IPCC第五次報告指出：「人類行為是過去50年來造成暖化現象的主要原因。」減少碳排放並創造可永續發展的社會成為重要議題，日本高知工業大學未來設計研究所Saijo領導，提出未來設計構想，而想像未來世代則是其中一種方法。本研究旨在分析方案選擇之偏好時，有實施想像未來世代的受試者相較於沒有實施想像未來世代的受試者，是否會較偏好去選擇碳税方案。
本研究隨機選取一半的受試者進行想像未來世代，接著在五種方案中進行選擇，最後使用Logit Model、Multinomial Logit Model以及Order Logit Model進行方案偏好分析。結果發現，想像未來世代能顯著提高受試者選擇碳稅方案的偏好，故我們認為使用想像未來世代能增加受試者對於碳稅的接受度，且顯著提升受試者的未來性，並為打造永續社會提供基礎。而研究中發現，實施想像未來世代後，年齡越高，越偏好選擇碳稅方案；常以走路及腳踏車替代機車及開車之受試者，對於碳稅的接受度越高；認為未來居住地空氣污染嚴重之受試者，較支持碳稅；而由於碳稅為稅收的一種，對於政府的信任度亦會影響其方案選擇，若是較不相信政府之受試者，對於碳稅的支持度較低，而較相信政府之受試者對於碳稅稅收全數收歸國庫的方案，接受度較高。

The Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC indicated that “Human influence on the climate system is clear.” People in today’s world continue to consume nonrenewable resources, which will affect the rights and interests of future generations. Saijo, Future Design Future Design of Kochi University of Technology in Japan, have proposed a new movement called “Future Design,” which includes the method called “Imaginary Future Generations.” The purpose of this research is to analyze whether participants who had implemented the Imaginary Future Generation method were more likely to choose the carbon tax schemes than those who had not.

In this research, first, we randomly selected half of the participants and applied the Imaginary Future Generation method. These participants were assigned to represent subsequent generations as a representative of the future generation. Second, all participants chose between five schemes. Subsequently, the Logit Model, Multinomial Logit Model, and Order Logit Model were used to analyze the data.

The analysis reveals that applying the Imaginary Future Generation method can significantly increase the probability of choosing carbon tax schemes. This indicates that Imaginary Future Generation can not only increase participants’ acceptance of the carbon tax, but also significantly activate their futurability; this may provide a foundation for creating sustainable societies. In addition, it was found in the study that the older the respondents are, the higher the probability that they will choose the carbon tax schemes.

Ben-Akiva, E. M. and S. R. Lerman (1985), “Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand,”MIT press, vol.9.
de-Shalit, A. (1995), “Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations,” London; New York:Routledge.
Hardisty, J. D., K. F. Thompson, D. H. Krantz and E. U. Weber (2013), “How to measure time preferences: An experimental comparison of three methods,”Judgment and Decision Making, 8:3, 236–249.
Hara, K., R. Yoshioka, M. Kuroda, S. Kurimoto and T. Saijo, (2019), “Reconciling intergenerational conflicts with imaginary future generations: Evidence from a participatory deliberation practice in a municipality in Japan,” Sustainability science,14:6,1605-1619.
Kamijo, Y., A. Komiya, N. Mifune and T. Saijo (2017), “Negotiating with the future: Incorporating imaginary future generations into negotiations,” Sustainability science,12:3, 409-420.
Kobayashi, K. (2018a), “How to represent the interests of future generations now,” https://voxeu.org/article/how-represent-interests-future-generations-now.
Kobayashi, K. (2018b), “Three concerns on future design,” Trends in the Sciences, 23:6, 28-30. (in Japanese).
Luce, R. D. (1959), “Individual choice,” Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. McFadden, D. (1973), “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior”
McFadden, D. (1986), “The choice theory approach to market research,” Marketing Science, 5:4, 275-297.
McKelvey, R. D. and W. Zavoina (1975), “A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables,” Journal of mathematical sociology, 4:1,103-120.
Nishimura, N., N. Inoue, H. Masuhara and T. Musha (2020), “Impact of future design on workshop participants’ time preferences,” Sustainability,12:18, 7796.
Saijo, T. (2015), “Future design: concept for a ministry of the future,” Soc. Des. Eng, Ser,14.
Saijo, T. (2018), “Future design: Bequeathing sustainable natural environments and sustainable societies to future generations.” https://researchmap.jp/?action=cv_download_main&upload_id= 167703.
Saijo, T. (2019), “Future design. The future of economic design,” Springer, 253-260.
Saijo, T. (2020), “Future design: Bequeathing sustainable natural environments and sustainable societies to future generations,” Sustainability, 12:16, 6467.
Saijo, T. (2020), “Future design: Incorporating Preferences of Future Generations for Sustainability,” Springer, 1-16. (in Springer Singapore).
Shahrier, S., K. Kotani and T. Saijo (2017), “Intergenerational sustainability dilemma and the degree of capitalism in societies: A field experiment,” Sustainability science, 12:6, 957-967.
Shaw, D. and Fu, Y. H. (2020), “Climate clubs with tax revenue recycling, tariffs, and Transfers,” Climate Change Economics,11:04, 2040008.
Shaw, D., Kuo, Y. L., Chie, B. T., Chang, C. T., Hung, M. F., Chen, H. H., & Yuan, T. Y.
(2021), “Does the future imagination treatment affect people’s pro-environmental intention and donation decisions?” Future Design Workshop, 24th Jan: Webinar, Japan.
郭彥廉、池秉聰、蕭代基與楊子慶 (2020)，“Whether the Process of Imaginary
Future Generations Increases Intergenerational Public Goods Investments – the Case of Climate Change Mitigation Games”。台灣環境與資源經濟學會2020年會－綠色復甦與氣候韌性學術研討會。12月12日，新北市，台灣。
黃忠正 (2012)，「論世代正義」，《思與言: 人文與社會科學期刊》，50:3，185-209。
黃寄倫、冷則剛與林煥笙 (2016)，「世代正義的政策意涵分析」，《臺灣經濟預測與政策》，46:2，185-207。
蕭代基、傅俞瑄、林師模與黃琝琇 (2020)，「減碳政策在台灣:補貼或課稅？」，《綠色經濟電子期刊(Green Economy) 》，第6卷，A1-23。