「交通行動服務 (Mobility as a Service, MaaS)」係指結合運輸設施、運輸服務、運輸資訊及支付服務的一個整合平台，提供運輸服務套裝方案，將使用者於運輸行為中的所有需求與步驟整合在同一平台內完成一站購足式服務。因為MaaS是一個相對新穎的概念，目前較少針對MaaS服務套裝方案組成與定價規劃進行探討。本研究探討MaaS之交通服務組合套裝方案決策問題，針對MaaS服務套裝方案內容設計及綑綁定價規劃問題建構互動式背包問題，進行規劃求解。
本研究使用條件評估法調查旅運者的願付價格，建立互動式背包問題，旅運者的願付價格與每月所需旅運距離的限制及最大化套裝方案效用值的目標下，選入滿足該限制的服務運具，求解不同社經族群之套裝方案組成與套裝方案綑綁定價。本研究透過問卷調查蒐集旅運者對各運具的效用值，並建構一互動式背包問題分析MaaS套裝方案最適組成與最適定價，求解得知學生族群偏好中距運輸套裝方案；一般族群偏好長距運輸套裝方案；中高齡族群偏好短距運輸套裝方案，藉由規劃結果可知各族群套裝方案較需要的運具與可完成之旅運距離。本研究透過敏感度分析探討各族群最適旅運距離與最適單位成本，學生族群與中高齡族群最適單位成本為2元/公里；一般族群最適單位成本為2.12元/公里。本研究的研究成果可作為MaaS服務套裝方案綑綁定價之策略參考。

Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) is a mobility distribution model in which a traveler’s major transportation needs are met to one single interface with services offered by one single integrated service provider combining transportation infrastructures, transportation services, information, and payment services. Since MaaS is a brand-new concept, few researches have been paid to its service package design and pricing. This study addresses the problem of how to determine the composition and price of a MaaS package using the bundle pricing and composition problem. The interacting knapsack problem for simultaneous composing and pricing toward MaaS service bundles is developed.
This study explored passenger’s willingness-to-pay by contingent valuation method. Then, the interacting knapsack problem is concerned about selecting a set of service mode items such their total costs which fits within the budget of passenger’s willingness-to-pay and the total distance accomplished by the package that must meet passenger’s requirement whereas the total utility is maximized. This study conducted a questionnaire survey for collecting the utility of each transportation mode items. This study proposed an efficient solution procedure to determine the optimal composition of the MaaS bundle and the price at which it should be offered. The results of this research show that the student group prefers middle-distance package, general group prefers long-distance package, and short-distance package was more suitable for elder group. With the sensitive analysis, this research explored the optimal travel distance and unit cost for each group. The optimal unit cost is 2.12 NT dollars per kilometer for student group and elder group. 2 NT dollars for general group. The results of this research may shed light on bundle pricing composition of MaaS packages and schemes.

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研究範圍	4
1.4研究流程	5
第二章 文獻回顧	7
2.1多元整合運輸服務(MaaS)	7
2.1.1 MaaS定義與相關文獻	7
2.1.2 MaaS發展案例	14
2.2綑綁定價與組合相關文獻	24
2.3小結	28
第三章 研究方法	29
3.1研究架構	29
3.2問卷設計與分析	30
3.2.1調查目的	30
3.2.2調查方式與對象	30
3.2.3問卷調查內容	30
3.3模式建構	35
3.3.1 MaaS套裝方案之背包問題決策模式	35
3.3.2背包問題參數說明	36
3.3.3互動式背包問題之MaaS服務套裝方案規劃	37
3.3.4 MaaS套裝方案之願付價格區間之求解	39
第四章 實證結果與分析	41
4.1問卷資料分析	41
4.1.1性別	41
4.1.2年齡	41
4.1.3教育程度	42
4.1.4職業別	42
4.1.5每月可支配所得	43
4.1.6每周搭乘大眾運具天數	43
4.1.7旅運目的	44
4.1.8願付價格	44
4.2研究對象分類	45
4.3各族群之願付價格與每月所需之旅運距離	46
4.4各運具之運具方案成本	48
4.5各族群對各運具之運具效用值	55
4.6 MaaS套裝方案及綑綁定價規劃結果	59
4.6.1學生族群	60
4.6.2一般族群	62
4.6.3中高齡者族群	64
4.6.4小結	66
4.7 MaaS套裝方案敏感度分析	67
4.7.1旅運距離	68
4.7.2單位成本	71
4.7.3小結	74
第五章 結論與建議	75
5.1結論	75
5.2管理意涵	78
5.3建議	79
5.3.1研究限制	79
5.3.2後續研究建議	80
參考文獻	83
附錄A：MaaS服務屬性偏好與套裝方案願付價格問卷調查	89

圖目錄
圖1.1研究流程圖	6
圖2.1 MaaS商業模式：經銷商模式與整合模式	12
圖2.2綑綁定價組合對需求曲線影響	24
圖3.1研究架構圖	29
圖3.2願付價格隸屬函數分配	39
圖4.1學生族群之各運具分配非負參數	56
圖4.2一般族群之各運具分配非負參數	57
圖4.3中高齡族群之各運具分配非負參數	57
圖4.4學生族群套裝方案旅運距離對效用值敏感度分析折線圖	68
圖4.5一般族群套裝方案旅運距離對效用值敏感度分析折線圖	69
圖4.6中高齡族群套裝方案旅運距離對效用值敏感度分析折線圖	70
圖4.7學生族群套裝方案單位成本對效用值敏感度分析折線圖	71
圖4.8一般族群套裝方案單位成本對效用值敏感度分析折線圖	72
圖4.9中高齡族群套裝方案單位成本對效用值敏感度分析折線圖	73

表目錄
表1-1 108年民眾使用公共運具比例	4
表1-2 108年雙北地區民眾旅運目的比例	4
表2-1 MaaS發展原則	9
表2-2 MaaS之服務構件	10
表2-3各國推動MaaS平台整合等級與運具組合情形	13
表2-4 MaaS研究相關文獻彙整表	13
表2-5各國MaaS服務運具表	17
表2-6法國、瑞典、芬蘭、臺灣MaaS套票表	19
表2-7各國MaaS套裝方案整合之運具	23
表2-8產品服務功能細項	23
表2-9綑綁定價與組合相關文獻彙整表	26
表3-1問卷設計採用之服務運具	31
表3-2整理後產品服務功能細項	32
表3-3高雄Mengo套裝方案與價格	33
表3-4瑞典UbiGo套裝方案與價格	33
表3-5芬蘭Whim套裝方案與價格	33
表4-1受測者性別比例	41
表4-2受測者年齡比例	41
表4-3受測者教育程度比例	42
表4-4受測者職業別比例	42
表4-5受測者每月可支配所得比例	43
表4-6受測者每周搭乘天數比例	43
表4-7受測者旅運目的比例	44
表4-8受測者願付價格的比例	44
表4-9年齡與職業別之交叉分析	45
表4-10各族群之願付價格	46
表4-11各族群願付價格對應之旅運距離	47
表4-12各運具方案成本取得方式	48
表4-13各運具旅運距離與運具方案成本	52
表4-14透過官網資料取得之運具服務內容與成本	54
表4-15各族群對各運具需求程度排序	55
表4-16學生族群之各運具之效用值	57
表4-17一般族群之各運具之效用值	58
表4-18中高齡者族群之各運具之效用值	58
表4-19學生族群MaaS套裝方案	61
表4-20一般族群MaaS套裝方案	63
表4-21中高齡族群MaaS套裝方案	65

1. 陳敦基、洪鈞澤、陳奕廷、張學孔 (2016)，公共運輸行動服務(MaaS, Mobility as a Service)發展應用分析與策略規劃。臺北市：交通部運輸研究所。檢自 https://www.iot.gov.tw/cp-78-10265-956fd-1.html
2. 交通部科顧室(2017)，臺北都會區及宜蘭縣交通行動服務建置及經營計畫」(1/3)，交通部科顧室委託研究計畫。
3. 交通部運輸研究所 (2018)，交通行動服務(MaaS)示範建置計畫，交通部運輸研究所委託研究計畫。
4. 陳敦基、洪鈞澤、陳奕廷、陳其華、劉仲潔 (2017)，「我國公共運輸行動服務(MaaS)未來發展應用與策略規劃」，都市交通半年刊，第32 卷第1 期，頁11-45。
5. 陳恆宇、張學孔、陳雅雯 (2017)，「多元整合出行服務(MaaS)願付價格之研究」，中華民國運輸學會106 年學術論文研討會論文集。
6. 陶治中(2015)，「我國發展智慧運輸系統之重要課題：車路協同系統技術發展藍圖與推動策略」，國土及公共治理季刊，第3 卷第2 期，頁32-43。
7. 溫裕弘、張皓筑 (2017)，「應用科技接受模式暨聯合分析法初探「交通行動服務(MaaS)」之使用意圖與服務屬性偏好特性」，中華民國運輸學會106 年學術論文研討會論文集。
8. 徐村和、朱國明、詹惠君（1999），廣告業服務接觸與顧客行為意圖關係之研究－模糊語意尺度之應用，東吳經濟商學學報，26，頁1至25。
9. 詹仕聰（2007），軌道經營與管理，臺北大眾捷運股份有限公司，頁41至64。檢自https://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/405/attachment/7592/910191134944.pdf
10. 臺北大眾捷運股份有限公司（2020），臺北捷運每日各站OD統計資料，臺北大眾捷運股份有限公司。檢自https://ticp.motc.gov.tw/ConvergeProj/dataService/dataDownload?catId=2&countyId=63000
11. 王易（2016），市區公車里程計費制之最佳費率結構與水準，國立交通大學運輸與物流管理學系碩士論文。臺北市
12. 蘇振維、楊幼文、呂怡青、張益城、李宗益、鍾慧諭、鄭正元、李思葦、莊沅融、李德全、葉文雅、沈柏緯（2015），第5期整體運輸規劃研究系列－城際旅次特性調查及初步分析。臺北市：交通部運輸研究所。檢自https://www.iot.gov.tw/dl-7294-68f58f7e4e7f4dd9ac19b46340fd3ca0.html
13. 劉仁龍、鄭麗淑（2017），大數據分析臺北市公共自行車使用特性，臺北市政府主計處。檢自https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMzY3L3JlbGZpbGUvNDUwMDAvNzY2MzIzOS85OTM3NTUzMC0zYzIxLTRhZmQtOWY5Ny1mNjNkMzM0ZmEzMzcucGRm&n=MTA2MTjlpKfmlbjmk5rliIbmnpDoh7rljJfluILlhazlhbHoh6rooYzou4rkvb%2FnlKjnibnmgKcucGRm&icon=.pdf
14. 交通部統計處（2020），新北捷運客運概況。檢自https://stat.motc.gov.tw/mocdb/stmain.jsp?sys=100
15. 交通部統計處（2020），108年計程車營運狀況調查結果統計表(全體計程車)，臺北市：交通部。檢自https://www.motc.gov.tw/uploaddowndoc?file=survey/202011040928180.pdf&filedisplay=108%E5%B9%B4%E8%A8%88%E7%A8%8B%E8%BB%8A%E7%87%9F%E9%81%8B%E7%8B%80%E6%B3%81%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E7%B5%B1%E8%A8%88%E8%A1%A8%28%E5%85%A8%E9%AB%94%E8%A8%88%E7%A8%8B%E8%BB%8A%29.pdf&flag=doc
16. 臺北市交通局（2020），108年雙北市民眾日常使用運具狀況調查-調查運具次數市占率交叉統計表，臺北市：交通局。檢自
https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMzkwL3JlbGZpbGUvNDMyNzMvODMzMDE4MS83Y2QzNzRlMy02NTNhLTQwNzYtOTY5Mi1mZGEwY2JlMjJiNWUucGRm&n=MTA45bm06ZuZ5YyX5biC5rCR55y%2B5pel5bi46YGL5YW35L2%2F55So54uA5rOBX%2BaRmOimgeWIhuaekC5wZGY%3D&icon=.pdf
17. 交通部臺灣鐵路管理局(2020)，車票類型與價格。檢自https://tip.railway.gov.tw/traweb/tip/tip00C/tipC21/view?proCode=8ae4cac3756b7b4101757271e5f71703&subCode=8ae4cac3756b7b41017572739e89170d
18. 台灣高鐵公司（2020），票價產品一覽表。檢自https://www.thsrc.com.tw/ArticleContent/fe34c4a1-d274-48ae-bcbe-f8eff4c2faf3
19. Wemo Scooter（2020），方案票價一覽表。檢自https://www.wemoscooter.com/rideplan
20. Neuron Mobility（2020），服務計費一覽表。檢自https://www.rideneuron.com/cities-brisbane/
21. iRent（2020），方案票價一覽表。檢自https://www.easyrent.com.tw/irent/web/index.html
22. Coseats.com（2020），服務計費一覽表。檢自https://coseats.com/
23. Aho, I. (2000). Interactive Knapsacks. Fundam. Inform., 44, 1-23.
24. Bakos, Y. and Brynjolfsson, E. (1999), “Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits andEfficiency,” Management Science, Vol. 45, No.2, pp. 1613-1630.
25. Bakos, Y. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2000), “Bundling and Competition on the Internet,” MarketScience, Vol. 19, No.1, pp. 63-82.
26. Banciu, M. and Ødegarrd, F. (2016), “Optimal Product Bundling with DependentValuations: The Price of Independence,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.255, No.2, pp.481-495.
27. Bitran, C. and Ferrer, J. (2007), “On Pricing and Composition of Bundles,” Production and Operations Management, Vol. 16, No.1, pp.93-108.
28. Bulut, Z. and Sen, A. (2009), “Bundle Pricing of Inventories with Stochastic Drmand,”European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 197, No.3, pp.897-911.
29. Burrows, A., Bradburn, J., Cohen, T. (2015), “Journeys of the Future: Introducing Mobility as a Service,” Atkins Global, pp. 1–31.
30. Cataldo, A. and Ferrer, J.C. (2017), “Optimal Pricing and Composition of Multiple Bundles: A Two-step Approach,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 259,pp.766-777.
31. Chung, J. and Rao, V. (2003), “A General Choice Model for Bundles with Multiplecategory Products: Application to Market Segmentation and Optimal Pricings for Bundles,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40, No.2, pp. 115-130.
32. Ferrer, J.C., Mora, H., Olivares, F. (2010), “On Pricing of Multiple Bundles of Products and Services,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 206, No.1, pp.197-208.
33. Finger, M., Bert, N., and Kupfer, D. (2015), “Mobility-as-a-Service: from the Helsinki Experiment to a European Model?” European transport regulation observer, Florence School of Regulation, Transport, 2015/01.
34. Fuerderer, R., Herrmann, A., Wuebker, G. (1999), Optimal Bundling: Marketing Strategies for Improving Economic Performance, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
35. Green, P., Krieger, A., Agarwal, M. (1991), “Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Some Caveats and Suggestions,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, No.2, pp. 215-222.
36. Green, P., Krieger, A., Agarwal, M. (1992), “An Application of A Product Positioning Model to Pharmaceutical Products,” Marketing Science, Vol. 11, No.12, pp.117-132.
37. Gülder, U., Öztop, S., Sen, A. (2009), “Optimal Bundle Formation and Pricing of Two Products with Limited Stock,” International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118,pp.442-462.
38. Hanson, W. and Martin, R. (1990), “Optimal Bundle Pricing,” Management Science, Vol. 36, No.2, pp.155-174.
39. Heikkilä, S. (2014), Mobility as a Service - A Proposal for Action for the Public Administration, Case Helsinki, Master Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Aalto University, Finland.
40. Hietanen, S. (2014), “Mobility as a Service - The New Transport Model?” Eurotransport, Vol. 12, No.2, pp. 1–4.
41. Hietanen, S. (2014), “Mobility as a Service and the Effects of It,” The 10th ITS European Congress.
42. Hitt, L. and Chen, P. (2005), “Bundling with Customer Self-selection: A Simple Approachto Bundling Low-marginal-cost Goods,” Management Science, Vol.51, No.10,pp.1481-1493.
43. Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Femeri, A.M, Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso-Gonzalez, M. J., Narayan, J. (2017), “Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges,” Urban Planning, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 13-25.
44. Kamargianni, M., Matyas, M., Li, W., and Schäfer, A. (2015), Feasibility Study for”Mobility as a Service” Concept in London. London: UCL Energy Institute.
45. Lin, F.-T., & Yao, J.-S. (2001). Using fuzzy numbers in knapsack problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 135(1), 158-176. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00310-6
46. MaaS Alliance (2017, June 1). What is MaaS? Retrieved from: https://maas-alliance.eu/homepage/what-is-maas/
47. MaaS Global (2016, February 23), What is Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Retrieved from:http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ctbssp/ctbssp_syn_15.pdf
48. Meyer, J. and Shankar, V. (2016), “Pricing Strategies for Hybrid Bundles: Analytical Model and Insight,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 92, No.2, pp.133-146.
49. Nguyen, T.H., Varakantham, P.R., Lau, H.c., Cheng, S.F. (2013), “Interacting Knapsack Problem in Designing Resource Bundles,” MIC 2013: The X Metaheuristics International Conference, 5-8
50. Nicholas G. Hall, John C. Hershey, Larry G. Kessler, R. Craig Stotts. (1992). A Model for Making Project Funding Decisions at the National Cancer Institute. Operations Research, 40(6):1040-1052. doi: 10.1287/opre.40.6.1040
51. Odegaard, F. and Wilson, J. (2016), “Dynamic Pricing of Primary Products and Ancillary Services,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 251, pp.586-599.
52. Perez, J., Lopez-Ospina, H., Cataldo, A., Ferrer, J. (2016), “Pricing and Composition of Bundles with Constrained Multinomial Logit,” International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54, No.13, pp.3994-4007.
53. Proano, R., Jacobson, S., Zhang, W. (2012), “Making Combination Vaccines More Accessible to Low-income Countries: The Antigen Bundle Pricing Problem,” Omega, Vol.40, No.1, pp.53-64.
54. Sochor, J., Stӧmberg, H., Karlsson, IC M.A. (2015), “Implementing Mobility as a Service: Challenges in Integrating User, Commercial, and Social Perspectives,” Transportation Research Record, No. 2536, pp. 1-9.
55. Suri, R. and Monroe, K. (2000), “The Effects of Need for Cognition and Trait Anxiety on Price Acceptability,” Wireless Review, Vol. 17, No.2, pp. 62-64.
56. Transport Systems Catapult (2016), Mobility as a Service: Exploring the Opportunity for Mobility as a Service in the UK. Retrieved from:https://ts.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Mobility-as-a-Service_Exploring-the-Opportunity-for-MaaS-in-the-UK-Web.pdf
57. Venkatesh, R. and Mahajan, R. (1993), “A Probabilistic Approach to Pricing a Bundle ofProducts or Services,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No.4, pp.494-508.
58. West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority (WMITA) (2016), Developing Intelligent Mobility and exploring Mobility as a Service. Retrieved from:https://www.tfwm.org.uk/media/1176/mobility-as-a-service-report.pdf
59. Wu, S.Y., Hitt, L.M., Chen, P., Anandalingam, G. (2008), “Customized Bundle Pricing for Information Goods: A Nonlinear Mixed-Integer Programming Approach,” Management Science, Vol. 54, No.3, pp.608-622.
60. Yadav, M. (1994), “How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No.2, pp. 342-353
61. Yadav, M. and Monroe, K. (1993), “How Buyers Perceive Savings in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle Transaction Value,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No.3, pp.350-358.