:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:社會模型之實踐與侷限:以英國里茲老人與障礙者的交通方案為例
作者:潘佩君
作者(外文):Pan, Pey-chun
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:社會福利學系暨研究所
指導教授:王國羽
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2012
主題關鍵詞:社會模型老人與障礙者交通運輸政策社會參與交通可近性social modelsenior people and disabled peopletransport policysocial participationtransport accessibility
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:148
本文透過英國里茲老人與障礙者的交通運輸政策,從社會模型理論觀點探討英國地方政府在提供老人與障礙者交通服務過程的具體作為,並檢視英國在交通政策規劃與實施過程的現況。研究中訪談五名里茲的交通運輸政策規劃相關人員,與四名當地六十歲以上的使用者,並將兩者的經驗相互對照。研究發現,在政策規劃方面,受到福利國家面臨資源危機的改革影響,地方政府的權責加重,但資源的有限性使得社會模型所提倡的直接支持架構難以落實其預期目標,也使交通政策的可近性目標難以達成,或一再拖延。再者,老人與障礙者的交通運輸政策是確保其生活圈的重要媒介。然而政策規劃的第一線工程師與使用者之間缺乏對話機制,可能是造成理想與現實落差的另一個重要因素。此外,交通運輸政策中,老人或身心障礙者的分類方式對促進交通可近性方面並沒有特別的貢獻,透過社會模型的觀點看見的是老人與障礙者同樣都有外出的阻礙,只是面向不同。政策措施中的各種規範與限制,反倒加深社會對這兩個族群的偏見或烙印。直接支持給付的施行偏離社會模型的理想,它不僅無法去除社會環境導致的障礙經驗,更讓障礙者陷入需要獨自面對交通不可近的困境。不過,在直接給付措施實施的過程中,評估守門員具有兩面性:替政府把關資源以及支持申請者獲取各種服務。在以交通工程與技術專業為主的交通運輸領域中,社會福利部門其實更扮演著輸送交通運輸服務的重要角色。
The aim of this study is to examine the transportation policy and its implementation in Leeds, UK, through the lens of the social model of disability. My main study population focus on the local elderly residents and disabled people. By interviewing with five related staff involved in decision making and affiliated to different transport units, and with four other transport users over 60, the analyses of this study are benefited substantially from the comparison and contrast between the users’ first-hand experiences and the policy makers’ blueprint in theory. The ideal of the social model is hard to be fulfilled by the direct payment program due to the crisis of the social welfare state. Among all transportation policies, the scheme of direct payments is regarded as one of the most workable ways to guarantee the transport accessibility for the senior and disabled people promised in Social Model. Affected by nationwide fiscal difficulties, the local government is handed over more authority to implement transport policies. However, confined to its limited resource, the program encounters problems to be accomplished or is even postponed timelessly. Moreover, the implementation of the transport policy is key to ensure the quality in all spheres of everyday life for the senior and disabled people on the daily basis. However, lacking communication between engineers and users extends the gap between theoretical goals and the reality. To categorize the senior from disabled people helps little to enhance accessibility in making transport policies. The perspective of the social model foregrounds a very fact that either of these two groups is isolated from the social participation by the same reason of environmental barriers rather than by the variety of disability. The differential policy ignores their immobility in common. As the result, it cannot remove but intensifies stereotypes or stigma upon these people respectively. Rather than reducing social, environmental factors that are responsible for the immobility of the elderly as well as disabled people, the scheme of direct payments instead puts them in an isolated circumstance of confronting transport inaccessibility alone. As an important indicator of making transportation accessible to all, despite this scheme unexpectedly drifts from the ideal of self-directed support central at the heart of the social model, it brings the double role of social welfare department to the fore in terms of transporting transportation services. The gatekeeper, on the one hand, must guard the limited resources from being wasted; on the other, has to help an applicant receive all kinds of services he or she needs.
Altman, B. M. (2001). Disability Definitions, Models, Classification Schemes, and
Applications. In Albrecht, G. L., Seelman, K. D., and Bury M. (Eds.), Handbook of Disability Study (pp.97-122). California: Sage Publication Inc.

Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination. London: Hurst
and Co..

Barnes, C., and Mercer, G. (Eds.). (2003). Disability. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Barnes, C., and Mercer, G. (Eds.). (2006). Independent Futures: Creating User-led Disability Services in a Disabling Society. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Barnes, C., and Mercer, G. (Eds.). (2010). Exploring Disability (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Barnes, C., Mercer, G., and Shakespeare, T. (Eds.). (1999). Exploring Disability: A
Sociological Introduction. UK: Polity Press.

Barrett, E., Heycock, M., Hick, D. and others. (2003). Issues in access for disabled
people: the case of the Leeds transport strategy. Policy Studies, 24(4), 227-242.

Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E.M., and Ustun, T.B. (1999). Models of
disablement, universalism, and the international classification of impairments,
disabilities and handicaps. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1173-1187.

Brown, S. (2000). Freedom of Movement: Independent Living and Philosophy.
Houston: Independent Living. Research Utilization.

Butcher, T. (1995). Delivering Welfare Services. Buckingham: Open University
Press.

Campbell, J. and Oliver, M. (eds.)(1996). Disability Politics: Understanding our
Past, Changing our Future. London and New York: Routledge Press.
DCLG (2008). 2008-Based Household Projections. UK: The Department of
Communities and Local Government.

DfT (2004). The Future of Transport-a network for 2030 (White Paper). UK: Department for Transport.

DfT (2006). Social Inclusion: Transport Aspects: report prepared by Centre for Transport Studies. Imperial College, Mott McDonald, and the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.

DfT (2009). Transport Statistics Bulletin: National Travel Survey 2008. London:
Department for Transport.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998). A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everybody. HMSO.

Department for work and Pensions (2008). The UK national report on strategies for social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008-2010. London: Department for work and Pensions.

Department for work and Pensions (2009). Building a Society for All Ages. London: Department for work and Pensions.

Disability Rights Commission (2006). Making Rights and Reality. UK: Disability Rights Commission.

Finkelstein, V. (1991). Disability: An Administrative Challenge? (The Health and
Welfare Heritage). In M. Oliver (Ed.) Social Work, Disabled People and Disabling
Environment. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Finkelstein V. (1992). Transport implications of care in the community. INCLUSIVE LIVING - THE WAY FORWARD. A Seminar at the Merseyside Maritime Museum. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/Transport%20-%20Inclusive%20Living.pdf.

Finkelstein, V. (2004). Representing Disability. In S. French J. Swain, C. Barnes, and
C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments (2nd ed.). London:
Sage Publications.

Fougeyrollas, P. and Beauregard, L. (2000). Disability: An interactive
person-environment social creation. In: G.L. Albrecht, K.D. Seelman and M.
Burry (Eds.), Handbook of Disability Studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.

Geurs, K. T., Boon, W., and Van Wee, B. (2009). Social Impacts of Transport: Literature Review and the State of the Practice of Transport Appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Transport Reviews, 29(1), 69-90.

Gray, D. B., and Hendershot, G. E. (2000). The ICIDH-2: Developments for
a New Era of Outcomes Research. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 81(2), 10-14 .

Hasler, F. (2004). Disability, Care and Controlling Services', in J. Swain, S. French,
C. Barnes and C. Thomas (Eds) Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments.


Help the Aged (2007a). Local Bus Services and Travel Concessions. UK: Help the Age Association.

Help the Aged (2007b). Mobility and Transport: Help the Aged Policy Statement 2007. UK: Help the Age Association.

Ife, J. (1997) Rethinking Social Work: Towards Critical Practice. Longman: Melbourne.

Lasser, K.E., Himmelstein, D. U., and Woolhandler, S. (2006). Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National Population-Based Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 96(7), 1300-7.

Leeds Initiative(1997). Vision for Leeds-Your City, your choice. Consultation.

Leeds Initiative(1999). Vision for Leeds-A strategy for Sustainable Development 1999 to 2009.

Litman T. (2003). Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility, ITE Journal, Vol. 73, No. 10, 28-32, Retrieved from http:// www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf.
Lucas, K. and Halden, D. (2004, October). Delievering and connections: Tranport,
Social Exclusion and Accessibility Planning in the UK. In Proceedings of the
Annual European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France.

Morris, J. (1993). Independent Lives? Community Care and Disabled People.
London: Macmillan Press.

National Centre for Independent Living (2001) Everything You Need to Know About Getting and Using Direct Payments, London: NCIL.

Odgaard, T., COWI A/S, Kelly, C. and Laird, J. (2005). Current practice in project
appraisal in Europe. Leeds: Institute for Leeds Transport Studies. Retrieved from
http://www.trafikdage.dk/td/papers/papers05/Trafikdage-2005-472.pdf.

OECD (1996). Caring for frail elderly people: Policies in evolution. Social Policy Studies, 19. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2001). Aging and Transport-Mobility Needs and Safety issues. Paris:
OECD.

Oliver, M. (1986). Social policy and disability: some theoretical issues. Disability, Handicap and Society, 1(1), 5–17.

Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan.

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.

Oliver, M. (2004). If I had a hammer: the social model in action. In J. Swain, S.
French, C. Barnes and C. Thomas, (Eds). Disabling Barriers – Enabling
Environments (pp.7-12). London: Sage Publication.

Oliver, M. and Barnes, C. (1998). Disabled people and social policy: From exclusion to inclusion. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Oliver, M. and Sapey, B. (1999). Social work with disabled people (2nd ed.).
London: BASW.

Oliver, M. and Zarb,G. (1989) The Politics of Disability: A New Approach.
Disability & Society, 4(3), 221-239.

Pearson, C (ed.) (2006) Direct Payments and the Personalisation of Care. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

Penfold, C, Cleghorn, N, Creegan, C, Neil, H, and Webster, S., (2008). Travel behaviour, experiences and aspirations of disabled people, (report produced for the Department of Transport). The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen). UK.

Prideaux, S., Roulstone, A., Harris, J. and Barnes, C. (2009). Disabled People and Self Directed Support Scheme: Re-Conceptualising Work and Welfare in the 21st Century. Disability & Society, 24(5), 557-569 .

Riddell, S., Priestley, M., Pearson C., Mercer G., Barnes C., Jolly D., and Williams V.
(2006) Disabled People and Direct Payments: A UK Comparative Study. ESRC
End of Award Report (RES-000-23-0263). Retrieved from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/projects/UKdirectpayments/UKDPfinal.pdf

Rummery, K., (2005) Disabled Citizens and Social Exclusion: the Role of Direct Payments. Paper presented at the Cash and Care Conference. University of York.

SEU(2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. UK: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Retrieved from http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/publications_1997_to_2006/making_transport_2003.pdf.

Swain J., French S., Barnes C. and Thomas C. (Eds), (2004). Disabling Barriers: Enabling Environments (2nd ed). London: Sage Publication.

Thomson, H., Atkinson, R., Petticrew, M., Kearns, A. (2006). Do Urban Regeneration Programmes Improve Public Health and Reduce Health Inequalities? A Synthesis of the Evidence from UK Policy and Practice (1980-2004). Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60 (2). 108-115.

UN (2002). Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. United Nations: Division for Social Policy and Development.

Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (2007). Cash for Care in Developed Welfare States. London: Palgrave.

Vecchio, N. (2003). Private Transport Access among Older People: Identifying the Disadvantaged. The University of Queensland Discussion Paper, 326. Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:10926/DP326April2003.pdf

Verbrugge L.M. and Jette, A.M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science
and Medicine, 38, 1-14.

West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan steering Group (2000). West Yorkshire
Local Transport Plan 2001-2006.

WHO(1997). International classification of impairments, activities and participation : a manual of dimensions of disablement and functioning : Beta-1 draft for field trials June 1997 : includes basic Beta-1 field trial forms. Geneva: WHO.
WHO (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO.

Wistow, C., Knapp, M., Hardy, B., Forder, J., Kendall, J. and Manning, R.(1996).
Social Care Markets – Progress and Prospects. Buckingham: Open University
Press.

Zola, Irving K. (1989). Toward the necessary universalizing of disability policy. 
The Milbank Quarterly, 67, 401-428.

內政部(2006)。《老人狀況調查報告》。台北:內政部。

內政部(2007a)。《九十五年身心障礙生活需求調查》。台北:內政部。

內政部(2007b)。《人口政策白皮書公聽會會議資料》。台北:內政部。

內政部社會司編譯,(2003)。《聯合國經濟與社會委員會亞太地區身心障礙者未
來十年計畫(2003-2012)》。台北:內政部社會司。

王育瑜(2004)。〈障礙者與社區照顧:議題與觀點〉。《社區發展季刊》,106,new window
230-236。

王香蘋(2000)。〈老年長期照護可近性的探討─美國經驗的啟思〉。《醫務管理
雜誌》,1(1),35-41。

王國羽(2002)。〈我國身心障礙福利政策與體系--身心障礙保護法的分析〉。《社new window
區發展季刊》,97,115-127。

王國羽(2004)。 〈老年、障礙:研究概念取向與我國資料討論〉。《身心障礙
研究》,2,134-159。

王國羽、呂朝賢(2004)。〈世界衛生組織身心障礙人口定義概念之演進:兼論
我國身心障礙人口定義系統問題與未來修正方向〉。《社會政策與社會工作學
刊》,8(2),193-235。

王順民(2009)。〈關於「身心障礙者權益保障法」修法評析〉。財團法人國家政
策研究基金會。資料檢索日期:2010.03.01。網址
http://www.npf.org.tw/post/3/5320。

王基祥(2008)。身心障礙者交通服務之研究-以南投縣溫馨巴士交通服務為例。
暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。

曲延棣(2004)。〈Exploring Methods on Measurement for Health Equity〉。《美
和技術學院學報》,23(1),281-293。

吳依凡(2004)。醫療資源可近性對個人醫療利用的影響:臺灣地區的實證研究。
中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士班碩士論文。

吳政裕(2000)。鄉村社區成年智障者之照顧--以嘉義縣新港鄉為例。國立中正
大學社會福利系碩士論文。

吳明儒(2009)。〈社區發展的新視野:歐洲國家經驗的學習〉。《台灣社會福利new window
學刊》, 8(1),29-69。

吳淑瓊(1999)。〈台灣長期照護展望〉。《社區發展季刊》,88,162-167。

吳淑瓊、呂寶靜、盧瑞芬(1998)。《配合我國社會福利制度之長期照顧政策研究》。
台北: 行政院研究發展考核委員會。

呂寶靜(1998)。〈我國推動福利社區化的省思:從英國社區照顧政策的發展出
發〉。論文發表於台大社會系與台灣社會福利學會(合辦),《台灣社會福利發
展----過去、現在、未來研討會》 (4月17-19日)。地點:台大法學院。

呂寶靜(2001)。《老人照顧:老人、家庭、正式服務》。台北:五南。new window

李丞華(2001)。《我國醫療資源與健康照護可近性之研究 : 民眾醫療利用之地理差異及其影響》。行政院衛生署九十年度科技研究發展計畫研究成果報告(DOH90-TD-1168)。台北:行政院衛生署。

李思葦(2004)。高齡者交通安全問題之探討。中華大學科技管理研究所碩士論
文。

杜宗翰(2000)。建立老人及身心障礙者免費乘車福利業務有效機制之研究,交
通大學運輸工程與管理系研究所碩士論文。

沙依仁、江亮演(2004)。《社會工作管理》。台北:五南。

余鎔亘(2008)。高齡者搭乘醫療副大眾運輸系統之意願與願付價格影響因素分
析。中華大學運輸科技與物流管理學系研究所碩士論文。

辛孟鑫(2005)。撥召運輸系統路線規劃問題之研究-以台北市復康巴士為例。new window
成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文。

林正介(2001)。《臺灣不同醫療資源地區其初級健康照護可近性之評估》。行政院衛生署九十年度科技研究發展計畫研究報告(DOH90-TD-1155)。台北:行政院衛生署。

林良泰、周榮昌、張武先(1994)。〈老年人旅次特性之分析〉。《中華民國運輸
學會第九屆學術論文研討會論文集》, 49-56。

林宜靜(2001)。台灣國民所得與社會福利指標長期關係之研究。東華大學國際經濟研究所碩士論文。

林明禛(2004)。〈老人社區照顧服務輸送品質〉。《社區發展季刊》,106,new window
141。

林金定、嚴嘉楓、李志偉等(2005)。〈Caregivers' Perceptions of Accessibility,
Satisfaction and Policy Priorities of Health Care for People with Intellectual
Disabilities in Taiwan〉。《醫學研究》,25(5),229-236。

林昭吟(2005)。〈身心障礙者之提前老化及其因應對策〉。論文發表於台灣社會
福利學會(主辦),《社會暨健康政策的變動與創新趨勢:邁向多元、整合的福
利體制, 照顧與福利服務研討會》(5月6-7日)。舉辦地點:高雄醫學大學。

林昭吟(2008)。〈身心障礙者老化現象之概念探討與初探性實證研究〉。《東吳new window
社會工作學報》,19,37-80。

林玫雅(2003)。探討新型服務模式照顧住宅發展之研究-以嘉義實驗社區為例。國立中正大學社會福利系碩士論文。

林萬億(2006)。《社會福利:臺灣經驗的歷史制度分析》。台北:五南。

周月清(2004)。〈障礙者獨立生活運動緣起與意涵-美加英文獻探討〉。《社區發new window
展季刊》,106,331-344。

邱汝娜、陳素春、黃雅鈴(2004)。〈照顧服務社區化--當前老人及身心障礙者照
顧服務之推動與整合規劃〉。《社區發展季刊》,106,5-18。

邱高忠(2004)。病患就醫可近性對醫院經營管理策略之影響-以嘉義長庚醫院
為例。中山大學高階經營碩士班碩士論文。

邱慧敏(2002)。社會福利指標與經濟發展之實證研究。東華大學國際經濟研究所碩士論文。

徐文遠(1996)。老人運輸問題之研究。成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文。new window

徐淵靜(2006)。《高齡社會之交通與運輸》。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計
畫(NSC94-2420-H-163-001-KF)。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。

郭嘉惠(2006)。臺南縣醫院歇業對當地民眾醫療可近性之影響。長榮大學醫務管理學系暨碩士班碩士論文。

陳正杰(2002)。建立城際運輸永續發展指標系統。交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文。

陳昌益(2000)。都市地區老人旅運需求初探-活動基礎理論之應用。淡江大學運
輸管理學系碩士論文。

陳俊全(2007)。《身心障礙者平均餘命之分析》。內政部社會司95年度委託研究計畫報告。台北:內政部社會司。

陳敏郎、邱政元(2009)。〈在臺外籍勞工的醫療可近性及其就醫行為之研究—
以臺灣中部中小型製造業工廠的泰籍勞工為例〉。《弘光學報》,55,97-110。

張恆豪、蘇峰山(2009)。〈書評:Disability Rights and Wrongs〉。《台灣社會福
利學刊》,7(2),191-205。

曾平寬(1989)。台北地區運輸障礙者旅次潛在需求之研究,交大交通運輸工程
研究所碩士論文。

曾中明(2006)。〈台灣老人與身心障礙者長期照顧之現況與規劃〉。《長期照護
雜誌》,10(2),93-100。

黃源協(1999)。《社會工作管理》。台北:揚智。

黃源協(2000)。〈社區照顧的理念基礎–正常化觀點的分析〉。《東吳社會工作學報》,6,1-34。new window

黃源協(2003)。〈身心障礙福利的發展趨勢與內涵–國際觀點的分析〉。《社區發展季刊》,104,342-359。new window

楊貴蘭(2004)。探討山地鄉實施「醫療給付效益提升計畫」對民眾醫療服務利用影響與可近性。臺灣大學醫療機構管理研究所碩士論文。

楊朝傑(2010)。探討不同障別之身心障礙者使用復康巴士之頻率及使用目的-
以台北市伊甸無障礙交通服務為例。陽明大學物理治療暨輔助科技學系研究所
碩士論文。

楊馥璟(2008)。獨立生活服務模式的理念與實踐—社區居住的服務提供者之觀
點。暨南大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。

廖敏熒(2008)。〈如何改善牙醫門診病人就醫可近性及醫療品質滿意度〉。《臺
灣牙醫界》,27(9),27-29 。
蔡文正、龔佩珍、楊志良等(2006)。〈偏遠地區民眾就醫可近性及滿意度調查〉。new window
《臺灣公共衛生雜誌》, 25(5),394-404。

蔡宏昭(2004)。《社會福利經濟分析》。台北:揚智。new window

蕭正光(1996)。《全民健康保險偏遠地區民眾就醫可近性研究調查》。中央健康
保險局八十四年度研究計劃年度報告。台北:中央健保局。

藍武王(1988)。〈殘障者之交通問題與規劃〉。《運輸計畫季刊》,17(4),453-476。new window

藍武王(1990)。《無障礙交通環境規劃研究》。行政院研考會。

藍武王、張瓊文(1988)。〈無障礙的交通規劃〉。《交通運輸》,10,49-55。

藍武王、曾平寬、楊幼文(1992)。〈台北地區運輸障礙者潛在旅次需求之推估〉, 《交通運輸》,14,85-105。

藍武王、楊幼文(1992)。〈老人運輸方式之規劃〉。《中華道路》,31(2),19-27。

藍武王、羅世譽(1990)。〈台灣地區運輸障礙者之旅次特性調查分析〉。《運輸new window
計畫季刊》,19(4),373-388。

蘇麗瓊、黃雅鈴(2005)。〈老人福利政策再出發-推動在地老化政策〉。《社區發new window
展季刊》,110,5-14。

蘇慧芬(2007)。老人日間照顧中心與高齡者在地老化之探討-以水上鄉塗溝村老人日間照顧中心為例。國立中正大學高齡者教育研究所碩士論文。

魏健宏、徐文遠(1994)。〈台灣地區老人運輸課題之回顧與展望〉。《中華民國
運輸學會第九屆論文研討會》,41-48。

魏健宏、徐文遠(1997a)。〈老人運輸課題研擬之研究〉。《運輸計畫季刊》,26(1), 119-142。new window

魏健宏、徐文遠(1997b)。〈老人運輸特性之研究〉。《中華道路》,36(2),3-14。

Google Map衛星地圖網站 http://maps.google.com.tw/

WHO世界衛生組織網站http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/

台北市交通施政兩年回顧與展望
http://www.dot.taipei.gov.tw/dot2004/ch/web/annual/88/first.asp

內政部統計資訊服務網http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/index.asp

內政部社會司老人福利網站http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/04/01.htm

內政部社會司身心障礙福利網站http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/05/new05.htm

行政院主計處政府統計要覽http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=13213&CtNode=3504

英國交通部網站http://www.dft.gov.uk/

英國Metro網站http://www.wymetro.com/BusTravel/

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE