都市的易讀性長久以來被認為是市民心目中建立都市正面形象的重要面向。可以導引人們了解這個都市並且記住它。這個對於從海外來留學的學生而言更為重要，因為遠離家鄉的困難會影響他們的生活方式與歸屬感。舉例來說，外籍生們會使用汽車作為他們在家鄉的主要交通工具，但是當他們在台灣則必須使用腳踏車替代。在路上騎乘時會因為汽車、機車以及公車等行駛速度比腳踏車快的交通工具而感到害怕，這不但危險、也會使他們覺得在路上不安全。能跟本地生一樣的生活、學習與玩耍，進而對城市產生歸屬感，對外籍生來說很重要。因此本研究將比較外籍生與本地生所產出心理地圖 (Mental Map) 的差異，了解不同的出行方式如何影響他們的心理地圖，以及能指認出他們如何在城市中生活、學習與遊玩。本研究旨在評估由外籍生與本地生所繪製的城市心理地圖，以確定各種出行方式如何影響人們對城市的看法。本研究範圍在台南，此地是有著很長歷史的城市，台南的交通工具選擇有限，所以非常適合此研究，因為學生可以藉由腳踏車和機車來探索這個城市。不只如此，台南有著名且高名聲的成功大學吸引許多外籍生與本地生來此學習。為了比較外籍生與本地生出行方式如何他們對都市的認知與辨識。本研究利用心理地圖與問卷採訪成功大學的留學生與本地生，並以地理資訊系統（GIS）分析比較與視覺化數據。本研究旨在了解留學生對於台南及居住範圍的意象以及台南市的可辨識性，留學生們待在台灣是否產生歸屬感，以及大學可以如何協助留學生在台南更便利的生活。本研究運用Kevin Lynch理論中的五個要素包括路徑、邊、節點、地標以及區域作為分析標準在GIS中分析留學生與本地生心理地圖的差異，評估心理地圖上劃分的區域大小，並要求受訪者繪製兩張地圖，分別代表他們的日常生活與如何辨識都市。在問卷的部分掌握受訪者的背景 (包括國籍、性別、年齡、宗教與科系等) 。除此之外，受訪者必須在台灣居住超過一年才符合標準。研究結果顯示出行方式會影響參與者感知與辨識他們生活、學習與遊玩的方式。事實上，使用自行車、大眾運輸工具與步行的留學生似乎比使用機車作為主要交通工具的本地生更了解都市的型態且能繪製出更完整的地圖。這個研究可以有效幫助都市規劃師和地方政府估量台南市的易讀性還有檢視人民對都市的想像，此外，大學可以知道交換生還缺少或是需要什麼來幫助他們在成功大學時可以生活得更方便。

Legibility has long been acknowledged as a critical aspect in instilling a positive image of a city in the eyes of its citizens. This picture is thought to aid individuals in comprehending the city, navigating it, and memorizing it. This is especially important for overseas students because the difficulty of being away from their hometown can affect their way of life and sense of belonging. For instance, back in their hometown, they use a car as their main mode of transportation, but when they are aboard, they have to use a bicycle instead. Moreover, being on a road that they have never been on before can scare them with the cars, scooters, and buses that speed faster than bicycles. It is very dangerous and makes them feel unsafe on the road. It is important to make overseas students feel a sense of belonging to the city where they live, learn, and play just like domestic students. By doing that, this study compared the differences in mental maps created by overseas and domestic students.
The purpose of this study is to see how different modes of transport can affect their mental maps and what they can recognize in the city that they live, learn, and play in. Moreover, to get information about how overseas students feel and recognize Tainan City, where they live, and the legibility of the city itself. Do they feel a sense of belonging while staying abroad, and how can the university assist them in making their stay in Tainan more convenient?
In order to compare the mental maps, interviews were given to respondents to collect the mental map data and demographic information. We collected 50 participants in this study. For the questionnaire, the interviewees were asked questions about their demographic background (nationalities, gender, age, religion, department, etc.). In the mental maps part, this study use the Drawing Maps application to create the mental maps by drawing the maps on the IPad. By collected five elements from the Kevin Lynch theory, which are paths, edges, nodes, landmarks, and districts. By using the criteria to evaluate the mental maps by the size of the area partitioned on the maps, and asking interviewees to draw two maps: one for their daily life, and another for how they recognize the city. Then analyzes the differences between overseas students and domestic students and compiling the data in Geographic Information System (GIS) for visualization. Moreover, this study uses descriptive statistics to analyze the data as well. The research area is in Tainan, Taiwan's southernmost city, which is a historic city with a lengthy history. Tainan's transport choices are quite limited, so it makes Tainan suitable for this study because students can explore the city by bicycle and scooter. Moreover, Tainan has a remarkable university like National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), where many overseas and domestic students study here due to its high ranking and reputation.
The results show that transportation modes affect the way participants perceive and recognize the city where they live, learn, and play. Indeed, overseas students who use bicycles, public transportation, and walking seem to have a better understanding of the city pattern and can draw a more complete map than domestic students who use scooters as their transportation mode. This research is beneficial for urban planners and local government agencies since it evaluates Tainan's legibility and gives a tool for examining people's urban images. Furthermore, university benefit from knowing what overseas students still lack and what they require in order to provide such things for their comfort and convenience while studying at NCKU.

1976. Environmental knowing: Theories, research and methods, Oxford, England,
Dowden
APPLEYARD, D. 1970. Styles and Methods of Structuring a City. Environment and Behavior, 2, 100-117.
ARENTZE, T. A. & TIMMERMANS, H. J. P. 2005. Representing mental maps and cognitive learning in micro-simulation models of activity-travel choice dynamics. Transportation, 32, 321-340.
BANISTER, D. & STEAD, D. 2004b. Impact of information and communications technology on transport. Transport Reviews, 24, 611-632.
BERENDT, B., BARKOWSKY, T., FREKSA, C. & KELTER, S. 1998. Spatial Representation with Aspect Maps. In: FREKSA, C., HABEL, C. & WENDER, K. F. (eds.) Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Representing and Processing Spatial Knowledge. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
BRIGGS, R. 1973. Urban cognitive distance. Image & environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. New Brunswick, NJ, US: AldineTransaction.
BROWN, B., WERNER, C. & KIM, N. 2003. Personal and Contextual Factors Supporting the Switch to Transit Use: Evaluating a Natural Transit Intervention. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 139-160.
CHENG, Y.-H. & LIU, K.-C. 2012. Evaluating bicycle-transit users’ perceptions of intermodal inconvenience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46, 1690-1706.
CHORUS, C. G. & TIMMERMANS, H. J. P. 2010. Determinants of Stated and Revealed Mental Map Quality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Urban Design, 15, 211-226.
COUCLELIS, H., GOLLEDGE, R. G., GALE, N. & TOBLER, W. 1987. Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology,, 7, 99-122.
DEVLIN, A. S. & BERNSTEIN, J. 1997. Interactive way-finding: map style and effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 99-110.
DZIEKAN, K. 2008. The transit experience of newcomers to a city : learning phases, system difficulties and information search strategies. the 87th TRB Meeting.
EVANS, G. W., FELLOWS, J., ZORN, M. & DOTY, K. 1980a. Cognitive mapping and architecture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 474-478.
EVANS, G. W., FELLOWS, J. C., ZORN, M. & DOTY, K. J. 1980b. Cognitive mapping and architecture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 474-478.
FABRIKANT, S. I., HESPANHA, S. R. & HEGARTY, M. 2010. Cognitively Inspired and Perceptually Salient Graphic Displays for Efficient Spatial Inference Making. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 13-29.
FREKSA, C. 1999. Spatial aspects of task specific wayfinding maps a representation-theoretic perspective.
GARLAND, H. C., HAYNES, J. J. & GRUBB, G. C. 1979. Transit Map Color Coding and Street Detail: Effects on Trip Planning Performance. Environment and Behavior, 11, 162-184.
GIULIANO, G. & NARAYAN, D. 2003. Another Look at Travel Patterns and Urban Form: The US and Great Britain. Urban Studies, 40, 2295-2312.
GLASGOW, J. I., NARAYANAN, N. H. & CHANDRASEKARAN, B. 1995. Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives.
GOLLEDGE, R. G. 1999. Wayfinding behavior : cognitive mapping and other spatial processes, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
GOLLEDGE, R. G. & GÄRLING, T. 2004. Cognitive Maps and Urban Travel. In: HENSHER, D. A., BUTTON, K. J., HAYNES, K. E. & STOPHER, P. R. (eds.) Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
GOLLEDGE, R. G. & SPECTOR, A. N. 1978. Comprehending the Urban Environment: Theory and Practice. Geographical Analysis, 10, 403-426.
HAGERTY, B. M., WILLIAMS, R. A., COYNE, J. C. & EARLY, M. R. 1996. Sense of belonging and indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10, 235-244.
HAGERTY, B. M. K., LYNCH-SAUER, J., PATUSKY, K. L., BOUWSEMA, M. & COLLIER, P. 1992. Sense of belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6, 172-177.
HALL, R. W. 1983. Traveler performance and information availability: an experiment in route choice. Transportation Planning and Technology, 8, 177-189.
HANNES, E., JANSSENS, D. & WETS, G. 2008. Does Space Matter?: Travel Mode Scripts in Daily Activity Travel. Environment and Behavior, 41, 75-100.
HARRIS, C. D. 1986. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 76, 284-290.
HEADICAR, P. 2009. Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain. Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain, 1-470.
HINDLE, B. P. & WOOD, D. 1992. The Power of Maps. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 19, 250.
HOCHMAIR, H. 2009. The Influence of Map Design on Route Choice from Public Transportation Maps in Urban Areas. The Cartographic Journal, 46, 242-256.
HORNING, J., EL-GENEIDY, A. & KRIZEK, K. 2008. Perceptions of walking distance to neighborhood retail and other public services.
HOYLE, B. S., KNOWLES, R. D., ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL, S. & TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY RESEARCH, G. 1998. Modern transport geography.
ITTELSON, W. H., PROSHANSKY, H. M., RIVLIN, L. G. & WINKEL, G. H. 1974. An introduction to environmental psychology, Oxford, England, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
JANKOWSKI, P., ANDRIENKO, N. & ANDRIENKO, G. 2001. Map-centred exploratory approach to multiple criteria spatial decision making. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15, 101-127.
LEE, S. & RYU, S. 2007. Multiple Path-Finding Models Using Kalman Filtering and Space Syntax Techniques. Transportation Research Record, 2029, 87-95.
LEE, Y. & SCHMIDT, C. G. 1988. Evolution of Urban Spatial Cognition: Patterns of Change in Guangzhou, China. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 20, 339-351.
LITMAN, T. 2010. Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts Understanding How Transport Policy and Planning Decisions Affect Employment, Incomes, Productivity, Competitiveness, Property Values and Tax Revenues.
LYNCH, K. 1960. The image of the city, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
LYNCH, K. 1981. A Theory of Good City Form, Cambridge, Mass., Mit Press.
MACEACHREN, A. M. & JOHNSON, G. B. 1987. The Evolution, Application and Implications of Strip Format Travel Maps. The Cartographic Journal, 24, 147-158.
MINAEI, N. 2014. Do Modes of Transportation and GPS Affect Cognitive Maps of Londoners? Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 70, 162-180.
MONDSCHEIN, A., BLUMENBERG, E. & TAYLOR, B. 2010. Accessibility and Cognition: The Effect of Transport Mode on Spatial Knowledge. Urban Studies, 47, 845-866.
MORRISON, A. 1994. Why are French public transport maps so distinctive compared with those of Germany and Spain? The Cartographic Journal, 31, 113-122.
MOORE, G. T., & Golledge, R. G. (Eds.). (1976). Environmental knowing: Theories, research and methods. Dowden.
POCOCK, D. & HUDSON, R. 1978. Images of the Urban Environment, Columbia University Press.
RAMADIER, T. & MOSER, G. 1998. Social Legibility, The Cognitive Map and Urban Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 307-319.
RAVEAU, S., MUÑOZ, J. C. & DE GRANGE, L. 2011. A topological route choice model for metro. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45, 138-147.
RICHARDSON, A. E., MONTELLO, D. R. & HEGARTY, M. 1999. Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory & Cognition, 27, 741-750.
RUSSELL, D., CUTRONA, C., ROSE, J. & YURKO, K. 1984. Sound and emotional loneliness: An examination of Weiss's typology of loneliness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46, 1313-21.
SOH, B. K. & SMITH-JACKSON, T. L. 2004. Influence of Map Design, Individual Differences, and Environmental Cues on Wayfinding Performance. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 4, 137-165.
SPENCER, C. P. 1981. The microgenesis of cognitive maps : A longitudinal study of new residents of an urban area. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 6, 375-384.
THORNDYKE, P. W. & HAYES-ROTH, B. 1982. Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cogn Psychol, 14, 560-89.
TUAN, Y.-F. 1975. Images and Mental Maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 65, 205-213.
TVERSKY, B. 1981. Distortions in memory for maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 407-433.
UTTAL, D. H. 2000. Seeing the big picture: map use and the development of spatial cognition. Developmental Science, 3, 247-264.
VERTESI, J. 2008. Mind the Gap: The London Underground Map and Users' Representations of Urban Space. Social Studies of Science, 38, 7-33.
WALMSLEY, D. J. 1984. Human Geography: Behavioural Approaches, Wiley.
WEISMAN, J. 1981. Evaluating Architectural Legibility:Way-Finding in the Built Environment. Environment and Behavior, 13, 189-204.
WOLFF, A. 2007. Drawing Subway Maps: A Survey. Informatik - Forschung und Entwicklung, 22, 23-44.