依 據 世 界 衛 生 組 織（World Health Organization, WHO）2014年世界報告統計，總人口5%是健康，20%其他人是經醫師診斷患有病，其次是75%人口是亞健康的情形。根據高齡社會白皮書規劃報告（衛生福利部，2015），台灣地區高齡健康及亞健康者約占 83.5％，失能者約占 16.5％，顯示多數的高齡者仍能自由行動。值得注意的是，因老化導致的身心不便，與一般因身心障礙導致的身心不便情況較為不同。因此，過去無障礙相關法令只關注身心不便者為對象的觀點亟須擴大，並關注一般健康的人、亞健康的人和失能的長者的友善生活環境。
依據內政部統計處2019年底止，65歲以上台灣老年人口360萬7,127人占了15.28％，而依據衛生福利統計處截至2020年第二季止統計，身心障礙者的總人數為119萬人占5.05%，兩者占總人口率20.33%。邁向超高齡社會的過程，台灣需要一個符合長者及身心障礙者的友善生活圈，每個人生活範圍空間以家為中心出發，從鄰里生活向外拓展，構成六大生活必需機能的生活圈，進而發揮社會影響，創造全人舒適的友善生活圈環境。
無障礙的旅遊環境更有利於社會大眾。打造無障礙旅遊環境不僅有助於高齡長者、身心障礙者及需求使用者，對一般社會大眾更有其重要性。以往的研究缺少倡議友善生活圈方案後之成效層面著墨，本研究以焦點團體訪談與德菲法問卷分析，以「無障礙旅遊倡議友善生活圈方案之策略研究」為目標。本研究結果，透過社會影響地圖策略分析，參與者對無障礙旅遊推動友善生活圈的評價是正面並肯定的。而在對無障礙旅遊倡議友善生活圈方案參與者之角色，不論是政府或旅遊業者都願意參與地方事務，推動社區營造，並建立地方永續發展終身學習機制；而無障礙旅遊倡議友善生活圈方案之配套措施，以訂立無障礙旅遊倡議友善生活圈方案相關之明確法規，諮詢平台管道，提供民眾查詢。
根據研究的結論，本研究發現建議社區主動進行，社區居民共同參與區域活化及發展的機會；無障礙旅遊倡議友善生活圈方案的作法及配套措施，政府以輔助的角色，提供教育訓練相關人員、促進產業轉型，促使無障礙旅遊倡議友善生活圈方案發展。而無障礙旅遊業者則以關懷社區，鼓勵並推動社區民眾參與，讓友善生活圈方案策略永續發展。

關鍵字：無障礙旅遊、友善生活圈、影響地圖、高齡社會、身心障礙者、策略研究

According to a 2014 global survey report by the World Health Organization (WHO), health & wellness people accounted for only 5% of the global population, and only 20% of those diagnosed with diseases by doctors, while the other 75% people are in a sub-health state. In Taiwan, according to the White Paper Planning Report on the Aging Society (Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2015), in Taiwan, about 83.5% of the older adults are health & wellness and sub-health, but the seniors with disabilities account for 16.5%, indicating that most older adults can still move freely. It is worth noting that the physical and mental inconvenience caused by aging is quite different from the general physical and mental inconvenience caused by physical and mental disabilities. Therefore, in the past, barrier-free laws and regulations only focused on the persons with physical and mental disabilities. It is urgent to expand the view of the friendly environment to cover older adults who in different state as health & wellness, sub-health, and with disabilities.
According to statistics from the Ministry of the Interior, 2019, Taiwan’s population of 3.6 million and 7,127 people aged 65 and above accounted for 15.28%. According to statistics from the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the Interior, 2020, while the total number of persons with disabilities was 1.19 million, accounting for 5.05%, and both accounted for 20.33% of the total population. In the process of moving toward a super-aged society, Taiwan needs a friendly living circle that caters to the older adults and persons with disabilities. Everyone’s living area is centered on the home and expands from the neighborhood life through food, clothing, housing, transportation, education and recreation to constitute a living circle, and then exert social influence to create a comprehensive comfortable and friendly living circle environment.
A barrier-free tourism environment is more beneficial to the general public. Creating a barrier-free tourism environment will not only help the older adults, persons with disabilities, and users who in special needs, but also more important to the general public. Past studies have mostly focused on the obstacles to tourism of these communities, and seldom focused on the effectiveness of the initiative friendly living circle program. This “Strategic Research on the Barrier-free Tourism Initiative Friendly Living Circle Program" uses focus group interviews and Delphi method questionnaire analysis. According to the results of this research, through the analysis of social impact map strategy, participants' evaluation of barrier-free tourism to promote a friendly living circle is positive and affirmative. As for the role of participants in the barrier-free tourism initiative friendly living circle program, whether the government or tourism industry is willing to participate into domestic affairs, promote community building, and establish a lifelong learning mechanism for local sustainable development; and the supporting measures of the barrier-free tourism initiative friendly living circle program are to establish clear laws and regulations related to the barrier-free tourism initiative friendly living circle program, and is the single channel to serve the public. Based on the research results and conclusions, it recommends that communities lead the initiative to participate into the revitalize local community and development opportunities; the approach of the barrier-free tourism initiative friendly living circle program is the government will provide empower and training for relevant personnel, Promote industrial transformation and the development of the barrier-free tourism initiative friendly living circle program. The barrier-free tourism industry takes care of the communities, actively develops barrier-free tourism from the bottom up, and encourages community residents to participate, and promotes the sustainable development of the barrier-free tourism initiative friendly living circle program.

Keyword: barrier-free tourism, friendly living circle, impact mapping, aging society, persons with disabilities, strategy research

一、中文部分
王儷蓉、施慈航（2010）。無障礙旅遊的理念與實踐。台灣國家政策學刊，4，44-55。
內政部統計處（2014）。內政部統計年報，2103人口年齡分配，未出版之統計數據。資料引自 http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y02-01.xls。
內政部統計處（2019）。內政統計通報，2020年第3季（108年底人口結構分析）。資料引自 http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/news_content.aspx?sn=10225。
台北市行無礙資源推廣協會，資料引自 http://www.sunable.net/。
伊甸社會福利基金會（2005）。2005無障礙旅遊國際研討會手冊。
多扶事業有限公司，資料引自 http://www.duofu.com.tw/history。
行政院經濟建設委員會人力規劃處（2010）。「2010 年至2060 年台灣人口推計」。台北市：行政院經濟建設委員會。
众社會企業，資料引自 http://ourcitylove.wixsite.com/friendly。
吳芝儀，李奉儒譯（1995）。質的評鑑與研究。台北：桂冠圖書。
社團法人中華民國殘障聯盟（2015）。台灣各縣市無障礙旅遊觀光資訊 ( 2015彙整)。2015年2月12日，資料引自www.enable.org.tw/scope/doc/20150212-1.doc。
林韶怡（2014）。創意改變城市 公益翻轉世界。2014/12/06。
尚榮安譯（2009）。Robert, R. Y.著。個案研究：設計與方法。台北，五南。
洪志成、廖梅花譯（2003）。Krueger, Richard A.著。焦點團體訪談。嘉義市：濤石文化。
范琳珮（2009）。中興工程季刊，第103期，2009年4月，P.77-84。
國家發展委員會（2014）。中華民國人口推計（2014 年至 2061 年）。台北市：國家發展委員會。
國民健康署（2015）。WHO 高齡友善城市指南摘要。資料引自 http://www.hpa.gov.tw/BHPNet/Web/HealthTopic/Topic Article.aspx?id=201111030003&parentid=201111030001。
國民健康署（2015）。WHO 高齡友善城市指南八大面向 Checklist。資料引自 http://www.hpa.gov.tw/BHPNet/Web/Health Topic/TopicArticle.aspx?id=201111030003&parentid=201111030001。
劉維公（2013）。提高社會影響力，提高獲利率。遠見雜誌，3（321）。
曾思瑜（1996）。無障礙環境的理念與台灣建築層面的規範。國立雲林技術學院學報，Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 107-117。
葉重新（2001）。教育研究法。台北：心理。
經濟部（2014）。社會企業行動方案(103-105年)。2014/09。
趙子元（2013）。高齡友善城市無障礙公共空間規劃之研究。內政部建築研究所委託研究報告。
衛生福利部（2015）。高齡社會白皮書草案（媒體版）。資料引自 http://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/19/726264/ 2961185c-3479-434b-926a-6bca9bcd4d20.pdf。

二、英文部分
Aitchison, C. (2003). Form leisure and disability to disability leisure: Developing data definitions and discourses. Disability and Society, 18(7), 955-969.
Barrow, C. J. (1997). Environmental and social impact assessment: an introduction. London: Arnold.
Becker, D. R., et al. (2003). “A participatory approach to social impact assessment: the interactive community forum”. Environmental impact assessment review. 23(2003): 367-382.
Becker, D. R., et al. (2004). “Social impact: a comparison of technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment”. Impact assessment and project appraisal. 22(3), 177-189.
Burnett, J. J. & H. B. Baker, (2001). Assessing the travel-related behaviors of the mobility-disabled consumer. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 4-11.
Chattoo, C. B., & A. Das, (2014). Assessing the Social Impact of Issues-Focused Documentaries: Research Methods & Future Considerations. Center for Media & Social Impact. Retrieved from http://archive.cmsimpact.org/media-impact/related-materials/documents/assessing-social-impact-issues-focused-documentaries.
Daniels, M. J., E. B. D. Rodgers, & B. P. Wiggins, (2005). Travel tales: An interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical disabilities. Tourism Management, 26(6), 919-930.
Darcy, S. (2002). Marginalised participation: physical disability, high support needs and tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 61-72.
Darcy, S. (2006). Setting a research agenda for accessible tourism. In C. Cooper, T. D. Lacy and L. Jago (eds) STCRC Technical Report Series (p.48), At http://www.crctourism.com.au/BookShop/BookDetail.aspx?d=473.
Darcy & Dickson (2009). Olympic Coordination Authority’s Access Guidelines for the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games (P34).
Darcy, S. (2010). Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. Tourism Management, 31(6), 816-826.
DaVanzo, J. and A. Chan (1994), "Living Arrangements of Older Malaysians: Who　Coresides with Their Adult Children? ", Demography, 31(1), 95-113.
Gilb, T. (2005). Competitive Engineering: A Handbook For Systems Engineering, Requirements Engineering, and Software Engineering Using Planguage .
Gojko Adzic. (2012). Impact Mapping: Making a Big Impact with Software Products and ProjectsPaperback .
Gleeson, B. J. (1997). Disability studies: A historical materialist view. Disability and Society, 12(2), 197-202.
Grbich C. (1999) Qualitative Research in Health: An Introduction. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Marielle Rowan. (2009). “Refining the attribution of significance in social impact assessment”. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(3), September 2009, 185 – 191.
Muloin, S. (1992). Wilderness access for persons with a disability. In G. Harper, & B. Weiler (Eds.), Ecotourism (pp.20-25). Canberra.
Murray, M., & J. Sproats, (1990). The disabled traveler: Tourism and disability in Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1, 9-14.
O’Faircheallaigh, C.. (2009). “Effectiveness in social impact assessment: aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia”. Impact assessment and project appraisal. 27(2). 95-110.
Parrott ,L. (1999). Social work and socia care, Gildredge, East Sussex.
Smith, R. W. (1987). Leisure of disabled tourists: Barriers to participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 376-389.
WHO (2007). Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide, World Health Organization.