簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 林珍瑋
Lin, Chen-Wei
論文名稱： 以條件評估法衡量台灣公共廣電價值
Estimating the Value of Taiwan Public Service Broadcasting-- An Application of Contingent Valuation Methodology
指導教授： 傅祖壇
Fu, Tsu-Tan
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 大眾傳播研究所
Graduate Institute of Mass Communication
論文出版年： 2008
畢業學年度： 96
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 95
中文關鍵詞： 條件評估法 、願付價格 、公共廣電 、使用價值 、抗議性答覆
英文關鍵詞： Contingent Valuation Methodology (CVM), Willingness to Pay (WTP), Public Service Broadcasting (PSB), Use Value, Protest Response
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：323  下載：11 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 公共廣電本身由於具備文化財與公共財的特性，其價值往往難以量化評估。本研究援引經濟學中對於非市場財貨評估的方法，利用條件評估法(contingent valuation methodology, CVM)，並透過全國性電訪提供一個假設性市場，以求得民眾對於公共廣電的願付價格(willingness to pay, WTP)，藉以進一步衡量台灣公共廣電的價值。本文除了簡單介紹條件評估法之外，同時亦檢視其他國家如何運用此法來衡量不同國家公共廣電的價值。
    本文將價值區分成「使用價值」與「非使用價值」。為了檢視不同變項對於願付與否的影響，本研究利用雙元選擇模型來處理諸如社經變項、媒介使用狀況、對於公共價值的期待與滿意度、以及態度等變項的影響性。此外，本文同時也檢視了那些並未在問卷中表達其對公視真實偏好的「抗議性樣本」，並將這些樣本排除在分析之外，以避免抗議性樣本影響迴歸模型參數的推估。
    研究結果顯示，國內民眾對於公共電視的「使用價值」及「非使用價值」每年每戶的願付價格平均分別為新台幣2423元以及1182元，佔約2007年台灣國民生產毛額的0.44%及0.21%。就使用價值而言，有無有線電視與否、收看公視的時數、受訪者的滿意度、以及對於公共功能期望和實踐上的落差等變項皆有顯著的影響性。就非使用價值而言，男性願付價格高於女性，而與媒介使用情形相關的變項影響性則相對減弱，但態度變項則欲顯重要：越是滿意公共電視服務以及越是傾向認為公共電視無法被商業電視取代者，其願付價格越高。

    This is the first study in Taiwan that estimates the value of public service broadcasting (e.g. PTS) in monetary terms. By using contingent valuation methodology (CVM), a technique widely used on the evaluation of non-market good, this research conducts a nationwide telephone survey and puts PTS into a hypothetical scenario to elicit people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the maintenance of it. Literature on CVM and how it is applied on the accountability of public service broadcasting are both examined.
    Use value and nonuse value are specified separately in this study. To identify what characteristic might affect the WTP, binary choice model (Probit) is used to access factors (e.g. socioeconomic variables, TV usage patterns, expectations and satisfactions and other attitudinal variables) that are influential to individual’s choice of whether to pay or not. Besides, protest responses that are not indicative of respondent’s true preferences are censored and are removed form the analysis. With the obtained coefficients, individual’s willingness to pay for PTS are also estimated.
    The household WTP for use and nonuse value every year is estimated to be $2423 NTD and $ 1182 NTD in average, which equal to 0.44% and 0.21 % of the GDP per capita in the year 2007. For use value, variables related to the usage of media, respondents’ satisfaction, and the gap between satisfaction and expectations are influential, while the influence of demographic variables is relatively small. For nonuse value, gender becomes influential and male respondents are more willing to pay for nonuse value. The influences of usage variables are mitigated but attitudinal variables become predictive: those with higher satisfaction and do not think PTS can be replaced by commercial broadcasting are more willing to pay.

    CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................1 1.1 Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) at the Turn of the Century.......................1 1.2 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................2 1.3 Research Methods and Data Sources ...............................................................3 1.4 Structure of Research.......................................................................................4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................5 2.1 Literature Review on the Accountability of PSB ............................................5 2.1.1 Identity Crisis of Public Service Broadcasting .....................................5 2.1.2 Reaction: Media Accountability ...........................................................7 2.1.3 Forms of Public Fund............................................................................9 2.1.4 Is Direct Grant Appropriate? ..............................................................10 2.1.5 Public Funding Mechanism in Taiwan: A Comparison......................10 2.1.6 Funding Policy Corresponding to the Social Need.............................11 2.2 Literature Review on CVM and its Practice ..................................................12 2.2.1 Use Value vs. Nonuse Value ..............................................................13 2.2.2 Welfare Measures: WTP v.s. WTA....................................................14 2.2.3 Commissioning a CVM Study............................................................15 2.2.4 Criticism of CVM...............................................................................18 2.2.5 Protest Responses in CV survey .........................................................19 2.3 How CVM is Applied on the Assessment of PSB Value: Examples from Other Countries ....................................................................................................21 2.3.1 CBC of Canada ...................................................................................22 2.3.2 RTÉ of Ireland ....................................................................................23 2.3.3 BBC of UK .........................................................................................24 2.3.4 NHK of Japan .....................................................................................26 2.3.5 Key Explanatory Variables Affecting Citizens’ WTP........................31 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND SURVEY.............................33 3.1 Focus Group...................................................................................................33 3.1.1 Execution Process and Results............................................................34 3.1.2 A Brief Summary for the Focus Group...............................................36 3.2 Survey and Sampling Procedure....................................................................37 3.3 Questionnaire Design.....................................................................................37 3.3.1 Contents of the Questionnaire.............................................................37 3.3.2 The Contingent Valuation Scenario and Elicitation Format...............39 CHAPTER 4 SURVEY RESULTS..........................................................42 4.1 Data and Sample Statistics.............................................................................42 4.1.1 Descriptive Analysis of Respondents’ Characteristics and TV usage 42 4.1.2 Expectations of and Satisfactions with Public Values ........................46 4.1.3 Descriptive Analysis of Attitudes toward PTS ...................................48 4.2 Distribution of the Dichotomous Choice Responses .....................................49 4.3 The Protest Responses ...................................................................................51 4.3.1 The Selection of Protests in this Study ...............................................51 4.3.2 Does Protests Matter? .........................................................................53 ii CHAPTER 5 THE EMPIRICAL MODEL...............................................56 5.1 Model Specification .......................................................................................56 5.2 Definition of the Explanatory Variables ........................................................58 5.3 Empirical Estimation: Probit Regressions .....................................................63 5.3.1 Use Value Scenario.............................................................................63 5.3.2 Nonuse Value Scenario.......................................................................65 5.4 Estimating WTP for Use Value and Nonuse Value.......................................66 5.5 Profile Analysis: Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test ...........................68 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS..............................71 6.1 Conclusion .....................................................................................................71 6.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research .........................................72 REFERENCE............................................................................................74 APPENDIX 1 AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND PUBLIC FUNDING MECHANISM .............79 APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE ..........................................................81 APPENDIX 3 OPEN-ENDED REASONS FOR NOT PAYING FOR THE CHARGE .........................................................................................91

    Act of PTS (Revised in 2004). 公共電視法（2004年修正）。
    Arrow, K., Solow, R. Portney, P. R. Leamer, E. E. Rander, R. & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation.
    Barbier, E. B. (1994). Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands. Land Economics, 70(2), 155-173.
    Bardoel, J. & D’Haenens, L. (2004). Media responsibility and accountability: New conceptualizations and practices. The European Journal of Communication Research, 29(1), 5-25.
    Bateman, I. et al. (Eds.) (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
    BBC & Human Capital (2004). Measuring the value of the BBC—a report by the BBC and the Human Capital.
    Bohm, P. (1972). Estimating demand for public goods: an experiment. European Economic Review, 3, 111-130.
    Boyle, K. J. (2003). Contingent valuation in practice. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (pp.111-169). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Brants, K. (2003). Auditing public broadcasting performance: its theory and practice. The Public, 10(3), 5-10.
    Brown, A. (1996a). Economics, public service broadcasting, and social values. The Journal of Media Economics, 9(1), 3-15
    Brown, A. (1996b). A note on public service broadcasting. The Journal of Media Economics, 9(1), 1-2.
    Carson, R. T. & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(5), 1263-1267.
    CASBAA (2008). Taiwan’s Digital Gap: Regulation and Development of the Pay-TV Industry. Hong Kong: The Cable & Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia.
    Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & Kim, Y. (2002). The PBS brand versus cable brands: assessing the brand image of public television in a multichannel environment. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(2), 300-320.
    Cheng, C. M. (2005). The group of public service broadcasting, a tenable solution? Argument for its descriptive or analytic validity. Communication and Management Research, 5(1), 2-27. 程宗明（2005）。〈公共廣播電視集團是否為「集團」？--一個描述性或分析性概念之爭議〉，《傳播與管理研究》，5: 2-27。
    Chyi, H. I. (2005). Willingness to pay for online news: an empirical study on the viability of the subscription model. Journal of Media Economics, 18(2), 131-142.
    Collins, R., Finn, A., McFadyen, S. & Hoskins, C. (2001). Public service broadcasting beyond 2000: is there a future for public service broadcasting? Canadian Journal of Communication, 26 (1), 3-15.
    Coppens, T. (2002). A tour of duties: A comparative study of PSB mission statements in 13 European countries. Paper presented at the 23rd Conference and General Assembly of the IAMCR, Barcelona, July 2002.
    Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. (2001). The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest. CA: Pine Forge Press.
    Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S. & Schulze, W. D. (Eds.) (1986). Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Art Assessment of the Contingent Method. Totawa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
    Delaney, L. & O’Toole, F. (2004). Irish public services broadcasting: A contingent valuation analysis. The Economic and Social Review, 35(3), 321-350.
    Delaney, L. & O’Toole, F. (2006a). The distributional effects of state-financed broadcasting. Journal of Media Economics, 19(2), 83-98.
    Delaney, L. & O’Toole, F. (2006b). Willingness to pay: individual or household? Journal of Cultural Economics, 35(3), 305-309.
    Diamond, P. A. & Hausman, J. (1993). On contingent valuation measurement of non-use values, in J. Hausman (Ed), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    Diener, A., O’Brien, B. & Gafni, A. (1998). Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics, 7(Jun), 313-326.
    EBU (2000). The Funding of Public Service Broadcasting. Switzerland: European Broadcasting Union, Legal Department.
    Finn, A. McFadyen, S. & Hoskins, C. (2003). Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3-4), 177-192.
    Finn, A., McFadyen, S., Hoskins, C. & Hupfer, M. (2001). Quantifying the sources of value of a public service. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(2), 225-239.
    Fu, T. T. & Yeh, P. (2005). An application of CVM on the evaluation of the health benefit—The WTP of Hypertension Prevention. Taiwan Economic Review, 33(1), p.1-32. 傅祖壇、葉寶文(2006)。〈應用CVM在健康效益之評估—高血壓疾病預防之願付價格〉，《經濟論文叢刊》，33(1): 1-32。
    Fu, T. T., Yang, W. S. & Yeh, P. (2006). Citizen’s willingness to donate for reconstructing disaster areas caused by the 921 earthquake-- An application of CVM. Taipei Economic Inquiry, 42(1), p.57-74. 傅祖壇、楊文山、葉寶文(2006)。〈921大地震災後重建經費之民眾捐款意願—CVM法之應用〉，《經濟研究》，42(1): 57-74。
    Government Information Office (2005). Amendment Draft for the Act of PTS. 行政院新聞局 (2005)。《公共電視法修正草案總說明》。12月12日送行政院政務委員審查會議文件。
    Graham, A. & Davis, G. (1992). The public funding of broadcasting. In Congdon, T. et al. (Eds). Paying for Broadcasting: The Handbook (pp. 167-221). London: Routledge.
    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.
    Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341.
    Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? American Economic Review, 81(June), 635-647.
    Harrison, J. & Woods, L. M. (2001). Defining European public service broadcasting. European Journal of Communication, 16(4), 477-504.
    Hastings, T. (2004). Discussion of performance measures in public service broadcasting. Aslib Proceedings, 56(5), 301-307.
    Hilliard, R. L., & Picard, R. G. (1989). Plurality, diversity, and prohibitions on television-newspaper crossownership. Journal of Media Economics, 2(1), 55-65.
    Hisao Onoe, Yasuo Sakamoto & Hirosuke Arai. (1993). A cost-benefit analysis of television broadcasting. Studies of Broadcasting, 29(March), 93-124.
    Holtz-Bacha, C. & Norris, P. (2001) “To Entertain, Inform, and Educate”: Still the Role of Public Television. Political Communication, 18: 123-140.
    Jakubowicz, K. (2003). Endgame? Contracts, audits, and the future of public service broadcasting. The Public, 10(3), 45-62.
    Jennings, M. I. & Curtis, J. A. (2002). Assessing the public service element of Irish public broadcasting—the validity of the contingent valuation method. Paper presented for CVM conference, University of Chicago.
    Jorgensen, B. S. & Syme, G. J. (2000). Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics, 33(2), 251-265.
    Jorgensen, B. S., Syme, G. J., Bishop, B. J. & Nancarrow, B. E. (1999). Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14(1), 133-150.
    Kwan S. R. (1998). The public television station in Taiwan: Problems and solutions. Theory and Policy, 12(3), 112-129. 關尚仁（1998）。〈我國公共電視當前面對之問題與因應之道〉，《理論與政策》，12: 112-129。
    Lockwood, M. (1998). Contribution of contingent valuation and the other stated preference methods to evaluation of environmental policy. Australian Economic Papers, 37(3), 292-311.
    Loomis, J., Brown, T. Lucero, B. & Peterson, G. (1996). Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: Results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Land Economics, 72(4), 450-461.
    Markandya, A., Harou, P., Bellù, L. G. & Cistulli, V. (2002). Environmental economics for sustainable growth: a handbook for practitioners. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing
    Meyerhoff, J. & Liebe, U. (2006). Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics, 57(4), 583-594.
    Mitchell, C. & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington D. C.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 16). Berverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
    Morrison, M. D., Blamey, R. K., & Bennett, J. W. (2000). Minimizing payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(4), 407-422.
    NHK“約束”評価委員会（2006）。《平成17年度“約束”評価報告書》。取自NHK：http://www3.nhk.or.jp/pr/keiei/yakusoku/pdf/060627-001.pdf
    NHK“約束”評価委員会（2007）。《平成18年度“約束”評価報告書》。取自NHK：http://www3.nhk.or.jp/pr/keiei/yakusoku/pdf/070529-002.pdf
    Noonan, D. S. (2003). Contingent valuation and cultural resources: a meta-analytic review of the Literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3-4), 159-176.
    Nordenson, B. (2007). The Uncle Sam Solution. Columbia Journalism Review, 2007 September/ October.
    Nordicity Group Ltd (2006). Analysis of Government Support for Public Broadcasting and Other Culture in Canada. Online Available: http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/submissions/crtc/2006/BNPH-2006-5_CBC_RC_Public-Broadcaster-Comparison.pdf
    Nunes, P. (2002). The Contingent Valuation of Natural Park. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    O’Hagan, J. & Jennings, M. (2003). Public broadcasting in Europe: rational, licence fee and other issues. Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(1), 31-56.
    Papandrea, F. (1999). Willingness to pay for domestic television programming. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(3), 149-166.
    PTS (2007a). Annual Report 2006. Taipei: Public Television Service Foundation.
    PTS (2007b). Public Service Broadcasting. Taipei: Public Television Service Foundation. 公共電視（2007）。《追求共好：新世紀全球公共廣電服務》。台北市：財團法人公共電視文化事業基金會。
    Raboy, M. (1995). Public service broadcasting in the context of globalization. In M. Raboy (Ed.), Public Service Broadcasting for the 21st Century (pp.1-19). UK: John Libbey Media.
    Santagata, W. & Signorello, G. (2000). Contingent valuation of a cultural public good and policy design: the case of “Napoli Musei Aperti”. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(Aug), 181-204.
    Schart, A. (1999). Funding options and the public interest. Diffusion, p.4-5. Geneva, Switzerland: European Broadcasting Union.
    Schwer, R. K. & Daneshvary, R. (1995). Willingness to pay for public television and the advent of “look-alike” cable television channels: a case study. The Journal of Media Economics, 8(3), 95-109.
    Shepherd, R. (2007/1/18). License fee to rise by 3%. Broadcact. Retrieved from: http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/licence_fee_to_rise_by_3.html?emailafriend=842153146
    Smith, V. K. (2006). Fifty years of contingent valuation. In A. Alberini & J. R. Kahn (Eds.). Handbook on Contingent Valuation (pp. 7-65), UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Spash, C. & Hanley, N. (1995). Preferences, information, and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics, 12, 191-208.
    Syvertsen, T. (2003). Challenges to public television in the era of convergence and commercialization. Television & New Media, 4(2), 155-175.
    Throsby, D. (2003). Determining the value of cultural goods: how much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us? Journal of Cultural Economics, 27(3-4), 275-285.
    Tracey, M. (1998). The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting. UK: Oxford University Press.
    Tsuji, M. & Miyahara, S. (2007, Sep). Value of Japanese public broadcasting in the convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications. Paper presented at the 18th European Regional ITS Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
    Tsuji, M. (2007). Assessing performance on NHK promises: methods and approaches. NHK Broadcasting Studies 2006-2007, 5, 1-28.
    Turner, R. K. (2001). The place of economic values in environmental valuation. In I. J. Bateman & K. G. Willis (Eds.). Valuing Environmental Preference: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (pp. 17-41), UK: Oxford.
    Wiser, R. H. (2007). Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics, 62(3-4), 419-432.
    Wu, P. I., Lin, C. Y. & Su, M. T. (2005). The characteristics of protest responses and responses with “uncertain”: the impact of these responses on WTP estimation. Survey Research: Method and Application. 17, 65-110. 吳珮瑛、林佳穎、蘇明達（2005）。〈抗議性樣本與答覆「無法確定」樣本之特質：這一群人對假設市場價值估計結果之影響〉，《調查研究—方法與應用》，17：65-110。

    QR CODE