Rental fee or rent f的問題，透過圖書和論文來找解法和答案更準確安心。 我們找到下列懶人包和總整理

消費者知識、認知價值與休閒阻礙對市民農園願付價格之影響—以台中市居民為例

為了解決Rental fee or rent f的問題，作者黃萍宣 這樣論述：

市民農園為一結合農業、休閒、教育的特殊休閒農業模式，主要為提供都市土地出租給非農民之市民進行農業耕種。依據學者的說法，市民農園在台灣已行之有年，但市民農園發展至今，許多農園因申請設置成休閒農場或原經營的農民老化等因素而陸續轉型。近年來受到食安風暴及都市擴張等現象的影響，越來越多人重視糧食安全及都市熱島效應的問題，且隨著食農教育的提倡，市民農園又掀起一波熱潮。然而市民農園的費用收取標準不一，加上有關市民農園的租金資訊並不公開透明，使得許多有意參與市民農園的民眾無法取得市場價格。因此本研究目的為探討台中市民眾對市民農園的願付價格，並瞭解消費者知識、認知價值、休閒阻礙對市民農園願付價格之影

響。 本研究以台中市居民作為研究母體，採問卷便利抽樣調查法，共收集389份有效樣本，資料分析以SPSS 20.0版之套裝軟體進行分析與各項假說之檢定。研究結果顯示整體樣本的消費者知識、認知價值顯著正向影響願付價格；消費者知識顯著正向影響認知價值；消費者知識對休閒阻礙以及認知價值對休閒阻礙，還有休閒阻礙對願付價格皆為顯著負向影響的關係。進一步將受訪者分為「曾經從事過市民農園」及「不曾從事過市民農園」兩類，分析結果顯示「曾經從事過市民農園」之受訪者的願付價格並不受消費者知識、認知價值、休閒阻礙的影響；「不曾從事過市民農園」之受訪者分析結果與整體樣本相同。另外，台中市民眾對市民農園之願付價格平

均為新台幣353元/20坪/月。 根據本研究成果，相關管理單位對於市民農園的定價將有其參考依據，亦對市民農園有興趣的民眾提供有效的租金參考資訊；此外，持續教育民眾市民農園的相關知識及意涵，有助於提高其消費者知識，並有望增加民眾對市民農園的認知價值，亦會降低其對從事市民農園所知覺到的休閒阻礙，將吸引更多民眾參與市民農園。

東京台北上海使用公共自行車服務之研究

為了解決Rental fee or rent f的問題，作者久島啓 這樣論述：

Table of ContentsRecommendation Letter from the Thesis AdvisorThesis Oral Defense Committee CertificationAcknowledgements iii中文摘要 ivAbstract vTable of Contents viList of Tables viiiList of Figures ixChapter 1: Introduction 11.1 Background 21.2 Research Purpose 51.3 Resear

ch Context 61.4 Research Process 6Chapter 2: Literature Review 92.1 Sharing Economy 92.2 Diffusion of Innovation Theory 112.3 Technology Adoption Models 17Chapter 3: Research Methodology 223.1 Case Study 223.2 Quantitative Research 23Chapter 4: Result Analysis and Discussi

on 334.1 Case Analysis 334.2 Quantitative Research 45Chapter 5: Conclusions 585.1 Research Findings 585.1.1 The Problem of Bike Sharing Services 595.1.2 The Key Success Factors of Bike Sharing Services 615.1.3 The Way to Develop Bike Sharing Business in Tokyo 645.2 Managerial

Implications 665.3 Limitations and Future Research 68References 69Appendix: Questionnaire 76List of TablesTable 1: Collection of Secondary Data 24Table 2: Screening Questions 27Table 3: Questions about Factors of Innovation Diffusion 28Table 4: Questions about Perceived Usefuln

ess 29Table 5: Questions about Perceived Ease of Use 29Table 6: Questions about Intention to Use 30Table 7: Questions about Atiitudes to Bike Sharing Services 30Table 8: Questions about Consumer Intentions 31Table 9: Questions about Demographic Data 32Table 10: Information about Yo

uBike 34Table 11: YouBike Rental Fee(Rates) 35Table 12: Meituan Bike Information 38Table 13: Docomo Bike Share Information 40Table 14: Docomo Bike Share’s Rates 41Table 15: Differences in Bike Sharing Services in theThree Cities 44Table 16: Demographic Attributes of Respondents

46Table 17: Bike Sharing Services Used in Each City 55List of FiguresFigure 1: Number of People Who Use Smartphones 3Figure 2: Research Flow 8Figure 3: Sharing Economy Diagram 10Figure 4: DOI for Mobile Bank Adoption 14Figure 5: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 18Figure 6: Model o

f Modified TAM in UX Context and its Resulting Coefficients 20Figure 7: How to Use YouBike by Easycard 34Figure 8: Mobike’s Sharing Bike 38Figure 9: Meituan Bike’s Sharing Bike 39Figure 10: Docomo Bike Share, Bike Sharing Station in Toyosu, Koto, Tokyo 40Figure 11: Docomo Bike Share’s

Sharing Bike 42Figure 12: Switch for Electric Assist 42Figure 13: AI System for Docomo Bike Share 43Figure 14: How Consumers Learn about Bike Sharing Services 47Figure 15: Consumer Motivation for Using Bike Sharing Services 48Figure 16: The Quality of Sharing Bike Services 49Figur

e 17: Consumer Satisfacation with Bike Sharing Sevice Fees and Stations 50Figure 18: Adopter Factors and Intension to Use 51Figure 19: Frequency of Consumer Bike Sharing Services Usage 53Figure 20: The Places Consumers Use Bike Sharing Services 53Figure 21: The Purpose of Using a Bike Sh

aring Service 54Figure 22: Evaluation of Bike Sharing Services 55Figure 23: Degree of Willingness to Recommend 56Figure 24: Consumer Satisfaction with Booking, Safety and Overall Service 57