隨著全世界的運輸經濟蓬勃發展，全球有80%的跨國境貿易與運輸都倚賴海運來達成，定期貨櫃運輸就是其中具有相當競爭力運輸方式。本研究探討碳稅徵收與船舶速度對於海運定期貨櫃運輸服務航線的路徑選擇之影響。研究數據係利用作業基礎模型建構在亞美線與亞歐線兩條服務航線上，並藉由「地理最短距離路徑」、「行經ECA限制區最短距離路徑」兩種設計行經硫排放限制區域路徑選項，計算三年間燃油價格變動、MGO與HSHFO油品碳排放係數，產生的燃油成本與碳排放量的影響，透過「無碳稅徵收」、「起始徵收碳稅價格」與「逐年遞增碳稅率」等三種碳稅模式及船舶速度的降速調整，納入情境分析中執行成本計算，檢視在各種情境下航商的船舶航行最適路徑選擇。
從研究分析結果得知，減少行經ECA限制區內航行距離可以降低碳排放量，亞美線在ECA限制區內可降低44.8%，亞歐線也能夠降低37.6%的碳排放量，這樣的數據證實透過路徑選擇能夠有效減少在ECA限制區內的碳排放量及燃油、碳稅成本，但選擇「行經ECA限制區最短距離路徑」卻會使得總航次的航行距離增加，也會使總碳排放量增加，亞美線增漲5.9%，亞歐線的漲幅也達到6.4%，且油價的變化對於航行路徑選擇的影響，仍以實際航行距離為主要關鍵因素，因為MGO與HSHFO油價價差倍率不足以透過路徑選擇而有效降低成本。本研究中在亞美線與亞歐線的三種碳稅相關情境中，從航次燃油總成本做為考量，皆以「地理最短距離路徑」為最佳路徑選擇，且所產生的碳排放量都小於「行經ECA限制區最短距離路徑」所產生的碳排放量。而「船舶降低航行速度」仍是目前最有效的減少航次總成本與碳排放量，在未來面臨徵收國際交通碳稅時可以有效減少課徵稅額。

This study investigates the impacts of carbon tax imposition and vessel speed on the route selection of liner shipping services. The research data are constructed using activity-based models for Asia–America and Asia–Europe routes. By planning routes through sulfur emission control areas (ECAs) with two options: “geographical shortest path” and “shortest path through ECA,” the study calculates the resulting fuel costs and carbon emissions using fuel prices and emission factors of MGO and HSHFO fuels. Scenario analyses using three carbon taxation models and reduction in vessel speed are incorporated into the cost calculations, to determine the optimal routing selection for shipping companies.
The analysis results show that reducing the sailing distance within the ECAs significantly reduces carbon emissions and costs in these areas. The price difference between MGO and HSHFO is insufficient to impact the costs of route selection; rather, route selection remains primarily determined by actual sailing distance. In the three carbon tax scenarios for the Asia–America and Asia–Europe service lines, considering the fuel cost per voyage, the “geographical shortest path” was identified as the optimal route choice, producing lower carbon emissions than the “shortest path through ECA.”
Additionally, “reducing vessel speed” remains the most effective method for reducing voyage costs and carbon emissions, and it can effectively reduce tax burdens when carbon taxes are imposed in the future.

中文文獻
1. 江岱錦 (2020)。硫排放管制區船舶航線與速度最佳化問題之研究，https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7v4y72
2. 呂錦山（民100年12月7日)。生活中的運輸發展：通往世界之路-貨櫃航運，科技大觀園，檢自：https://scitechvista.nat.gov.tw/Article/c000003/detail?ID=7cecd355-4b51-468f-b97c-c9bef02fd5d1
3. 柯亮瑩 (2015)。船運結盟之效益-從油價變動對航運類股報酬率之影響分析，https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u6s77u
4. 郭義隆 (2011)。燃油附加費變動對於定期航運業者航行速度之相關性探討，https://hdl.handle.net/11296/xkuce6
5. 蔡銘源 (2009)。遠洋定期貨櫃航運之航線規劃，https://hdl.handle.net/11296/rpnk63
英文文獻
1. Alphaliner (2024). TOP 100. https://alphaliner.axsmarine.com/PublicTop100/
2. Anderson, M., Salo, K., & Fridell, E. (2015). Particle and gaseous emissions from an LNG powered ship. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(20), 12568–12575. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02678
3. Balland, O., Erikstad, S. O., Fagerholt, K., & Wallace, S. W. (2013). Planning vessel air emission regulations compliance under uncertainty. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 18(3), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-013-0212-7
4. Bouman, E. A., Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. I., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping – A review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.022
5. Bureau, D., Fontagné, L., & Schubert, K. (2017). Commerce et climat: Pour une réconciliation. Notes du conseil d’analyse économique, 37(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3917/ncae.037.0001
6. Chen, L., Yip, T. L., & Mou, J. (2018). Provision of emission control area and the impact on shipping route choice and ship emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 58, 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.003
7. Corbett, J. J., Wang, H., & Winebrake, J. J. (2009). The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(8), 593–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.08.005
8. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) (2023). https://www.dnv.com/tw/index.html
9. Dominioni, G., Heine, D., & Martinez Romera, B. (2018). Regional Carbon Pricing for International Maritime Transport: Challenges and Opportunities for Global Geographical Coverage (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3494819). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3494819
10. Doudnikoff, M., & Lacoste, R. (2014). Effect of a speed reduction of containerships in response to higher energy costs in Sulphur Emission Control Areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.03.002
11. Eide, M. S., Longva, T., Hoffmann, P., Endresen, Ø., & Dalsøren, S. B. (2011). Future cost scenarios for reduction of ship CO2 emissions. Maritime policy & management, 38(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2010.533711
12. Fagerholt, K., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2015). On two speed optimization problems for ships that sail in and out of emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 39, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.06.005
13. Fagerholt, K., Gausel, N. T., Rakke, J. G., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2015). Maritime routing and speed optimization with emission control areas. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 52, 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.12.010
14. Fremstad, A., & Paul, M. (2019). The Impact of a Carbon Tax on Inequality. Ecological Economics, 163, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.016
15. Gkonis K. G., & Psaraftis H. A. (2012, October 24). Modeling Tankers’ Optimal Speed and Emissions. SNAME Maritime Convention. https://doi.org/10.5957/SMC-2012-A08
16. Golias, M. M., Saharidis, G. K., Boile, M., Theofanis, S., & Ierapetritou, M. G. (2009). The berth allocation problem: Optimizing vessel arrival time. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 11(4), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2009.12
17. Great Lakes Seaway. (2023). Facts & Figures. https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/
18. Heine, D., & Gäde, S. (2018). Unilaterally removing implicit subsidies for maritime fuels. International Economics and Economic Policy, 15(2), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-017-0410-6
19. Heitmann, N., & Peterson, S. (2014). The potential contribution of the shipping sector to an efficient reduction of global carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.001
20. International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2021). Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020 Full Report. https://www.maritimecyprus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/4th-IMO-GHG-Study-2020.pdf
21. International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2022) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI SEEMP Part III and Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) LR. (n.d.). https://www.lr.org/en/knowledge/class-news/11-22/
22. International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2018). Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 72nd session, 9-13 April 2018. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MEPC-72nd-session.aspx
23. Jiang, L., Kronbak, J., & Christensen, L. P. (2014). The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.005
24. Li, L., Gao, S., Yang, W., & Xiong, X. (2020). Ship’s response strategy to emission control areas: From the perspective of sailing pattern optimization and evasion strategy selection. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 133, 101835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.101835
25. Lindstad, H. E., Rehn, C. F., & Eskeland, G. S. (2017). Sulphur abatement globally in maritime shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.028
26. Lindstad, H., & Eskeland, G. S. (2015). Low carbon maritime transport: How speed, size and slenderness amounts to substantial capital energy substitution. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 41, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.006
27. Livaniou, S., Chatzistelios, G., Lyridis, D. V., & Bellos, E. (2022). LNG vs. MDO in marine fuel emissions tracking. Sustainability, 14(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073860
28. Ma, W., Ma, D., Ma, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, D. (2021). Green maritime: A routing and speed multi-objective optimization strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 305, 127179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127179
29. Martin A. (2021,Sep 1) step forward for “green” methanol and its potential to deliver deep GHG reductions in maritime shipping. International Council on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/a-step-forward-for-green-methanol-and-its-potential-to-deliver-deep-ghg-reductions-in-maritime-shipping /
30. Nikopoulou, Z. (2017). Incremental costs for reduction of air pollution from ships: A case study on North European emission control area. Maritime Policy & Management, 44(8), 1056–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.1342878
31. Notteboom, T. E. (2006). The Time Factor in Liner Shipping Services. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 8(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100148
32. Notteboom, T. E., & Vernimmen, B. (2009). The effect of high fuel costs on liner service configuration in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.05.003
33. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019). ITF Transport Outlook 2019. Organization for economic co-operation and development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/itf-transport-outlook-2019_transp_outlook-en-2019-en
34. Papadakis, N. A., & Perakis, A. N. (1989). A nonlinear approach to the multiorigin, multidestination fleet deployment problem. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 36(4), 515–528. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(198908)36:4<515::AID-NAV3220360413>3.0.CO;2-J
35. Psaraftis, H. N., & Kontovas, C. A. (2010). Balancing the economic and environmental performance of maritime transportation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15(8), 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.05.001
36. Psaraftis, H. N., & Kontovas, C. A. (2011). Corrigendum: Balancing the economic and environmental performance of maritime transportation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), 270–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.12.007
37. Psaraftis, H. N., & Kontovas, C. A. (2013). Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: A taxonomy and survey. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 26, 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.09.012
38. Psaraftis, H. N., & Kontovas, C. A. (2014). Ship speed optimization: Concepts, models and combined speed-routing scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 44, 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.03.001
39. Psaraftis, H. N., & Kontovas, C. A. (2009). Ship emissions: logistics and other tradeoffs. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=91e9a78d6bb069572df041cb7acea5af0430022b
40. Ronen, D. (2011). The effect of oil price on containership speed and fleet size. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(1), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.169
41. Schinas, O., & Butler, M. (2016). Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled ships. Ocean Engineering, 122, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.04.031
42. Schinas, O., & Stefanakos, C. (2013). The Cost of SOx Limits to Marine Operators; Results from Exploring Marine Fuel Prices. TransNav, International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety Od Sea Transportation, 7(2), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.07.02.15
43. Ship＆bunker. (2023). Ship＆bunker price. https://shipandbunker.com/
44. The world bank. (2023). Carbon pricing dashboard. https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/
45. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2019). Trade and development report 2019. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2019_en.pdf
46. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2021). Trade and development report 2021. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2021_en.pdf
47. United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) (2022). Review of maritime transport 2022. https://unctad.org/rmt2022
48. Veenstra, A. W., & Ludema, M. W. (2006). The relationship between design and economic performance of ships. Maritime Policy & Management, 33(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830600612880
49. Vernimmen, B., Dullaert, W., & Engelen, S. (2007). Schedule Unreliability in Liner Shipping: Origins and Consequences for the Hinterland Supply Chain. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 9(3), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100182
50. Wang, C., & Chen, J. (2017). Strategies of refueling, sailing speed and ship deployment of containerships in the low-carbon background. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 114, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.10.012
51. Wang, XT., Liu, H., Lv, ZF. et al (2021). Trade-linked shipping CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 945–951. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01176-6
52. Wattum, M. (2011). LNG as fuel in global trades for Höegh car carriers [Master thesis, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi, Institutt for marin teknikk]. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/238066
53. Worldometers (2023). CO2 Emissions. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/
54. Zhu, M., Huang, L., Huang, Z., Shi, F., & Xie, C. (2022). Hazard analysis by leakage and diffusion in Liquefied Natural Gas ships during emergency transfer operations on coastal waters. Ocean & Coastal Management, 220, 106100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106100