面對時下大小食安問題頻傳，從農場到餐桌的每個環節都應當受到重視，對於消費者知的權益亦然，而產銷履歷制度及其農產品的應用，此機制由政府推行和管理，並促使農民與相關店家有良好的經營運作，且有第三方驗證機構執行檢驗，以及有一個資訊公開透明的追溯紀錄平台，可供社會大眾安心使用，故本研究以產銷履歷農產品(Traceable Agricultural Product, TAP)為主軸，從推-拉-繫住力模型來探討消費者購買新增有產銷履歷農產品之轉換意圖為何，進而探求出其價值應用所在，總共有六項假說，並鎖定台灣一般消費者為研究對象，透過發放量化問卷調查。

本研究結果顯示，在繫住力效果的兩因素「健康意識」、「願付價格溢價」皆使消費者產生轉換意圖至購買新增有產銷履歷農產品。在推力效果因素之一的「對無TAP產品的知覺風險」則無顯著影響，而另一個在推力效果的因素「恐懼無TAP店家的投機」則是在單獨檢驗下有顯著效果，但在整體模式下的效果不顯著。在拉力效果因素之一的「對TAP產品的知覺信任」於單獨檢驗下有顯著效果，但在整體模式下的效果不顯著，而另一個在拉力效果的因素「對TAP產品的知覺品質」則是沒有顯著影響。於上述未能直接獲得研究假說支持的部分，推測可能原因除了是繫住力效果的干擾影響外，還有可能是消費者的轉換成本或消費上資訊不對稱所致，而無法達成強烈的轉換意圖。故總結而論，本研究建議店家可多強化繫住力效果因素，尤其是消費者的健康意識、願付價格溢價，以讓消費者對於產銷履歷農產品抱有支持的轉換意圖，這會是產銷履歷農產品的重要應用考量，此外建議政府應持續管理以推行維護，店家也應盡速採用推廣，故將可以達到三贏的局面，即消費者個人可以食用安心、企業品牌可以在市場上占心、國家政府獲得民心，更甚者，在歐日等多個國家也是有類似產銷履歷的可溯源制度，因此產銷履歷農產品對於台灣業者在平時的應用，甚至往國際市場的行銷推廣，皆是有所助益的。

Undeniably, food safety is a vitally important issue around the world. Therefore, sufficient attention should be paid to how food is grown and prepared, from the farm to consumers’ table. Knowing the provenance of products is an important consumer right. The TAP (Traceable Agricultural Product) system is a regulatory mechanism that encourages farmers and suppliers to use eco-friendly methods to produce food that can be traced back. It uses a third-party certification system to verify conformity and ensures that relevant information is available to all users. We used a questionnaire survey to study Taiwanese consumers’ switching intention from non-TAP to TAP, and applied the Push-Pull-Mooring model to examine which factors influence consumer’s switching intention. In our study, we found that the factors of the mooring effect, namely “consumer’s health consciousness” and “consumer’s willingness to pay premium price,” could influence consumer’s intention to switch to TAP. Furthermore, one factor of the push effect, namely “perceived risk of non-TAP,” was not supported. The other push effect factor, namely “fear of non-TAP seller opportunism,” was supported when examined individually but not supported in the overall model. Moreover, one factor of the pull effect, namely “perceived trust of TAP,” was supported when examined individually but not supported in the overall model. The other pull effect factor, namely “perceived product quality of TAP,” was not supported. We guess that a possible reason for this may be the switching costs for consumers and the moderation impact of the mooring effect. To sum up, the TAP system is supported by consumers, and keeping it would be beneficial to consumers, the government and firms.

壹、英文部分
1. Ba, S., & Paul, A. P. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268.
2. Bansal, H. S. (2005). "Migrating" to New Service Providers: Toward a Unifying Framework of Consumers' Switching Behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 96-115.
3. Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking: Chicago, IL.
4. Birch, D., Memery, J., & De Silva Kanakaratne, M. (2018). The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 221-228.
5. Brislin, R. W. (1986). Research instruments. Field methods in cross-cultural research (Vol. 159-162).
6. Chen, M.-F., & Huang, C.-H. (2013). The impacts of the food traceability system and consumer involvement on consumers' purchase intentions toward fast foods. Food Control, 33(2), 313-319.
7. Choe, Y. C., Park, J., Chung, M., & Moon, J. (2009). Effect of the food traceability system for building trust: Price premium and buying behavior. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(2), 167-179.
8. Cohen, J., & Borenstein, M. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis: A Computer Program: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
9. Dickinson, D. L., & Bailey, D. (2002). MEAT TRACEABILITY: ARE U.S. CONSUMERS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27, 2, 27, 348-364.
10. Dickinson, D. L., & Von Bailey, D. (2005). Experimental Evidence on Willingness to Pay for Red Meat Traceability in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(3), 537-548.
11. Dodds, W. B. (1991). Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. Journal of marketing research, 28(3), 307-319.
12. Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-handling Activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119-134.
13. Elise, G., Barry, K., Fred, K., Ken, N., Greg, P., & Linda, C. (2003). Traceability in the US Food Supply: Dead End or Superhighway? Choices, 18(2), 17-20.
14. Gould, S. J. (1988). Consumer Attitudes Toward Health and Health Care: A Differential Perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 22(1), 96-118.
15. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. In: Pearson.
16. Jamieson, L. F., & Bass, F. M. (1989). Adjusting Stated Intention Measures to Predict Trial Purchase of New Products: A Comparison of Models and Methods. Journal of marketing research, 26(3), 336-345.
17. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
18. Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study. Journal of marketing, 59(2), 71-82.
19. Lin, T.-C., & Huang, S.-L. (2014). Understanding the Determinants of Consumers' Switching Intentions in a Standards War. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19(1), 163-189.
20. Longino, C. F. (1992). The forest and the trees : Micro-level considerations in the study of geographic mobility in old age. Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution, 23-34.
21. Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 163-170.
22. Mishra, D. P., Heide, J. B., & Cort, S. G. (1998). Information Asymmetry and Levels of Agency Relationships. Journal of marketing research, 35(3), 277-295.
23. Monroe, K. B. a. R. K. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. 1(1), 209-232.
24. Moon, B. (1995). Paradigms in migration research: exploring 'moorings' as a schema. Progress in Human Geography, 19(4), 504-524.
25. Njite, D., Kim, W. G., & Kim, L. H. (2008). Theorizing Consumer Switching Behavior: A General Systems Theory Approach. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 9(3), 185-218.
26. Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., & Greene, C. (2005). Price premiums hold on as US organic produce market expands: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Washington (DC).
27. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115-143.
28. Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 37-59.
29. Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal-Agent Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105-136.
30. Peters, C. J., Bills, N. L., Wilkins, J. L., & Fick, G. W. (2009). Foodshed analysis and its relevance to sustainability. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(1), 1-7.
31. Pieniak, Z., Ottar Olsen, S., Verbeke, W., Brunsø, K., & Scholderer, J. (2008). Impact of consumers' health beliefs, health involvement and risk perception on fish consumption: A study in five European countries. British Food Journal, 110(9), 898-915.
32. Ping, R. A. (1993). The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing, 69(3), 320-352.
33. Röhr, A., Lüddecke, K., Drusch, S., Müller, M. J., & Alvensleben, R. v. (2005). Food quality and safety––consumer perception and public health concern. Food Control, 16(8), 649-655.
34. 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.
35. Wells, J. D., Valacich, J. S., & Hess, T. J. (2011). What Signal Are You Sending? How Website Quality Influences Perceptions of Product Quality and Purchase Intentions. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 373-396.
36. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies : analysis and antitrust implications : a study in the economics of internal organization: New York (N.Y.) : Free press.
37. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269-296.
38. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

貳、中文與網路資料部分
1. 古源光, 廖遠東, & 劉展冏. (2009). 農產品產銷履歷制度. 科學發展月刊, 441, 42-47.
2. 吳萬益. (2005). 企業研究方法(二版): 華泰文化.
3. 林震岩. (2007). 多變量分析：SPSS的操作與應用(再版): 智勝文化.
4. 侯正裕, 陳靜枝, & 陳禹辰. (2011). [遷移到虛擬新世界]—以人口遷移理論探討 MMORPG 玩家的轉換. 中山管理評論, 19(1), 147.
5. 葉執東. (2004). 建構台灣農產品生產履歷資訊統. 農政與農情, 149, 53-58.
6. 滕淑芬. (2005). 為外銷掛保證──生產履歷制度. 光華月刊, 30(6), 23-29.
7. 中華民國行政院農業委員會(農委會)。https://www.coa.gov.tw/
8. 鮮茶道股份有限公司。http://www.presotea.com/