紅樹林具有儲碳、調解氣候等多功能效益，但若缺乏適當之經營管理卻極易使其超出掌控，社會成本亦會有所增加，由此可知保護區長期運作勢在必行，而確切的法規準則、大量的人力與經費支持則有利其邁向永續治理。但管理背後所應負擔之成本卻較少被人提及，且紅樹林所擁有之效益並不具侷限性，缺乏實際銷售之機會，容易造成搭便車或公共財的悲劇性等相關社會問題。除此之外，民眾獲取資訊之來源管道差異，及與政府間的資訊不對稱皆影響其對生態保育、環境管理必要性的判斷與認知。因此本研究將了解民眾捐款意願或環境議題傾向之影響來源，以連結公共財與民眾間的網絡關係，進而達到紅樹林經營管理之最大效益。

新竹市香山濕地為國際認證之重要野鳥保育棲地，但近年卻因紅樹林密生與疏伐爭議再度進入民眾視野，其除側面點出全臺灣紅樹林的保育迷思外，亦證明自然環境有適當管理之必要性。為此，本研究針對894位遊客進行問卷調查，並藉由敘述性統計、探索性因素分析、卡方檢定、單因子變異數分析等分析解釋社經背景、環境議題傾向、吸引力、風險知覺及生態系統服務彼此間之關聯，最後以複迴歸分析進行香山濕地紅樹林管理之願付價格解析。由最終結果可知，未刪除抗議出價樣本，受測者的願付價格平均數為 182.77元／年／人，而扣除刪除抗議出價及部分變項具有遺漏值之樣本後，受測者的願付價格平均數為 387.64元／年／人。而紅樹林公共財非市場經濟價值以年遊客量為基準，未刪除抗議出價樣本之非市場價值達 788,862,370元，刪除抗議出價樣本之價值為1,673,111,611元。本研究可提供關注濕地自然公共財貨相關研究與保護區經營管理之實務建議與參考。

Mangrove forests have multi-functional benefits such as carbon storage and climate mediation. However, if there is no proper operation and management, it will be very easy to exceed the control and the social cost. It can be seen that the long-term operation of the protected area is imperative, and the precise regulations and norms, as well as a large amount of human and financial support, are conducive to its sustainable governance. However, the costs that should be borne by management are rarely mentioned, and the benefits of mangroves are not limited, and there is no opportunity for actual sales. It is easy to cause related social problems such as Free rider problem or the tragedy of the commons. In addition, the differences in the sources of information for the people and the asymmetry of information with the government affect their judgment and cognition of the necessity of ecological conservation and environmental management. Therefore, this study will understand the source of the influence of the public's willingness to donate or the tendency of environmental issues, in order to connect the network relationship between public finances and the public perception, so as to achieve the maximum benefits of mangrove management.

The Siangshan Wetland in Hsinchu City is an internationally recognized Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas. However, in recent years, due to the controversy of mangrove growth and deforestation, it has once again entered the public's attention and pointed out the myth of mangrove conservation in Taiwan. In addition, it proves the need for proper management of the natural environment.

The questionnaire data from 894 visitors have been collected and analyzed by descriptive statistics, factor analysis, regression and structural equation modeling to inference the variables relationships between socioeconomic status, environmental issues, resource attraction, risk perceptions, and the cognitions to ecosystem services toward mangrove forests. According to the results of multiple regression analysis in terms of willing-to-pay of mangroves in Siangshan Wetland, the tourists of personal per year WTP is NT 182.77. The non-use value of the management of the mangrove forests is NT 788,862,370 one year. When we delete the protest bid, the tourists of personal per year WTP is NT 387.64. The non-market value of the management of the mangrove forests is NT 1,673,111,611 one year. This study can provide practical suggestions and references to the research concerned with protected areas management and natural public goods or property management in wetlands.

摘要 ii
Abstract iii
謝誌 v
目錄 vi
圖目錄 viii
表目錄 iX
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與背景 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 名詞定義 4
第四節 研究流程 5
第二章 文獻回顧 8
第一節 資源吸引力 8
第二節 風險知覺 11
第三節 紅樹林生態系統服務 14
第三章 研究方法 20
第一節 研究基地概況 20
第二節 研究架構與假設 24
第三節 問卷設計及操作型定義 28
第四節 調查對象與抽樣方法 35
第五節 資料分析方法 36
第四章 分析結果 38
第一節 樣本基本特性分析 38
第二節 資源吸引力、風險知覺及生態系統服務因素分析 45
第三節 環境議題傾向差異性分析 55
第四節 捐款意願邏輯迴歸分析 79
第五節 管理願付價格實證研究 81
第六節 公共財非市場經濟價值 87
第五章 結論與建議 88
第一節 研究結論 88
第二節 研究建議 91
第三節 研究限制 93
文獻來源 94
附錄一 正式問卷 100

內政部(2018)。香山濕地重要濕地保育利用計畫。臺北市：內政部。
毛小苓、劉陽生(2003)。國內外環境風險評價研究進展。應用基礎與工程科學學報，11(3)，266-273。
王相華、傅淑瑋、鄧國禎、洪西洲、廖學儀(2015)。臺灣紅樹林面積變遷及物種組成現況。臺灣林業，41(2)，47-51。
交通部觀光局(2019)。主要觀光遊憩據點遊客人數。未出版之數據。取自https://admin.taiwan.net.tw/。
周士雄、施鴻志(2000)。環境風險管理決策中之公眾認知探討─以地震災害減緩措施為例。都市與計劃，27(3)，363-380。
社團法人臺灣濕地學會(2016)。新竹市香山區大庄里紅樹林清除監督及效益分析工作。新竹市：新竹市政府。
邱皓政(2008)。量化研究方法(一)研究設計與資料處理。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
高玉娟(1995)。墾丁國家公園觀光遊憩資源對遊客的吸引力研究。東海大學景觀研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
張登凱(2015)。香山濕地紅樹林的去留。荒野快報，280，4-7。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2012)。多變量分析方法：統計軟體應用（六版）。臺北市：五南。
陳宛均(2011)。生態系紅皮書 幫生態系打分數的好方法。自然保育季刊，90，14-25。
陳慶芳(2013)。臺灣紅樹林管理策略之研究－以新竹市濱海野生動物保護區為例。國立成功大學海洋科技與事務研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。
黃俊英(2004)。多變量分析（七版）。臺北市：華泰書局。
新竹市政府(2019)。答客問-香山濕地紅樹林清除。未出版之數據。取自https://siangshan-wetland.tw/faq。
楊意菁、徐美苓(2012)。環境風險的認知與溝通：以全球暖化議題的情境公眾為例。中華傳播學刊，22，169-209。
楊樹森(2011)。香山濕地棲地復育效益評估。新竹市：新竹市政府。
楊樹森(2013)。102年香山濕地棲地復育生態調查計畫。新竹市：新竹市政府。
楊樹森(2017)。105-106年度香山重要濕地（國家級）基礎調查計畫。新竹市：新竹市政府。
楊樹森、張登凱、李沛沂(2014)。新竹香山濕地紅樹林擴張歷程及其可能因素探討。濕地學刊，3(1)，17-26。
廖楷民、李欣輯、郭彥廉、楊惠萱(2008)。風險知覺與地震保險意願之關係。風險評論，1(1)，17-28。
蕭代基、鄭蕙燕、吳珮瑛、錢玉蘭、溫麗琪(2002)。環境保護之成本效益分析—理論、方法與應用。臺北市：俊傑。
賴意勤、闕雅文(2015)。石虎棲地保育效益之評估—石虎棲地居民與非棲地居民∕孩子的未來或成人的現在。國立新竹教育大學社會學習領域教學碩士班碩士論文，未發版，新竹市。
謝蕙蓮、陳章波、林柏芬(2003)。紅樹林對濕地多樣性保育的衝擊：以臺灣招潮蟹為例。濕地雜誌，47。
闕雅文(2005)。自然資源之經濟效益評估法及條件評估法：文獻回顧。區域人文社會學報，8，105-126。
Baird, I. S., & Thomas, H. (1985). Toward a contingency model of strategic risk taking. The Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 230-243.
Bland, L.M., Keith, D.A., Miller, R.M., Murray, N.J., & Rodríguez, J.P. (2017). Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.1. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ix + 99pp.
Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 616-626. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., & Belt, M. (1997). The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, 253-260. 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2.
Cumming, G. S., Allen, C., Ban, N., Biggs, D., Biggs, H. C., Cumming, D. H., de Vos, A., Epstein, G., Etienne, M., Maciejewski, K., Mathevet, R., Moore, C., Nenadovic, M., & Schoon, M. (2015). Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale socioal-ecological approach. Ecological Applications, Ecological Society of America, 25(2), 299-319. doi: 10.1890/13-2113.1.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington DC: Island Press.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., et al. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
Fedele, G., Locatelli, B., & Djoudi, H. (2017). Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience. Ecosystem Services, 28(Part A), 43-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.011.
Fischer, A., & Eastwood, A. (2016). Coproduction of ecosystem services as human-nature interactions- An analytical framework. Land Use Policy, 52, 41-50. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004.
Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.F., Cantú-Salazar, L., & Cruz-Piñón, G. (2008). Ecological Performance of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 93-113. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173529
Gee, C. Y., & Makens, J. C. (1990). The Travel Industry. New York: Van Nostrand Reinheld.
Getz, D. (1991). Festivals, Special events, and Tourism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Goeldner, C. R. & J. R. Ritchie (2006). Tourism: Principle Practice, Philosophies (11th ed.), Hoboken JN: John Wiley & Sons.
Gunn, C. A., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases. Psychology Press.
Haines-Young, R., & M.B. Potschin (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available from www.cices.eu
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 2-34.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
IUCN (2012). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1(2nd ed.). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp
Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk. Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 382-393.
Jones, R. A., & Ellis, G. D. (1996). Effect of variation in perceived risk on the secretion of β-endorphin. Leisure Sciences, 18, 277-291.
Kahlor, L. A., & Rosenthal, S. (2009). If we seek, do we learn? Predicting knowledge of global warming. Science Communication, 30, 380-414.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems. Annals of tourism research, 17(3), 367-384.
Lew, A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 533-575.
Lim, N. (2003). Consumers’ Perceived Risk: Sources versus Consequences. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 2, 216-228.
Mascia, M.B., & Pailler, S. (2011). Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conservation Letters, 4, 9-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00147.x.
Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, P. L. (1981). The Psychology of Leisure Travel: Effective Marketing and Selling of Travel Service. Boston, MA: CBI Publishing Co., Inc
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.
Muralikrishna I. V., & Manickam V. (2017). Chapter Eight - Environmental Risk Assessment. Environmental Management: Science and Engineering for Industry, 135-152. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811989-1.00008-7.
O'Neill, R.V. (2001). Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? Ecology, 82 (12), 3275-3284.
Peter, M., & Weiermair. K. (2000). Tourist attractions and attracted tourists: How to satisfy today’s ‘fickle’ tourist clientele? Journal of Tourism Studies, 11(1), 22-29.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G., Tengö, M., Bennett, E., Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., Macdonald, G., & Pfeifer, L. (2010). Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? Bioscience, 60(8), 576-589. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer Ranking of Risk Reduction Methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56-61.
Shi‐Bo Li, Po‐Hung Chen, Jih‐Sheng Huang, Mei‐Li Hsueh, Li‐Yung Hsieh, Chen‐Lu Lee, & Hsing‐Juh Lin (2018). Factors regulating carbon sinks in mangrove ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 24(9), 4195–4210. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14322
Slovic, P. (2000). Perceived risk , trust , and democracy. In P. Slovic (Ed), The perception of risk (pp. 316-326). London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Smith, V. L., & Butler, R. (1996). Indigenous tourism: The four Hs. In R. Bulter & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Stone, R. N., & Gronhaug, K. (1993). Perceived risk: Further Considerations forthe Marketing Discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), 39-50.
Swarbrooke, J. (2002). The Development and Management of Visitor. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). The Role of Perceived Risk in the Quality-Value Relationship: A Study in a Retail Environment. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 77-105.
Tansley, A.G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284-307. doi: 10.2307/1930070.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington DC: TEEB.
Thompson, S. H. T., & Yeong, Y. D. (2003). Assessing the consumer decision process in the digital marketplace. The International Journal of Management Science, 31(5), 349-363.
Tulloch, J., & Lupton, D. (2003). Risk and everyday life. London: Sage.