本研究探討將Sankey圖應用於非營利組織財務資訊視覺化，是否能提升閱聽人對財務資訊的理解與偏好，並進一步分析圖表解讀教學對理解效果的影響。臺灣非營利組織在財務資訊揭露上雖已有法規規範與自律機制，然而多數財務報告仍以文字與表格呈現，對缺乏財務背景的閱聽人而言理解門檻甚高，進而降低資訊參與度與對組織信任建立。隨著小額捐款人逐漸成為重要利害關係人，財務資訊的可了解性與視覺化呈現成為當前的重要議題。

本研究採用問卷實驗法，邀請具有非營利組織捐款經驗者為樣本，控制其閱讀傳統財報、未經過教學視覺化資訊圖表、或接受Sankey圖解讀教學後的視覺化資訊圖表，觀察其在「客觀可了解性」、「主觀可了解性」、「易讀性」與「主觀偏好」等面向的差異。研究結果顯示，與傳統財報相比，經過Sankey圖能顯著提升閱聽人對財務資訊的客觀可了解性和主觀偏好；而與未經過教學相比，經過教學後Sankey圖除了能提升閱聽人對財務資訊的客觀可了解性，在主觀可了解性與易讀性上的表現更有顯著效果。此外，受試者的財金背景亦對視覺化效果產生調節作用。

本研究初步驗證 Sankey 圖於非營利財務資訊揭露的可行性與優勢，並呼籲在視覺化推行過程中應重視圖表教學與使用者經驗。研究結果可供非營利組織於財務資訊設計與揭露策略上作為實務參考，亦為後續擴展財務揭露效果研究提供基礎。

This study explores whether applying Sankey diagrams to the visualization of nonprofit financial information can enhance audiences’ understanding and preference, and further examines the impact of graph interpretation instruction on comprehension outcomes. In Taiwan, although nonprofit financial disclosure is governed by laws and self-regulatory mechanisms, most financial reports are still presented in textual and tabular formats. This creates high comprehension barriers for individuals without financial backgrounds and reduces both their engagement with the information and their trust in the organization. As small-scale donors become increasingly important stakeholders, the understandability and visual presentation of financial information have emerged as critical issues.

Using a questionnaire-based experimental design, this study recruited participants with prior donation experience to nonprofit organizations and assigned them to one of three groups: reading traditional financial statements, viewing visualized Sankey diagrams without instruction, or viewing Sankey diagrams after receiving graph interpretation instruction. The study examined participants’ performance across four dimensions: objective understandability, subjective understandability, ease of reading, and subjective preference. Results show that compared to traditional reports, Sankey diagrams significantly improve objective understandability. Furthermore, Sankey diagrams with instruction yielded even greater effects, enhancing not only objective understandability but also subjective understandability and ease of reading. Financial background was also found to moderate the effects of visualization.

This study provides preliminary evidence supporting the feasibility and advantages of using Sankey diagrams in nonprofit financial disclosure. It also highlights the importance of incorporating diagram instruction and considering user experience in the visualization process. The findings offer practical insights for nonprofit organizations to improve their financial communication strategies and serve as a foundation for future research on the effects of financial information disclosure.

白宜君（2019年8月28日）。〈每年捐款六百億 流向為何難以透明化？〉。《今周刊》。https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80392/post/201908280018/
洪綾君、林依瑩（2010）。〈台灣醫療財團法人財務資訊公開之研究〉。《公共行政學報》，7，37-70。
黃德舜（2007）。〈非營利組織財務資訊透明化的管理意涵─兩個個案比較分析〉。《非政府組織學刊》，3，29–46。
林江亮（2009）。〈資訊透明度對捐款收入影響之實證研究-以臺灣公益團體為例〉。《經濟研究》，45（1），65–102。
宋曜廷、陳茹玲、李宜憲、查日龢、曾厚強、林維駿、張道行、張國恩（2013）。〈中文文本可讀性探討：指標選取、模型建立與效度驗證〉。《中華心理學刊》，55（1）。https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.20120621
臺灣公益責信協會（2022）。《公益觀察 2022 韌性與復歸：臺灣企業暨民眾捐款調查報告》（公益觀察）。臺灣公益責信協會。
臺灣公益責信協會（2023）。《公益觀察 2023：交織的暗影》（公益觀察，頁 1-55）。臺灣公益責信協會。
楊媛婷（2024年3月19日）。〈否認高層年薪500萬 兒盟：財務報表每年都公開歡迎檢視〉。《自由電子報》。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/4612503
余孟勳（2015）。〈數位時代的公益責信〉，收錄於《「自律或他律？第三部門治理與責信」學術研討會優秀碩博士得獎論文集》（頁233–259）。
余孟勳（2019年12月30日）。〈【余孟勳專欄／兒盟爭議 1】年餘 4.4 億、支出占比偏低，兒盟財務狀況詳解〉。《多多益善 Right Plus》。https://rightplus.org/2019/12/30/child-welfare-league-finance-1/
余孟勳（2022年3月23日）。〈從臺鐵事件到烏俄戰爭：政府發動募款排擠民間募資，是否真能嚴以律己？〉。《多多益善 Right Plus》。
張明輝、周筱姿（2013）。《公益理想實踐之路：非營利組織之設立與管理實務》。財團法人資誠教育基金會。
鄭惠文、彭文賢（2007）。〈非營利組織財務資訊的公開報導：美國經驗與其意涵〉。《行政暨政策學報》，44，1–42。
Adelberg, A. H. (1979). A Methodology for Measuring the Understandability of Financial Report Messages. Journal of Accounting Research, 17(2), 565. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490519
Anheier, H. K., & Toepler, S. (2022). Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy: Third Edition. 收入 Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy: Third Edition. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429299681
Arditi, A., & Cho, J. (2005). Serifs and font legibility. Vision Research, 45(23), 2926–2933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.013
Baskerville, R. F., & Rhys, H. (2014). A Research Note on Understandability, Readability and Translatability of IFRS. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2528118
Biondi, L., & Bracci, E. (2018). Sustainability, Popular and Integrated Reporting in the Public Sector: A Fad and Fashion Perspective. Sustainability, 10(9), 3112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093112
Bisogno, M., Brusca, I., Caperchione, E., Cohen, S., & Manes-Rossi, F. (編輯). (2024). Public Sector Financial Management for Sustainability and SDGs in Europe. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55135-2
Bowman, W. (2012, Oct. 26). Nonprofit Accountability and Ethics: Rotting from the Head Down [Post]. Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/nonprofit-ethics-accountability-rotting-from-the-head-down/
Breen, O. B. (2013). The Disclosure Panacea: A Comparative Perspective on Charity Financial Reporting. Voluntas, 24(3), 852–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9377-2
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014
Carden, J., & Cline, T. (2015). Problem solving in mathematics: The significance of visualisation and related working memory. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1051660
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2017). Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand. Sydney: NSW Department of Education.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
Charities Aid Foundation. (2025). WORLD GIVING INDEX 2024: GLOBAL TRENDS IN GENEROSITY. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/inside-giving/wgi/wgi_2024_report.pdf
Cnaan, R. A., Jones, K., Dickin, A., & Salomon, M. (2011). Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(4), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20032
Cohen, S., Mamakou, X. J., & Karatzimas, S. (2017). IT-enhanced popular reports: Analyzing citizen preferences. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.04.003
Cohen, S., Manes Rossi, F., Mamakou, X., & Brusca, I. (2022). Financial accounting information presented with infographics: Does it improve financial reporting understandability? Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(6), 263–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-11-2021-0163
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347
Cromley, J. G., Perez, T. C., Fitzhugh, S. L., Newcombe, N. S., Wills, T. W., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013). Improving Students’ Diagram Comprehension with Classroom Instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745465
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1949). The Concept of Readability. Elementary English, 26(1), 19–26.
Del Gesso, C. (2022). A picture is worth a thousand words: A photo-thematic analysis of city hospitality in municipal popular reporting. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 13(1), 100–119.
Dethier, F., Delcourt, C., & Dessart, L. (2024). Donor Perceptions of Nonprofit Organizations’ Transparency: Conceptualization and Operationalization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(5), 1230–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231211212
Dull, R. B., & Tegarden, D. P. (1999). A Comparison of Three Visual Representations of Complex Multidimensional Accounting Information. Journal of Information Systems, 13(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.2308/jis.1999.13.2.117
Farwell, M. M., Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2019). Explaining Trust in Canadian Charities: The Influence of Public Perceptions of Accountability, Transparency, Familiarity and Institutional Trust. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 768–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00046-8
Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021
Fox, A. R., & Hollan, J. (2018). Read It This Way: Scaffolding Comprehension for Unconventional Statistical Graphs. 收入 P. Chapman, G. Stapleton, A. Moktefi, S. Perez-Kriz, & F. Bellucci (editor), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (vol 10871, p 441–457). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91376-6_40
Gates Foundation Annual Report 2023. (2024). [Post]. Gates Foundation. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/financials/annual-reports/annual-report-2023
Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307
Granitto, S. P., & Murthy, U. S. (2024). Are All Pictures Worth 1,000 Words? An Investigation of Fit Between Graph Type and Performance on Accounting Data Analytics Tasks. Journal of Information Systems, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2308/ISYS-2023-042
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual–spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684
Holmes, J., & Adams, J. W. (2006). Working Memory and Children’s Mathematical Skills: Implications for mathematical development and mathematics curricula. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500341056
Hung, C., & Hager, M. A. (2019). The Impact of Revenue Diversification on Nonprofit Financial Health: A Meta-analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018807080
IFRS Foundation. (2018, Mar.). 財務報導之觀念架構：A部分. 財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會.
Jones, M. J., & Shoemaker, P. A. (1994). Accounting narratives: A review of empirical studies of content and readability. Journal of Accounting Literature, 13, 142.
Jones, M., & Smith, M. (2014). Traditional and alternative methods of measuring the understandability of accounting narratives. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(1), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2013-1314
Kelton, A. S., & Pennington, R. R. (2012). Internet financial reporting: The effects of information presentation format and content differences on investor decision making. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1178–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.028
KENNEDY, A. B. W., & SANKEY, H. R. (1898). The Thermal Efficiency of Steam Engines. Report of the Committee Appointed to the Council upon the Subject of the Definition of a Standard or Standards of Thermal Efficiency for Steam Engines: With an Introductory Note. (Including Appendixes and Plate at Back of Volume). Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 134, 278–312. https://doi.org/10.1680/imotp.1898.19100
Khumawala, S. B., & Shroff, A. A. (2023). Chapter 2: Donor use of nonprofit financial information. Research Handbook on Nonprofit Accounting (p 12–35).
King, D. B., & Wertheimer, M. (2017). Max Wertheimer and Gestalt theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783573
Langella, C., Anessi‐Pessina, E., Botica Redmayne, N., & Sicilia, M. (2023). Financial reporting transparency, citizens’ understanding, and public participation: A survey experiment study. Public Administration, 101(2), 584–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12804
Li, Y., Huang, Z., Yan, J., Zhou, Y., Ye, F., & Liu, X. (2021). GFTE: Graph-Based Financial Table Extraction. A. Del Bimbo, R. Cucchiara, S. Sclaroff, G. M. Farinella, T. Mei, M. Bertini, H. J. Escalante, & R. Vezzani (editor, Pattern Recognition. ICPR International Workshops and Challenges (vol 12662, p 644–658). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68790-8_50
Lohse, G. L. (1997). The role of working memory on graphical information processing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 16(6), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/014492997119707
Lowrie, T., & Kay, R. (2001). Relationship Between Visual and Nonvisual Solution Methods and Difficulty in Elementary Mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598758
Manes-Rossi, F. (2019). New development: Alternative reporting formats: a panacea for accountability dilemmas? Public Money & Management, 39(7), 528–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1578540
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 640–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.640
Nielsen, L. P. (2015). Knowledge Dissemination Based on Terminological Ontologies: Using Eye Tracking to Further User Interface Design [PhD series]. Copenhagen Business School.
Principles, N. C. T. M. (2000). standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Prasad, G. V. R. J. S., & Ojha, A. (2012). Text, Table and Graph—Which is Faster and More Accurate to Understand? 2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Technology for Education, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2012.18
Riehmann, P., Hanfler, M., & Froehlich, B. (2005). Interactive Sankey diagrams. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005., 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2005.1532152
Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. The American economic review, 63(2), 134–139.
Sauro, J., & Dumas, J. S. (2009, April). Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1599-1608)
Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., & Vekiri, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (p 426–476).
Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of Graph Comprehension Research: Implications for Instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47–69.
Sharp, F. C., Carpenter, F. H., & Sharp, R. F. (1998). Popular financial reports for citizens. The CPA Journal, 68(3), 34–38.
Smith, M., & Taffler, R. (1992). Readability and Understandability: Different Measures ofthe Textual Complexity of Accounting Narrative. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579210019549
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Torcasio, S., & Sweller, J. (2010). The use of illustrations when learning to read: A cognitive load theory approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1577
Uesaka, Y., Manalo, E., & Ichikawa, S. (2007). What kinds of perceptions and daily learning behaviors promote students’ use of diagrams in mathematics problem solving? Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.006
UNICEF Annual Report 2023 (p 1–53). (2024). United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). https://www.unicef.org/media/157491/file/UNICEF%20Annual%20report%202023%20EN.pdf
Vos, P., & Frejd, P. (2020). The object-tool duality in mathematical modelling. A framework to analyze students’ appropriation of Sankey diagrams to model dynamic processes. Avances de Investigación En Educación Matemática, 17, 52–66. https://doi.org/10.35763/aiem.v0i17.305
Vos, P., & Frejd, P. (2022). Grade 8 students appropriating Sankey diagrams: The first cycle in an educational design research. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(2), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v13i2.pp289-306
Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational researcher, 21(1), 14-23.