隨著全球對氣候變遷與永續發展議題的關注度日漸升高，推動民眾採取綠色行為儼然成為各國政府的重要目標之一。行政院環境部自2015年起推行「環保集點制度」，期望透過點數回饋機制鼓勵民眾參與綠色消費與環保行動。然而，現行制度雖具一定知名度，但是民眾的實際使用率與長期參與意願仍有限，顯示現有誘因設計在促進行為改變上尚有改進空間。因此，本研究以提升環保集點APP使用意願為核心，探討影響使用者行為的關鍵因素，並結合說服科技設計 (Persuasive Technology)，提出具體策略應用建議。
本研究首先以Fogg行為模型 (Fogg Behavior Model, FBM) 為理論基礎，從動機 (Motivation)、能力 (Ability) 與觸發 (Trigger) 三大面向探討影響使用環保集點APP使用意願之因素，接著再整合眾多說服科技與行為改變設計策略之相關文獻，從中篩選出15項具有潛力的說服策略，設計情境式問卷進行調查，並透過多元迴歸分析與重複測量變異數分析等方法，探討各變項對使用意願的影響與各項說服策略之說服效果，同時找出適合應用於各使用階段之說服策略。
透過問卷調查結果顯示，在動機方面，具有集點習慣與對集點活動有較高興趣的受試者，其使用意願顯著較高，而被認為會顯著降低使用意願的因素為通路與獎勵的不足；在能力方面，對於操作流程不熟悉為主要行為障礙；在觸發方面，未曾聽聞或是不清楚環保集點制度運作方式的受試者之使用意願顯著偏低。進一步分析15項說服策略的說服效果發現，引導Tunneling (5.851)、互惠Reciprocity (5.840) 與簡化Reduction (5.783) 在提升使用者參與意願上效果最好。這些策略分別對應於使用流程優化、回饋誘因設計及行為門檻降低，顯示介面設計中應著重於降低操作複雜度、提供即時回饋與清晰引導。
此外，研究結果發現教育程度的不同對說服策略的說服力無顯著影響，而性別、年齡、每月可支配所得則在部分策略感受上存在差異。另外，本研究也提出三項策略組合方案，以上成果希望能夠在未來幫助環保集點進行策略的改善，以期能為推動永續行為，並提供政策制定者與APP開發者具體且可行的實務建議，促進全民綠色生活轉型與低碳行為實踐。

This study explores strategies to enhance users’ willingness to use Taiwan’s Green Points APP by integrating the Fogg Behavior Model (FBM) and persuasive design strategies. Key behavioral determinants across motivation, ability, and trigger dimensions were identified, and fifteen persuasive strategies were selected through a literature review. A scenario-based questionnaire was conducted with 380 valid responses. Data analysis employed multiple regression and repeated measures ANOVA. Results indicated that Tunneling, Reciprocity, and Reduction strategies were the most effective in promoting participation. The findings offer practical implications for optimizing the Green Points APP and promoting sustainable behavior.

中文部分
1. 工業技術研究院 (2024)。環境部委託研究 「112 年淨零綠生活轉型技術及策略發展 專案工作計畫」 成果研究報告。
2. 李文豪 (2021)。針對共享平台中不同使用者之最佳說服策略研究。國立成功大學資源工程學系碩士論文，台南。
3. 郭芳妤 (2020)。以政策行銷角度探析我國綠色消費行為之研究—以環保集點制度為例。國立台灣大學社會科學院公共事務研究所碩士論文，台北。
4. 高培芸 (2024)。從環保集點APP分析民眾綠色消費認知之影響與差異研究。國立雲林科技大學設計學研究所碩士論文，雲林。
5. 國家發展委員會 (2022)。臺灣 2050 淨零排放路徑及策略總說明。
6. 蔣宣 (2023)。永續投資說服策略：以線上基金通路為例。國立成功大學資源工程學系碩士論文，台南。
7. 簡怡慈 (2019)。考量使用者類型電動機車電池交換系統之說服設計策略。國立成功大學資源工程學系碩士論文，台南。

英文部分
1. Agha, S. (2022). Use of a Practitioner-Friendly Behavior Model to Identify Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination and Other Behaviors. Vaccines, 10(8), 1261.
2. Akmal, M., & Niwanputri, G. S. (2021, November). Spoonful: Mobile application for reducing household food waste using fogg behavior model (fbm). In 2021 international conference on data and software engineering (ICoDSE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
3. Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1082-1095.
4. Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., Williams, T.A., Camm, J. D.,&Cochran, J. J. (2013). 統計學(陳可杰、黃聯海、李婉怡)。台北市:新加坡商聖智學習。
5. Bergh, D. D. (1995). Problems with repeated measures analysis: Demonstration with a study of the diversification and performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 389(6),1692–1708.
6. Bi, C., Zhang, D., Sun, Z., Jin, Y., & Yang, R. (2024). Gamification effects in green behaviors: A double-edged sword. Journal of Cleaner Production, 483, 144312.
7. Cathcart, R. L., & Glendon, A. I. (2016). Judged effectiveness of threat and coping appraisal anti-speeding messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 96, 237-248.
8. Chen, H. M., Lin, C. W., Hsieh, S. H., Chao, H. F., Chen, C. S., Shiu, R. S., ... & Deng, Y. C. (2012). Persuasive feedback model for inducing energy conservation behaviors of building users based on interaction with a virtual object. Energy and Buildings, 45, 106-115.
9. Coombes, E., & Jones, A. (2016). Gamification of active travel to school: A pilot evaluation of the Beat the Street physical activity intervention. Health & place, 39, 62-69.
10. Cualheta, L. P., Abbad, G. da S., & de Lima, M. F. R. (2022). Does learning happen and remain stable over time? A longitudinal assessment of entrepreneurship education using situational judgment tests. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(2), 100724.
11. Dayan, E., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2011). Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision making, 6(4), 333-342.
12. de Wildt, K. K., & Meijers, M. H. C. (2023). Time spent on separating waste is never wasted: Fostering people’s recycling behavior through the use of a mobile application. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107541.
13. Dilla, W., Janvrin, D. J., & Raschke, R. (2010). Interactive data visualization: New directions for accounting information systems research. Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 1-37.
14. Dong, Y., Jiang, H., He, H., Chen, Z. (2023). Sustainable Glass Recycling APP Design Based on Fogg Model. In: Long, S., Dhillon, B.S. (eds) Man-Machine-Environment System Engineering. MMESE 2023. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 1069. Springer, Singapore.
15. Eisenbeiss, M., Wilken, R., Skiera, B., & Cornelissen, M. (2015). What makes deal-of-the-day promotions really effective? The interplay of discount and time constraint with product type. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(4), 387-397.
16. Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 225-232).
17. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002(December), 2.
18. Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 1-7).
19. Fox, K. J. (2019). Humor as a persuasive tool for social change (Doctoral dissertation).
20. Gatto, N. M., Ventura, E. E., Cook, L. T., Gyllenhammer, L. E., & Davis, J. N. (2012). LA Sprouts: a garden-based nutrition intervention pilot program influences motivation and preferences for fruits and vegetables in Latino youth. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(6), 913-920.
21. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying exercise. In proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, June 5-8, 2013
22. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Pakkanen, T. (2014). Do persuasive technologies persuade? – A review of empirical studies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 118–136.
23. Hufen, N. D. (2024). Understanding consumer contesting strategies: The impact of Cialdini’s principles of scarcity and social proof with brand credibility on persuasion knowledge and contesting strategies (Master's thesis, University of Twente).
24. Josekutty Thomas, R., Masthoff, J., & Oren, N. (2017). Adapting healthy eating messages to personality. In Persuasive Technology: Development and Implementation of Personalized Technologies to Change Attitudes and Behaviors: 12th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 4–6, 2017, Proceedings 12 (pp. 119-132). Springer International Publishing.
25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
26. Kareklas, I., Muehling, D. D., & King, S. (2019). The effect of color and self-view priming in persuasive communications. Journal of Business Research, 98, 33-49.
27. Liu, S., Gui, D. Y., Zuo, Y., & Dai, Y. (2019). Good slang or bad slang? Embedding internet slang in persuasive advertising. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1251.
28. Lu, S., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2016). The influence of color association strength and consistency on ease of processing of ambient lighting feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 204-212.
29. Lu, Y., Kim, Y., Dou, X. Y., & Kumar, S. (2014). Promote physical activity among college students: Using media richness and interactivity in web design. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 40-50.
30. Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011). Designing motivational agents: The role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1643-1650.
31. Nharreluga, E. E. (2023). Designing persuasive technology for schools to save energy. Proceedings of the 4th African Human Computer Interaction Conference.
32. Nijssen, S. R., Müller, B. C., Gallinat, J., & Kühn, S. (2023). Applying persuasive messages to reduce public outdoor smoking: A pseudo‐randomized controlled trial. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 15(1), 337-353.
33. Oh, J., Lim, H. S., Copple, J. G., & Chadraba, E. K. (2018). Harnessing the persuasive potential of data: The combinatory effects of data visualization and interactive narratives on obesity perceptions and policy attitudes. Telematics and informatics, 35(6), 1755-1769.
34. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Communications of the association for Information Systems, 24(1), 28.
35. Payne, C., & Niculescu, M. (2018). Can healthy checkout end-caps improve targeted fruit and vegetable purchases? Evidence from grocery and SNAP participant purchases. Food Policy, 79, 318-323.
36. Roethke, K., Klumpe, J., Adam, M., & Benlian, A. (2020). Social influence tactics in e-commerce onboarding: The role of social proof and reciprocity in affecting user registrations. Decision Support Systems, 131, 113268.
37. Roubroeks, M., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2011). When artificial social agents try to persuade people: The role of social agency on the occurrence of psychological reactance. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3, 155-165.
38. Shao, Z., & Xu, Y. (2023). Moving towards carbon neutral lifestyle through FinTech social media platform: A case study of Ant Forest. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1160986.
39. Silva, E. M., Schneider, D., Miceli, C., & Correia, A. (2025). Encouraging sustainable choices through socially engaged persuasive recycling initiatives: A participatory action design research study. Informatics, 12(1).
40. Tang, M., & Xu, Y. (2023). Identifying the Deciding Factors for Changing the Household Waste Sorting Behavior in China. In 2023 IEEE 18th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA) (pp. 794-799). IEEE.
41. Tillema, T., Ben-Elia, E., Ettema, D., & van Delden, J. (2013). Charging versus rewarding: A comparison of road-pricing and rewarding peak avoidance in the Netherlands. Transport Policy, 26, 4-14.
42. Whillans, A. V., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2018). Overcoming barriers to time-saving: reminders of future busyness encourage consumers to buy time. Social Influence, 13(2), 117-124.
43. Yuasa, T., Harada, F., & Shimakawa, H. (2022, December). Proposal to Improve Exercise Using the Fogg Behavior Model. In 2022 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
44. Zhong, H., & Huang, L. (2016). The empirical research on the consumers’ willingness to participate in E-waste recycling with a points reward system. Energy Procedia, 104, 475-480.

網頁部分
1. 環境部 (2024年，9月)。環保集點，認識環保集點。取自：https://www.greenpoint.org.tw/GPHome/index.php/about/greenpoint (造訪時間：2024年9月2日)
2. 環境部 (2024年，9月)。淨零綠生活資訊平台，了解綠生活取自：https://greenlifestyle.moenv.gov.tw/about#intro (造訪時間：2024年9月5日)
3. 環境部 (2024年，9月)。環境部新聞專區，第100萬會員重磅誕生 環保集點好禮獎不停。取自：https://reurl.cc/M33924 (造訪時間：2024年9月5日)