodology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 1-30.
40. Grönroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation,” Journal of the academy of marketing science, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 133-150.
41. Hamilton, T. L. and Wichman, C. J. (2018), “Bicycle infrastructure and traffic congestion: Evidence from DC's Capital Bikeshare,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 87, pp. 72-93.
42. Hartman, N., Wittler, M., Askew, K. and Manthey, D. (2016), “Delphi method validation of a procedural performance checklist for insertion of an ultrasound-guided internal jugular central line. American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 81-85.
43. Harvie, W. (May 6, 2019), Micro-mobility revolution has just begun, Stuff.com, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/112412670/micromobility-revolution-has-just-begun.
44. Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000), “Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique,” Journal of advanced nursing, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1008-1015.
45. Heineke, K., Kloss, B., Scurtu, D., and Weig, F. (2019, January), Micromobility’s 15,000-mile checkup, McKinsey and Company, Retrieved March 15, 2019, website:https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/micromobilitys-15000-mile-checkup.
46. Holden, M. C., and Wedman, J. F. (1993), “Future issues of computer-mediated communication: The results of a Delphi study,” Educational technology research and development, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 5-24.
47. Hsu, P. F., and Chen, B. Y. (2007), “Developing and implementing a selection model for bedding chain retail store franchisee using Delphi and fuzzy AHP,” Quality and Quantity, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 275-290.
48. Ibold, S. and Nedopid C. (2018), The Evolution of Free-Floating Bike-Sharing in Chain, Retrieved January 20, 2019, website:https://www.sustainabletransport.org/archives/6278.
49. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2013), The bike-share planning guide, ITDP, Retrieved March 27, 2019, website:https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ITDP_Bike_Share_Planning_Guide.pdf.
50. Jamasb, T. and Nepal, R. (2010), “Issues and options in waste management: A social cost–benefit analysis of waste-to-energy in the UK,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 54, No. 12, pp. 1341-1352.
51. Jaffe, E. (2015, March), The Complete Business Case for Converting Street Parking Into Bike Lanes, CityLab, Retrieved May 20, 2019, website:https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/
52. Jensen, H. T., Keogh-Brown, M. R., Smith, R. D., Chalabi, Z., Dangour, A. D., Davies, M., ... and Hamilton, I. (2013), “The importance of health co-benefits in macroeconomic assessments of UK Greenhouse Gas emission reduction strategies,” Climatic change, Vol. 121, No. 2, pp. 223-237.
53. Kiser, C., Leipziger, D. and Shubert, J. J. (2014), “Creating Social Value: A Guide for Leaders and Change Makers. Sheffield,” UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
54. Kwok, P. K. and Lau, H. Y. K. (2016), “Modified Delphi-AHP method based on minimum-cost consensus model and vague set theory for road junction control method evaluation criteria selection,” Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 76-82.
55. Lai, L., Flower, A., Moore, M. and Lewith, G. (2015), “Developing clinical practice guidelines for Chinese herbal treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome: a mixed-methods modified Delphi study,” Complementary therapies in medicine, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 430-438.
56. Li, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, L. and Liu, Q. (2018), “Free-Floating Bike Sharing in Jiangsu: Users’ Behaviors and Influencing Factors,” Energies, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 1664-1681.
57. Lin, J. R. and Yang, T. H. (2011), “Strategic design of public bicycle sharing systems with service level constraints,” Transportation research part E: logistics and transportation review, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 284-294.
58. Lin, J. R., Yang, T. H. and Chang, Y. C. (2013), “A hub location inventory model for bicycle sharing system design: Formulation and solution,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 77-86.
59. Lindsey, G., Man, J., Payton, S. and Dickson, K. (2004), “Property Values, Recreation Values, and Urban Greenways,” Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 69-90.
60. Litman, T. (2015), Evaluating active transport benefits and costs, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, pp. 134-140.
61. Lopez, G. H. J. (April 21, 2019), Micromobility is The Future of Vehicles, Medium.com, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/micromobility-is-the-future-of-vehicles-220c2c0c9b0.
62. Maiti, A., Vinayaga-Sureshkanth, N., Jadliwala, M. and Wijewickrama, R. (2019), “Impact of Urban Micromobility Technology on Pedestrian and Rider Safety: A Field Study Using Pedestrian Crowd-Sensing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05846.
63. Markets Insider (2019), CO2 EUROPEAN EMISSION ALLOWANCES PRICE CHART, Retrieved March 18, 2019, website:https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte.
64. Martin, E. W. and Shaheen, S. A. (2014), “Evaluating public transit modal shift dynamics in response to bikesharing: a tale of two US cities,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 41, pp. 315-324.
65. Mateo-Babiano, I., Kumar, S. and Mejia, A. (2017), “Bicycle sharing in Asia: a stakeholder perception and possible futures,” Transportation research procedia, Vol. 25, pp. 4966-4978.
66. Mátrai, T. and Tóth, J. (2016), “Comparative assessment of public bike sharing systems,” Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 14, pp. 2344-2351.
67. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C. and Kasteren, Y. V. (2012), “Health care customer value cocreation practice styles,” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 370-389.
68. McKenzie, G. (2019), “Shared micro-mobility paerns as measures of city similarity”, Position Paper.
69. Meddin, R. and DeMaio, P. (2019), The bike-sharing world map, Retrieved January 17, 2019, website:http://www.bikesharingworld.com
70. Midgley, P. (2011), “Bicycle-sharing schemes: enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas,” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Vol. 8, pp. 1-12.
71. Mikton, C. R., Tanaka, M., Tomlinson, M., Streiner, D. L., Tonmyr, L., Lee, B. X., ... and MacMillan, H. L. (2017), “Global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention: a modified Delphi study,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol. 95, No. 1, p. 36.
72. Mou, Q., Xu, Z. and Liao, H. (2016), “An intuitionistic fuzzy multiplicative best-worst method for multi-criteria group decision making,” Information Sciences, Vol. 374, pp. 224-239.
73. Murry Jr, J. W. and Hammons, J. O. (1995), “Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research,” The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 423-436.
74. Network, S. R. O. I. (2012), A guide to Social Return on Investment, Written by Nicholls, J. et al., Cupitt S., et al. (Eds), The SROI Network, UK: www. sroi-‐uk. org.
75. Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E. and Goodspeed, T. (2009), A guide to social return on investment, London: Office of the Third Sector, The Cabinet Office.
76. Okoli, C., and Pawlowski, S. D. (2004), “The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications,” Information and management, Vol 42, No. 1, pp. 15-29.
77. Otero, I., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., and Rojas-Rueda, D. (2018), “Health impacts of bike sharing systems in Europe,” Environment international, Vol., 115, pp. 387-394.
78. Pal, A. and Zhang, Y. (2017), “Free-floating bike sharing: solving real-life large-scale static rebalancing problems,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 80, pp. 92-116.
79. Paliwoda, S. J. (1983), “Predicting the future using Delphi,” Management Decision, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 31-38.
80. Parkes, S., Marsden, G., Shaheen, S. A. and Cohen, A. P. (2013), “Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: evidence from Europe and North America,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 31, pp. 94-103.
81. Pattison-Williams, J. K., Yang, W., Liu, Y. and Gabor, S. (2017), “Riparian wetland conservation: A case study of phosphorous and social return on investment in the Black River watershed,” Ecosystem Services, Vol. 26, pp. 400-410.
82. Pfrommer J., Warrington J., Schildbach G. and Morari M. (2014), “Dynamic vehicle redistribution and online price incentives in shared mobility systems,” IEEE Transactions On Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 1567–78.
83. Ramaswamy, V. (2011), “It’s about human experiences…and beyond, to co-creation,” Industrial Marketing Management. Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.195-196.
84. Ranjan, K. R. and Read, S. (2016), “Value co-creation: concept and measurement,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 290-315.
85. Reiss, S. and Bogenberger, K. (2015), “GPS-Data Analysis of Munich's Free-Floating Bike Sharing System and Application of an Operator-based Relocation Strategy,” Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on, pp. 584-589.
86. Rezaei, J. (2015), “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method,” Omega, Vol. 53, pp. 49-57.
87. Rezaei, J. (2016), “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model,” Omega, Vol. 64, pp. 126-130.
88. Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J. and Tavasszy, L. (2016), “A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 577-588.
89. Rezaei, J., Wang, J. and Tavasszy, L. (2015), “Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 42, No. 23, pp. 9152-9164.
90. Roest, A. E., van Schie, A. and Venema, G. S. (2010), “Using SROI and SCBA for measuring social return of Green Care in Agriculture,” In COST Action 866-meeting, Green Care in Agriculture, Witzenhausen, Germany, 24-28 August, 2010, pp. 54-59.
91. Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., Tainio, M. and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2011), “The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study,” BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 343, No. 7819, pp. 356-363.
92. Salimi, N. and Rezaei, J. (2016), “Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph. D. projects using best worst method,” Scientometrics, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 1911-1938.
93. Salve, S., (2018, August 28), How Much It Cost to Develop a Bike Sharing App like Mobike, News and Insights, Retrieved March 20, 2019, website:https://www.octalsoftware.com/blog/e-bike-sharing-app-development.
94. Schuijbroek, J., Hampshire, R. C. and Van Hoeve, W. J. (2017), “Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike sharing systems,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 257, No. 3, pp. 992-1004.
95. Shaheen, S., Guzman, S. and Zhang, H. (2010), “Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: past, present, and future,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2143, pp. 159-167.
96. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A. and Martin, E. (2013), “Public bikesharing in North America: early operator understanding and emerging trends,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2387, pp. 83-92.
97. Shoup, L. and Ewing, R. (2010), “The economic benefits of open space, recreation facilities and walkable community design,” A Research Synthesis. Princeton, NJ, Active Living Research, a National Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
98. Social Value UK, (2015), report database, Retrieved August 3, 2019, website:http://www.socialvalueuk.org/.
99. Stewart, F. (1975), “A note on social cost-benefit analysis and class conflict in LDCs,” World Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 31-39.
100. Tiwari, A. (2019, January 17), Micro-mobility: the next wave of urban transportation in India, YS Journal, Retrieved March 15, 2019, website:https://yourstory.com/journal/micro-mobility-edc6x8f1y1.
101. TomTom, (2017), TomTom Traffic Index, Retrieved March 18, 2019, website:https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/.
102. Wang, M. and Zhou, X. (2017), “Bike-sharing systems and congestion: Evidence from US cities,” Journal of transport geography, Vol. 65, pp. 147-154.
103. Watson, K. J., Evans, J., Karvonen, A. and Whitley, T. (2016), “Capturing the social value of buildings: The promise of Social Return on Investment (SROI),” Building and Environment, Vol. 103, pp. 289-301.
104. Wheeller, B., Hart, T., and Whysall, P. (1990), “Application of the Delphi technique: A reply to Green, Hunter and Moore,” Tourism Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 121-122.
105. Witzel, S. (July 14, 2018), How micro mobility solves multiple problems in congested cities, skedgo.com, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://skedgo.com/how-micro-mobility-solves-multiple-problems-in-congested-cities/.
106. Wright, S., Nelson, J. D., Cooper, J. M. and Murphy, S. (2009), “An evaluation of the transport to employment (T2E) scheme in Highland Scotland using social return on investment (SROI),” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 457-467.
107. Yates, B. T. and Marra, M. (2017), “Introduction: Social return on investment (SROI),” Evaluation and program planning, Vol. 64, pp. 95-97.
108. Zarif, R., Pankratz, D. M. and Kelman, B. (April 15, 2019), Small is beautiful- Making micromobility work for citizens, cities, and service providers, Deloitte Insights, Retrieved November 4, 2019, website:https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/future-of-mobility/micro-mobility-is-the-future-of-urban-transportation.html.
109. Zhang, Y. and Mi, Z. (2018), “Environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big data-based analysis,” Applied Energy, Vol. 220, pp. 296-301.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2020-01-17公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-01-17起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2486 或 來信