論文提要內容：
    隨著全球對氣候變遷與永續發展的重視，永續航空燃油（Sustainable Aviation Fuel, SAF）成為達成碳中和的重要途徑。然而，SAF生產成本高昂，航空公司普遍需透過票價轉嫁成本，消費者是否願意支付額外票價成為關鍵議題。
    本研究以台灣旅客為研究對象，採用敘述性偏好法（Stated Preference Method, SPM）與多項羅吉特模式（Multinomial Logit Model, MNL），進行問卷調查與選擇實驗。問卷設計考量航程長短、綠色票價金額、附加服務（如里程回饋、優先登機、快速安檢、預訂座位、貴賓室、額外行李等），模擬台灣旅客在不同票價情境下的選擇行為，共回收383份有效問卷。
    實證結果顯示，大多數旅客對SAF附加票價的接受度仍有限，票價為最主要的決策因素，但若綠色票價搭配其他附加服務，可提升部分旅客的選擇意願。收入、出國頻率皆為顯著影響因子。此外，部分消費者願意支付高達票價30%的SAF附加費，顯示市場中具備潛在高支付意願的族群。
    本研究建議航空公司可採用票價綑綁策略，結合SAF與附加服務，提高綠色票價吸引力，並透過市場細分行銷策略，鎖定特定高意願族群。研究結果有助於航空公司及政府制定永續航空發展策略與推廣政策。

With increasing global concerns about climate change and sustainable development, the aviation industry faces growing pressure to reduce carbon emissions and transition towards low-carbon operations. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) has become a critical solution for achieving carbon neutrality. However, given the high production costs of SAF, airlines often need to pass these costs on to passengers through additional surcharges. Whether travelers are willing to pay for these surcharges remains a key question.
 This study focuses on Taiwanese travelers and employs the Stated Preference Method (SPM) and the Multinomial Logit Model (MNL) to investigate their willingness to pay for SAF surcharges. A questionnaire survey and choice experiment were conducted, incorporating various attributes such as travel distance (long-haul or short-haul), green fare surcharges, and additional services (including mileage rewards, priority boarding, fast track security, seat reservations, lounge access, and extra baggage allowances). A total of 383 valid responses were collected from travelers with international flight experience.
    The empirical findings indicate that most travelers exhibit limited acceptance of SAF surcharges, with airfare remaining the most influential factor in their decision-making. However, green fare packages bundled with additional services can increase acceptance among certain traveler segments. Variables such as age, income, travel frequency, and environmental awareness significantly affect passenger choices. Notably, some travelers are willing to pay up to a 30% surcharge for SAF, indicating the existence of high-potential customer segments.
     The study suggests that airlines adopt fare bundling strategies by integrating SAF surcharges with value-added services to enhance the appeal of green fares. Additionally, targeted marketing strategies focusing on specific high-willingness-to-pay groups can further boost acceptance. The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and airlines in promoting sustainable aviation development and shaping future strategies.

目錄
圖目錄	IV
表目錄	V
第一章 緒論	1
1.1 研究背景與研究動機	1
1.2 研究目的	5
1.3 研究範圍	5
1.4 研究流程	7
第二章 文獻回顧	8
2.1永續發展與航空業之影響相關文獻	8
2.2價格對消費者行為的影響相關文獻	9
2.3 願付價格	12
2.4綑綁組合相關文獻	14
2.5文獻回顧小結	15
第三章 研究方法與研究設計	16
3.1研究架構	16
3.2 敘述性偏好法	17
3.2.1敘述性偏好法之實驗設計	17
3.2.2敘述性偏好法之衡量尺度	18
3.2.3條件評估法	18
3.3 個體選擇模式	20
3.3.1多項羅吉特模式(Multinomial Logit Model, MNL)	21
3.3.2 模式之參數檢定	22
3.4 問卷設計	23
3.4.1 個人基本資料	24
3.4.2 選擇實驗	25
3.4.3 選擇實驗設計	28
第四章 實證分析	36
4.1問卷初步分析	36
4.2模型變數設定	39
4.2.1人口特徵變數	39
4.2.2票價屬性變數	41
4.3多項羅吉特模式分析結果	45
4.3.1多項羅吉特模型結果分析	45
4.3.2多項式羅吉特模型結果分析-剔除碳補償獎勵、貴賓室使用、航程距離、年齡屬性	47
4.3.3多項式羅吉特模型結果分析-剔除性別與優先登機屬性	49
4.3.4多項式羅吉特模型結果分析-剔除快速安檢屬性	51
4.4支付意願與效用價值分析	53
第五章 結論與建議	55
5.1結論	55
5.2建議	56
5.3研究限制與未來研究方向	57
參考文獻	59
附錄一-永續航空燃料附加票價對顧客行為意圖調查問卷	63

 
圖目錄
圖 1 1漢莎航空倫敦到柏林單程經濟艙綠色票價	3
圖 1 2漢莎航空倫敦到柏林單程商務艙綠色票價	4
圖 1 3研究流程圖	7
圖 3 1研究架構圖	16
圖 3 2中華航空台北至東京價格圖	28
圖 3 3中華航空台北至倫敦價格圖	29

 
表目錄
表 3 1個人基本資料問卷	24
表 3 2選擇實驗屬性水準設置	26
表 3 3直交組合表	30
表 3 4選擇實驗方案組合表	34
表 3 5選擇實驗設計範例	35
表 4 1人口統計變數表	37
表 4 2人口特徵變數設定	40
表 4 3屬性變數設定	43
表 4 4多項式羅吉特分析結果表	46
表 4 5多項式羅吉特分析結果表-剔除碳補償獎勵、貴賓室使用、航程距離、年齡屬性	48
表 4 6多項式羅吉特分析結果表-剔除性別與優先登機屬性	50
表 4 7多項式羅吉特分析結果表-剔除快速安檢屬性	52
表 4 8願支付價格估計結果表	53

台灣永續能源研究基金會（TAISE）.（2023年5月17日）。*永續飛行新選擇：綠色票價的推動與反思*。檢自 https://taise.org.tw/post-view.php?ID=374
褚双磊, 魏志强, 任強, & 劉菲 (2022)。航空公司節能減排綜合評價方法研究。濱州學院學報, 38(6), 5–13.
李浩暐 (2024)。旅客參與航空自願碳抵換計畫之動機、誘因與願付價格之研究 [碩士論文;國立成功大學]。
Akamavi, R. K., Mohamed, E., Pellmann, K., & Xu, Y. (2015). Key determinants of passenger loyalty in the low-cost airline business. Tourism Management, 46, 528-545.
Alsayegh, M. F., Rahman, R. A., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Performance Transformation through ESG Disclosure. Sustainability, 12(9), 3910.
Anuwichanont, J. (2011). The impact of price perception on customer loyalty in the airline context. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(10), 45-59.
Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Chen, R., Yang, H., Wang, K., & Jiang, C. (2024). Impacts of a sustainable aviation fuel mandate on airline competition — Full-service carrier vs. low-cost carrier. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 120, 103997.
Chiou, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-H. (2010). Factors influencing the intentions of passengers regarding full service and low cost carriers: A note. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16(4), 226-228.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218.
Dolnicar, S., Grabler, K., Grün, B., & Kulnig, A. (2011). Key drivers of airline loyalty. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1020-1026.
Guiltinan, J. P. (1987). The price bundling of services: A normative framework. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 74–85.
Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ? The American Economic Review, 81(3), 635-647.
Hensher, D. A., & Layton, D. (2010). Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: implications for willingness to pay. Transportation, 37(4), 603-616.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Applied choice analysis: A primer (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Hess, S., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(6), 781-790.
Hui, T. H., Itani, N., & O’Connell, J. F. (2024). Examining Air Travellers’ Willingness to Pay for Non-voluntary Environment related Fees: The Case of SAF Surcharge and Carbon Taxes. Highlights of Sustainability, 3, 1-19.
Karanki, F. (2023). Redefining the skies: How sustainable aviation fuel alters airline cost structure and market dynamics. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 18(1), 102–117.
Kim, Y. K., & Lee, H. R. (2011). Customer satisfaction using low cost carriers. Tourism Management, 32(2), 235-243.
Koç, E. (2023). Green marketing strategies and climate change awareness in sustainable transportation: The case of airline companies. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, 12(4), 376-384.
Kroes, E. P., & Sheldon, R. J. (1988). Stated preference methods: An introduction. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22(1), 11-25.
Lufthansa Group. (2023). *Green Fares: Fly more sustainably in Europe*. Lufthansa. Retrieved May 18, 2025, from https://www.lufthansa.com/gb/en/homepage
Martínez-Garcia, E., Ferrer-Rosell, B., & Coenders, G. (2014). Profile of business and leisure travelers on low cost carriers in Europe. Journal of Air Transport Management, 36, 65-67.
Mason, K. J., & Alamdari, F. (2007). EU network carriers, low cost carriers and consumer behaviour: A Delphi study of future trends. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(5), 299-310.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105-142). Academic Press.
McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), 303-328.
Öztürk, G., Tetik, A. E., & Demirci, E. (2022). Measuring sustainable added value: A study on airline companies. Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics, 7(1), 84-95.
Prasad, A., Venkatesh, R., & Mahajan, V. (2010). Optimal Bundling of Technological Products with Network Externality. Management Science, 56(12), 2232-2245.
Rüger, M., & Maertens, S. U. (2023). The Content Scope of Airline Sustainability Reporting According to the GRI Standards—An Assessment for Europe’s Five Largest Airline Groups. Administrative Sciences, 13(9), 197.
Saha, G. C., & Theingi. (2009). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: A study of low-cost airline carriers in Thailand. Managing Service Quality, 19(3), 350-372.
Schomakers, E.-M., Engelmann, L., & Ziefle, M. (2024). Diversity in the acceptance of sustainable aviation fuels: Uncovering varying motivational patterns. Fuel Communications, 20, 100898.
Sinha, I., & Smith, M. F. (2000). Consumers' perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology & Marketing, 17(3), 257-270.
Spash, C. L. (2008). Contingent valuation design and data treatment: if you can't shoot the messenger, change the message. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(1), 34-51.
Torreilles, M. (2020). Air Travellers’ Willingness to Pay for a Sustainable Offer: A Discrete Choice Experiment [Master Thesis, Utrecht University].
Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
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, 134004.
Zheng, L., Hensher, D. A., & Rose, J. M. (2010). Willingness to pay for travel time reliability in passenger transport: A review and some new empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(3), 399-417.