古之明訓「不經一事，不長一智」、「一朝被蛇咬，十年怕草繩」，皆在描述人透過經驗學習成長、記取教訓的過程，同樣地，當人類面對災害的衝擊，可以透過了解過去形成災害問題的本質，加以採取對應措施降低可能受到的影響達到經驗學習。然而目前相似問題本質的災害現象仍反覆發生，回顧災害概念，其根植於人類活動的都市系統中，包含不同資源、實體設施、組織與人的交互運作與干擾而形成的複雜關係與因素，而過去累積災害事件描述則過於簡化，多關注於直接可見的自然危害、損失統計之內容並以災害類別主管機關各自存放、事件為記錄為單元，形成各自之描述與分析方式，將每個事件視為獨立的特殊現象，不利整合討論影響災害損失形成原因，需要建立更有效學習災害經驗的方式。
基此，探討經驗學習理論，獲取建立模擬系統，反覆於現實與模擬系統資訊反饋結果中協助快速了解對問題的認知，提升學習效率的概念基礎，進一步回顧都市系統了解主要組成結構內容與關鍵的資源項目，並綜合事故分析工具提供系統性分析災害事件中的事故因素方法，提出系統觀點建立都市災害經驗學習與資料整合架構，進一步從都市運作基礎關鍵資源，擇定了臺北市生活用水供應系統作為初探個案，依據架構蒐集系統組成主要結構與不同影響系統運作的災害事件案例資訊討論可學習災害經驗。
從操作結果可發現，架構可協助詮釋事件中上層可能形成問題管控單位，除了實體工程設施，也得以關注相關規章機制，確認是否有對應之策略，連結潛在的因果脈絡，並了解相互運作關係，補充對系統的認知，而能詮釋更廣泛的災害因素，促進改善都市各系統設計，提供了一個災害經驗學習與資料整合方向，輔助過去以單個事件檢視災害問題下可能未關注的影響關係與策略方向，為災害經驗學習帶來不同的啟發，未來研究建議透過視覺化研究、專家訪談與資料探勘技術，協助目前在資料蒐集與災害事件和系統關係呈現上的限制，並擴展探討不同面向、層級之都市系統範圍與災害事件，以利累積量化建模評估基礎。

“Wisdom comes from experience.” Humans can understand the essential factors that formed the impact of disasters in the past, and take corresponding measures to reduce the possible impact. Therefore, it is more necessary to apply the experience brought by each event. However, the description of the current disaster event is too simplified and acts individually. Independent event records, unfavorable integration of discussions and considerations to form disaster factors, and rapid strategies may fail to solve the disaster problem. A more effective way of learning disaster experience is needed.
Through literature reviews of experiential learning theory, disaster concept and experiential learning status, disaster concept and experiential learning status, urban system and accident analysis tools, establish a systematic disaster experiential learning and data integration framework. The framework helps to explore the operating mechanisms in Taipei City’s domestic water supply systems through case analysis. Besides physical engineering facilities, various regulations and control mechanisms at the upper level and understanding of mutual operating relationships link potential to interpret a broader disaster causal context, promoting the improvement of urban system design. The proposed framework assists in examining the impact relationships and strategic directions in the single past event that may lead to systemic problems and bring novel experiential learning from disasters. The author suggests that visualization, expert interviews, and data-mining techniques may help remove the limitations found in this research, including data collection, the presentation of the relationship between disaster events and the system, and extending the systems to different aspects and levels. The scope of urban systems and disaster events used in this study may form the basis of quantitative modeling and evaluation in the future.

英文文獻
1. Alberti, M., Marzluff, J. M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C. and Zumbrunnen, C.(2003). Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges forstudying urban ecosystems. BioScience, 53(12), 1169–1179.
2. Argyris, C. and Schön D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein, and M. Mead, (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly,11(3), 369-386.
4. Birkland, T. A. (2009). Disasters, lessons learned, and fantasy documents. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(3), 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00575.x.
5. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davies, I. and Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People‘s Vulnerability and Disaster. London: Routledge.
6. Blanchard, B. W. (2008). FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Program Description: Background, Mission, Current Status, and Future Planning. Retrieved from: http://www.training.fema.gov/hiedu/docs/em%20hied%20pgm%20vision%20&%20description%20doc08.doc.
7. Bostrom, R. P. and Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Part I: The Causes. MIS Quarterly 1(3), 17.
8. Busenberg, G. J. (2001). Learning in Organizations and Public Policy. Journal of Public Policy, 21(2), 173-189.
9. Carlson, C. S. (2015). Understanding the Fundamental Definitions and Concepts of FMEAs. Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (January, 2016).
10. Carroll, J. M. and Rosson, M. B, (1992). Getting Around the Task-Artifact Cycle: How to Make Claims and Design by Scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems.10 (2): 18.
11. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (2019). Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). Retrieved from: https://www.emdat.be/.
12. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
13. Cilliers, P. (2002). Why we cannot know complex things completely. Emergence, 4(1), 77.
14. De Roo, G. and Porter, G. (2007). Fuzzy planning: The role of actors in a fuzzy governance environment. Informa: Ashgate.
15. Desouza, K. C., and Flanery, T. H. (2013). Designing, planning, and managing resilientcities: A conceptual framework. Cities, 35, 89-99.
16. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. New York: D.C. Heath and Company.
17. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience (pp. 43-44). New York: Minton, Balch and Company.
18. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
19. Dewey, J. (1957). Reconstruction in philosophy (pp.87). Boston: Beacon Press.
20. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover publications.
21. Dicken, P. (2011). Global Shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy(sixth). New York: Guilford Press.
22. Donahue, A. K. and Tuohy, R. V. (2006). Lessons We Don’t Learn: A Study of the Lessons of Disasters, Why We Repeat Them, and How We Can Learn Them. Homeland Security Affairs, 2(2).
23. Donella H. M. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. London: Sustainability Institute.
24. Dudenhoeffer, D. D., Permann, M. R. and Manic, M, (2006), CIMS: A framework for infrastructure interdependency modeling and analysis. Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Winter Simulation (pp.478–485). Monterey.
25. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
26. Fan Y. and Stevenson M. (2018). A review of supply chain risk management: definition, theory, and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 48(3) , 205-230.
27. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2006). Principles of Emergency Management(IS230).Washington DC.
28. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2019). Supply Chain Resilience Guide. Retrieved from: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/supply-chain-resilience-guide.pdf.
29. Flaus, J. M. (2013). Risk Analysis Socio-technical and Industrial Systems. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.
30. Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Ha°kansson, H. and Snehota, I. (2006). The Business Marketing Course: Managing in Complex Networks. Chichester: Wiley.
31. Fritz, C. E. (1961). Disaster and community therapy. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Science.
32. Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen. U., Virolainen. V. M. and Tuominen M. (2004). Risk management processes in supplier networks. International Journal of Production Economics, 90(1), 47-58.
33. Hitchins, D. K. (2008). Systems Engineering: a 21st Century Systems Methodology. US:Wiley.
34. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2014): Effective law and regulation for disaster risk reduction: a multi country report – Summary. New York.
35. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). and United Nations Development Programme(UNDP). (2015). The Handbook on Law and Disaster Risk Reduction. New York.
36. Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J. and Engel-yan, J. (2007). The changing metabolism of cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 43-59.
37. Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E. and Moder, M. (2012), Supply risk management: model development and empirical analysis, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 42(1), 60-82.
38. Kolb, D. A . (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
39. Kreps, G. A. (1995). Disaster as Systemic Event and Social Catalyst: A Clarification of Subject Matter. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 13(3), 255-284.
40. Kroll-Smith, J. (1998). Legislators, Interpreters and Disasters: The Importance of How as well as What Is Disaster?. In E. Quarantelli (Ed.), What Is a Disaster: A Dozen Perspectives on the Issue (pp. 160-176). New York: Routledge.
41. Leveson Nancy G., (2011). Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events. Safety Science, 49(1), 55-64.
42. Leveson, N. G. (1995). System Safety and Computer. USA :Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,.
43. Leveson, N. G. (2012). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to Safety. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
44. Lindell, M., and Perry, R. (2007). Planning and Preparedness. In W., Waugh. and K., Tierney. (Eds.), Emergency management: Principles and practice for local governments (2nd ed.) (pp. 113-142). Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
45. Maier, M. W. and Rechtin, E. (2000). The art of systems architecting (Vol. 2). Boca Raton: CRC press.
46. Meerow, S., Newell, J. and Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38-49.
47. Merriam, S. B.（1988）Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48. Miller, W. L. & Crabtree, B. F. (1992). Doing qualitative research. (1st ed.). London:Sage. pp.17-21
49. National Research Council. (1991). A Safer Future: Reducing the Impacts of Natural Disasters. Washington: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1840.
50. Oliver-Smith, A, (1999). What is a Disaster Anthropological Perspectives. In A., Oliver-Smith. and S. ,Hoffman.(Eds.), The Angry Earth.(1st ed.)(pp. 18-35). New York: Routledge.
51. Oliver-Smith. A., Alcántara-Ayala I. , Burton I. and Lavell. A. M. (2016). Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN): a conceptual framework and guide to research. (IRDR FORIN Publication No.2). Beijing: Integrated Research on Disaster Risk.
52. Oosthuizen, R. and Pretorius, L. (2014). Modelling Methodology for Engineering of Complex Sociotechnical Systems. INCOSE International Symposium, 24(s1), 268-281. doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2014.00021.x.
53. Perrow, C. (1981). Normal Accident at three Mile Island. Society, 18(5), 17-26.
54. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
55. Philips, B. D., Neal, D. M., & Webb, G. R. (2012). Introduction to Emergency Management. U.S.A: CRC Press.
56. Quarantelli, E. (1985). What Is a Disaster? The Need for Clarification in Definition and Conceptualization in Research. In B. J. Sowder (Ed.), Disasters and Mental Health: Selected Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 41-73). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
57. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27(2/3), 183-213.
58. Rasmussen, J. and Svedung, I. (2000). Proactive risk management in dynamic society. Karlstad, Sweden: Swedish Rescue Services Agency.
59. Resilience Alliance. (2007). Urban resilience research prospectus. Canberra, Australia, Phoenix, USA; Stockholm, Sweden.
60. Scacchi, W., (2004). Socio-technical design. In: W.S. Bainbridge, ed. The encyclopaedia of human-computer interaction. Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group.
61. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
62. Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
63. Simon. R. (1973). The systems approach. In: Ralph, F., Miles, Jr. (Eds.), Systems Concepts: Lectures on Contemporary Approaches to Systems. New York: John F. Wiley and Sons, 13-32.
64. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
65. Sterman, J. D. (2006). Learning from Evidence in a Complex World.
66. Sterman, J.D. (1994). Learning in and About Complex Systems. System Dynamics Review10(2), 291.
67. Sulaman, S., Beer, A., Felderer, M. and Höst M. (2019). Comparison of the FMEA and STPA safety analysis methods–a case study. Software Qual Journal, 27, 349-387.
68. Svedung, I. and Rasmussen, J. (2002). Graphic representation of accident scenarios: mapping system structure and the causation of accidents. Safety Science, 40(5), 397-417.
69. Swiss Re Institute. (2020). Sigma 2/2020: Natural catastrophes in times of economic accumulation and climate change. Retrieved from: https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/sigma-2020-02.html.
70. Tubbs, J., and Meacham, B. (2007). Egress design solutions: A guide to evacuation and crowd management planning. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
71. United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction (UNDRR). (2019). What is Disaster Risk Reduction?. Retrieved from: https://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/what-is-drr. (2019/02/06)
72. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Resolution adopted. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
73. Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Jenkins D.P. (2008). A Review of Sociotechnical Systems Theory: A Classic Concept for New Command and Control Paradigms. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 9(6), 479.
74. White, G. F. (1945). Human Adjustment to Flood: A Geographical Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States. Chicago: Chicago University.
75. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., and Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, andenvironmental justice: The challenge of making cities just green enough. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244.
76. World Economic Forum (WEF). (2009).Global Risk Network Report. Retrieved from: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/9102_globalrisks20091.pdf.
77. World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). How much water is needed in emergencies. Technical Notes on WASH in Emergencies. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/tn9_how_much_water_en.pdf.
 
中文文獻
1. Babbie E. (1998). 社會科學研究方法（The Practice of Social Research,8th. Ed.）李美華（譯）。臺北：時英。（原著於1998年出版）
2. Clearfield C. and Tilcsik A. (2018). 系統失靈的陷阱:杜絕風險的聰明解決方案（Meltdown: why our systems fail and what we can do about it）劉復苓（譯）。臺北：遠見。
3. Neuman, W. L.（2000）。社會研究方法：質化與量化取向（Social research methods: qualitativeand quantitative approaches）。朱柔若（譯）。臺北：揚智。（原著於1997出版）。
4. Patton M. Q.（1995）。質的評鑑與研究（Qualitative research and Evaluation methods.）。吳芝儀、李奉儒（譯）臺北：桂冠。（原著於1980出版）
5. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2009). 減輕災害風險術語（Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction）UNDRR（譯）. Retrieved from: http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyChinese.pdf.
6. Yin, R. K（2001）。個案研究法（Case study research: Design and methods）尚榮安（譯）。臺北：弘智。（原著於1994出版）
7. 小野寺勝重（2001）。實踐FMEA手法，張書文（譯）。臺北：財團法人中衛發展中心。
8. 內政部消防署（2018）。企業防災指導手冊。內政部消防署網站，取自：https://www.nfa.gov.tw/pro/index.php?act=download&ids=3839&path=../upload/pro/attachment/a76648008467317369eed6300b90e7c0.pdf。
9. 王仕圖、吳慧敏（2003）。深度訪談與案例演練。收錄於齊力、林本炫編（2003）。質性研究方法與資料分析，95~113 頁。嘉義：南華大學教育社會學研究所。
10. 王价巨、馬士元、方潤強、楊怡瑩、黃凡齊（2015）。臺中市政府災害防救體制與全事故應變機制架構之研究。臺中市政府委託研究報告（編號：1040309RRE034）。臺中市：臺中市政府研究發展考核委員會。
11. 丘昌泰（2014）。建立政府風險管理機制。T&D飛訊期刊，192，取自：https://ws.csptc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvNy9yZWxmaWxlLzEyMjIwLzIzMjEzLzFmNzcyMjJiLTYxODgtNDIwOC1hOGRmLTU5MDg3NTRhZTRiMy5wZGY%3d&n=MTA0YzcxNzFkMDBlYWJjMzlhZTJkNzU4MmE2NjU3YTMucGRm&icon=.pdf。
12. 交通部中央氣象局（2015）。天然災害災防問答集。交通部中央氣象局網站，取自：http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7/prevent/plan/prevent-faq/prevent_faq.pdf。
13. 江純怡（2017）。知識管理人人都知道，只是應用之巧妙有不同。管理知識中心，取自：https://mymkc.com/article/content/22671。
14. 行政院科技顧問組（2011）。關鍵資訊基礎建設保護政策指引。
15. 行政院國土安全會報（2018）。國家關鍵基礎設施安全防護指導綱要。
16. 行政院農業委員會（2011）。農業用水哪來何處去？。農政與農情月刊，230，取自：https://www.coa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=23990。
17. 行政院主計總處（2020）。綠色國民所得帳編製報告。中華民國統計資訊網，取自：https://www.stat.gov.tw/public/data/dgbas03/bs7/greengnp/all.pdf。
18. 何錦忠（2004）。以風險分析為概念的失效模式與效應分析之發展與應用-以汽車零組件業之個案研究。大葉大學資訊管理學系碩士班碩士論文，彰化。
19. 余懿嫺（2007）。道德教育與哲學（312頁）。臺北：文景。
20. 吳木崑（2009）。杜威經驗哲學對課程與教學之啟示。臺北市立教育大學學報，40(1)，35-54。
21. 吳玉鈴（2000）。婦女教育與經驗學習的運用。社教雙月刊，95，29-33。
22. 吳明淏（2011）。災害風險管理。生活防災通識課程講義，高雄市立空中大學。
23. 吳統雄（1997）。群體調查決策資訊系統：知識產生環境的設計與實證研究。臺北：國科會專題研究，計畫編號 NSC-86-2416-H-128-001; 1997i。
24. 災害防救辦公室（2018）。中央至地方防救體系架構。中央災害防救會報網站。取自：https://cdprc.ey.gov.tw/Page/A1EE0B2787D640AF。
25. 林益增（2015）。系統動力學運用於人機介面操作系統之研究。國立雲林科技大學碩士論文，雲林縣。
26. 馬士元（2011）。我國災害防救體系運作之特色與未來展望。100年度核子事故緊急應變各中心人員訓練講習，取自：https://www.aec.gov.tw/share/file/emergency/tcLzUKiiegb98DxYsuIZww__.pdf。
27. 馬士元（2015）。災害防救體系之簡介。臺北市終身學習網通訊，68，16-21。
28. 馬士元（2016）。臺灣建構全災型事故應變體系之探討。105年度土石流災害防救業務講習，臺北市：林業試驗所森林保育大樓12樓國際會議廳。
29. 國家災害防救科技中心（2013）。人為災害防治組發展之回顧，國家災害防救科技中心電子報。取自：http://ncdr.nat.gov.tw/Files/image/20131118143216618/files/s8.pdf。
30. 張承明、于樹偉、張日誠（2013）。事故調查與分析方法之應用。勞工安全衛生研究季刊，21(1)，86-106。
31. 張芬芬（2010）。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-120。
32. 張斐章、黃泰霖、盧虎生、胡明哲、范致豪（2018）。創建智慧都市代謝系統邁向永續城市：水-糧食-能源鏈結之解決方案。科技部委託研究案（編號：MOST107-2621-M002-004-MY3）。臺北市：科技部。
33. 張賢龢、王价巨（2017）。災害管理內涵與重要觀念。載於王价巨（主編），災害管理：13堂專業的必修課程（3-20頁）。臺北：五南。
34. 郭靜晃（2007)。社會行為研究法。臺北：洪葉。
35. 陳建忠、洪鴻智、簡長毅、賴深江、廖容瑩、王美惠（2012）。因應多重災害之都市空間系統防災課題先期研究。內政部建築研究所協同研究報告。
36. 陳彥仲（2016）。水資源管理與都市及區域空間規畫。科學發展期刊，520，22-27。
37. 陳曼莉（2020）。臺北自來水事業處推動水安全計畫之實務探討。中國土木水利工程學刊，32（3），285-289。
38. 單文經（1988）。杜威道德教育理論研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北。
39. 單信瑜（2016）。災防法三讀後，政府防救災能力真的提升了嗎。名人堂網站。取自：https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/9449/1616340。
40. 單信瑜、姚大鈞（2017）。災害風險管理。載於王价巨（主編），災害管理：13堂專業的必修課程（23-49頁）。臺北：五南。
41. 游輝祥（2019）。從危害控制分析談重大危害事件管理。職業安全衛生防災宣導會，高雄市。
42. 經濟部水利署（2019）。臺灣地區民國107年生活用水量統計報告。經濟部水利署網站，取自：http://wuss.wra.gov.tw/annualreports/202000031-%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E7%AF%87%20%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E5%9C%B0%E5%8D%80%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B107%E5%B9%B4%E5%90%84%E6%A8%99%E7%9A%84%E7%94%A8%E6%B0%B4%E7%B5%B1%E8%A8%88%E5%B9%B4%E5%A0%B1.pdf。
43. 經濟部水利署北區水資源局（2020）。新店溪自來水取供水系統示意圖。經濟部水利署北區水資源局網站，取自：https://www.wranb.gov.tw/3452/23075/25260/25325/。
44. 臺北水源特定區管理局（2011）。轄區範圍。臺北水源特定區管理局網站，取自：https://www.wratb.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=15769&dn=15770。
45. 臺北市災害防救辦公室（2019）。臺北市地區災害防救計畫。臺北市防災資訊網，取自：https://www.eoc.gov.taipei/News/Details/2ac4caf4-4d84-4459-9b4d-745744717375。
46. 臺北市翡翠管理局（2013）。為大臺北水源永續穩定供應 籲請重視南勢溪上游崩塌地治理問題。臺北市翡翠管理局網站，取自：https://www.feitsui.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=11BF07B7364A082F&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=25DAEB6DBFE65BB5。
47. 臺北自來水事業處（2020a）。108年臺北自來水事業統計年報。臺北自來水事業處網站，取自：https://www.water.gov.taipei/News.aspx?n=DA1C15AA041B4A6B&sms=8F705FD45D439B2C。
48. 臺北自來水事業處（2020b）。常見問答。臺北自來水事業處網站，取自：https://www.water.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=30E4EDA27F6D9953&sms=87415A8B9CE81B16&s=A712467D62D5A01E。
49. 臺北自來水事業處（2020c）。推動水安全計畫概況。臺北自來水事業處網站，取自：https://www.water.gov.taipei/cp.aspx?n=BC957349271229A5&s=3E20E82DAD39D814。
50. 臺北自來水事業處（2021）。大臺北地區水質泛黃現象說明。臺北自來水事業處網站，取自：https://www.water.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=D68F8002AA8566B7&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=7DE099CE5F7E2FA7。
51. 臺灣自來水公司（2018）。0206自來水供應情況。臺灣自來水公司網站，取自：https://www.water.gov.tw/ct.aspx?xItem=229028&ctNode=1324&mp=album。
52. 臺灣自來水公司（2020）。108年臺灣自來水事業統計年報（151頁）。臺灣自來水公司網站，取自：https://www.water.gov.tw/ch/AnnualReport/Detail/10317?nodeId=4571。
53. 趙偉順、張玉山（2011）。經驗學習理論在生活科技課程的教學應用：以「扭轉乾坤」曲柄玩具單元為例。生活科技教育月刊，44(6)，1-21。
54. 潘穆嫈、林貝珊、林元祥（2016）。韌性研究之回顧與展望。防災科學，1，53-78。
55. 鄧敏政（2015）。以人為本的防災思維-漫談人為災害。臺北市終身學習網通訊，68，8-15。
56. 簡秀峯（2019）。淺談國家關鍵基礎設施防護推行情形。國家通訊傳播委員會月刊，13(3)，取自：https://nccnews.com.tw/201906/ch3.html。
57. 羅偉誠、徐國錦（2016）。水與生活安全。科學發展期刊，520，10-15。