Comparison of Tourists Expenditures in TRNC

GIRNE AMERICAN UNIVERSITYDepartment of Industrial Engineering

IE401-IE402

“Comparison of Expenditure From Foreign and Turkish Citizens Came to North

Cyprus“

Students NameUmur OZ 121703002

1.INTRODUCTION2.GENERAL STATISTICS3.MEASUREMENT OF SATISFACTION4.CORRELATION5.COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURE6.CONCLUSION

1.INTRODUCTION- In this survey aimed to determining the comparison of Turkish and foreign tourist in North Cyprus.- Our population calculated with forecasting method and found to be 122400 people on April 2016.

- A total of 300 people who have responded to the questionnaire. The sampling technique was completely random but we do not want to disrupt nature of the population.

- 300 units sample size’s confidence level nearly equal to 92,56%.

2.GENERAL STATISTICS•Nationality•Gender•Age•Employee Status•Arrive to North Cyprus•First Visit to North Cyprus•Accommodation Type•Length of Stay•Monthly Income

2.1.Nationality

- The highest is Turkish people 70.7% and the second is UK with 14.3% and Germans follows the British’s with 9.3%, and the Iranian, Russian, Sweden can’t reach the 3%.

2.2.Gender

- The population of male is higher than female population which is 51% and 49% respectively.

2.3.Tourists Age

- The larger percentage of the population which participates is above 58 with percentage of 24.3%. Followed by subscribers between age of 28-37 with 23.3%, followed by age of 38-47 years by 21.3%.

2.4.Employee Status

- The highest is employed with 38% and the second is the retired with 31.3% and the third one is 19.7%.

2.5.Arrive to North Cyprus

- The pie chart tells us that out of 300 tourists 96.7% arrived by plane, only 3.3% percent of the sample arrived to North Cyprus by ship.

2.6.First Visit to North Cyprus

- Out of 300, 169 people came to North Cyprus for the first time but 131 people are not first came to North Cyprus. It can be effect satisfaction very much.

2.7.Accommodation TypeNationality * AccomodationType Crosstabulation

Count

AccomodationType

TotalHotelBungal

ows ResortsApart Hotels

Nationality

GERMAN 24 1 1 2 28

IRANIAN 0 4 0 0 4

RUSSIA 6 0 0 0 6

SWEDEN 6 0 0 1 7

TC 146 3 28 35 212UK 34 2 2 5 43

Total 216 10 31 43 300

- Out of 6 nationalities only Iranian people choose to stay in bungalows and 5 of the nationalities chooses to stay in Hotels.

2.8.Length of Stay

- Most of the tourist stays here for 1-3 days and the other majority of the chart, prefers to stay 1 week in Cyprus.

2.9.Monthly IncomeNationality * MonthlyIncome Crosstabulation

Count

MonthlyIncome

TotalUnder 1000

1001-1500

1501-1800

More Than 1800

Nationality

GERMAN 1 8 12 7 28

IRANIAN 0 1 3 0 4

RUSSIA 0 1 5 0 6

SWEDEN 0 3 4 0 7

TC 47 93 49 23 212UK 7 21 9 6 43

Total 55 127 82 36 300

- As you see out of 6 nationalities 4 of them earns $1501-$1800, only 2 of them which means Turkish and British people earns $1001-$1500.

3.MEASUREMENT OF SATISFACTION

•Transportation Prices•Food Prices•Tour and Taxi Prices•Prices of Things•Accommodation Prices•Trip Prices

3.1.Transportation Prices

- 40.3% of the tourists say transportation prices are normal and reasonable and cheap follow it with 26.7%, 15% respectively.

3.2.Food Prices

- 37% of tourist say food prices expensive but in the other hand 36.3% say food prices are normal.

3.3. Tour and Taxi Prices

- The chart tells us that the population thinking the tour and taxi prices are normal.

3.4. Prices of Things

- 36.3% of tourist say thing prices normal but in the other hand 35.7% say thing prices are expensive.

3.5.Accommodation Prices

- On this chart we can see easily tourists are deciding on the normal for accommodation prices.

3.6.Trip Prices

- We can easily say expensive is negligible with 6.7% in the other hand cheap, normal, reasonable are nearly equal to each other with 32.7%, 31%, 29.7% respectively.

4.CORRELATION•Monthly Income-Organization Holiday

- In here we have two tailed significant, we have a positive correlation coefficient so there is a positive correlation which is 0.185 which means that there is a relationship between monthly income and organization of holiday.

Correlations

MonthlyIncome OrganizingHolidayMonthlyIncome Pearson Correlation 1 ,185*

Sig. (2-tailed) ,038

N 300 126

OrganizingHoliday Pearson Correlation ,185* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) ,038 N 126 126

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

5.COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES

•Tour Expenditures•Personal Expenditures

•We apply ANOVA TEST to see relationships between those Turkish and Foreign tourists expenditures.

5.1.TOUR EXPENDITURES COMPARISATION

•Tour Expenditures •Extra Accommodation Expenditures•Extra Food Expenditures•Extra Transportation Expenditures•Extra Activity Expenditures•Shopping Expenditures•Extra Entertainment Expenditures

5.1.1.Tour Price Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant

difference for tour expenditure.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant

difference for tour expenditure.Descriptives

TourTourPrice

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundTURKISH 82 371,5854 190,02254 20,98448 329,8328 413,3379 100,00 750,00FOREIGN 44 421,4545 123,70867 18,64978 383,8437 459,0654 100,00 700,00Total 126 389,0000 170,97537 15,23170 358,8546 419,1454 100,00 750,00

ANOVA

TourTourPrice

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 71213,188 1 71213,188 2,465 ,119

Within Groups 3582858,812 124 28894,023 Total 3654072,000 125

- p > 0.05, it means Ho is not rejected.- Foreign tourists mean expenditure value is 421€, and there is no big differences between that two tourists groups.

5.1.2.Extra Accommodation Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for extra accommodation.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

extra accommodation.Descriptives

TourAccomodation

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundTURKISH 67 135,0000 134,39821 16,41935 102,2177 167,7823 25,00 600,00FOREIGN 25 123,0000 107,28661 21,45732 78,7143 167,2857 25,00 450,00

Total 92 131,7391 127,14194 13,25546 105,4088 158,0695 25,00 600,00

ANOVATourAccomodation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 2621,739 1 2621,739 ,161 ,689Within Groups 1468400,000 90 16315,556 Total 1471021,739 91

- p>0.05, it means Ho is not rejected. - As you see in the table Foreign and Turkish tourists expenditures nearly equal to each other.

5.1.3.Extra Food Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for extra food.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

extra food.Descriptives

TourFood




ANOVATourFood Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 74,233 1 74,233 ,031 ,860Within Groups 275775,132 116 2377,372 Total 275849,364 117

- p>0.05, it means Ho is not rejected. - As you see in the table Foreign and Turkish tourists expenditures nearly equal to each other.

5.1.4.Extra Transportation Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant

difference for extra transportation.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant

difference for extra transportation.Descriptives

TourTransportation



ANOVATourTransportation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 4564,050 1 4564,050 6,918 ,010Within Groups 62677,703 95 659,765 Total 67241,753 96

- p<0.05, it means we have to accept H1. - Foreign tourists spend money for transportation nearly 2 times of Turkish tourists expenditure for transportation.

5.1.5.Extra Activity Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for extra activity.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

extra activity.Descriptives

TourActivity



ANOVATourActivity Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 5259,689 1 5259,689 2,743 ,102Within Groups 151490,311 79 1917,599 Total 156750,000 80

- p>0.05, it means Ho is not rejected. - That difference between two groups is not too much to decide for that sectore.

5.1.6.Shopping Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for shopping.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

shopping.Descriptives

TourShopping



Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundTURKISH 68 63,6765 37,08218 4,49687 54,7007 72,6523 25,00 210,00

FOREIGN 38 63,8158 26,87394 4,35953 54,9825 72,6490 30,00 150,00

Total 106 63,7264 33,64423 3,26782 57,2469 70,2059 25,00 210,00

ANOVA

TourShopping

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups ,473 1 ,473 ,000 ,984Within Groups 118852,593 104 1142,813 Total 118853,066 105

- p>0.05, it means Ho is not rejected. - Nearly there is no differences between two groups.

5.1.7.Extra Entertainment Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant

difference for extra entertainment.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant

difference for extra entertainment.Descriptives

TourEntertainment



ANOVATourEntertainment Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 634766,714 1 634766,714 4,903 ,029Within Groups 12557282,276 97 129456,518 Total 13192048,990 98

- p<0.05, it means we have to accept H1. - As you see in the table Turkish tourists spend money for entertainment more than 2 times of Foreign expenditure.

5.2.PERSONAL EXPENDITURES COMPARISATION

•Accommodation Expenditures•Food Expenditures•Transportation Expenditures•Activity Expenditures•Shopping Expenditures•Entertainment Expenditures

5.2.1.Accommodation Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for accommodation expenditures.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

accommodation expenditures.Descriptives

PersonalAccomodation


Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundTURKISH 115 635,9130 525,90589 49,04098 538,7632 733,0628 ,00 2500,00FOREIGN 43 329,3023 228,71427 34,87860 258,9145 399,6902 140,00 1400,00Total 158 552,4684 483,28156 38,44782 476,5266 628,4101 ,00 2500,00

ANOVAPersonalAccomodation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 2942279,142 1 2942279,142 13,609 ,000Within Groups 33726808,200 156 216197,488 Total 36669087,342 157

- p<0.05, it means we have to accept H1. - When we check the average expenditures of two groups Turkish tourists spend more than foreign people when they planning their holiday personaly.

5.2.2.Food Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for food expenditures.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

food expenditures.Descriptives

PersonalFood



ANOVAPersonalFood Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 587,208 1 587,208 ,048 ,826Within Groups 2012210,411 166 12121,749 Total 2012797,619 167

- p>0.05, it means Ho is not rejected. - If we check the differences between two group that difference is to small and it means there is no relationship between those two groups.

5.2.3.Transportation Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for transportation expenditures.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

transportation expenditures.

DescriptivesPersonalTransportation



ANOVAPersonalTransportation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 110,179 1 110,179 ,036 ,850Within Groups 506209,042 165 3067,934 Total 506319,222 166

- p>0.05, it means Ho is not rejected. - If we check the differences between two group that difference is to small and it means there is no relationship between those two groups.

5.2.4.Activity Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for activity expenditures.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

activity expenditures.Descriptives

PersonalActivity



ANOVAPersonalActivity Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 19129,425 1 19129,425 5,028 ,027Within Groups 429879,305 113 3804,242 Total 449008,730 114

- p<0.05, it means we have to accept H1. - Foreign tourists spend more than when we compare Turkish tourists.

5.2.5.Shopping Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for shopping expenditures.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

shopping expenditures.Descriptives

PersonalShopping


Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundTURKISH 88 116,3068 86,12839 9,18132 98,0580 134,5557 ,00 400,00FOREIGN 43 90,0000 85,86396 13,09413 63,5750 116,4250 10,00 400,00Total 131 107,6718 86,60320 7,56656 92,7022 122,6413 ,00 400,00

ANOVAPersonalShopping Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 19990,170 1 19990,170 2,700 ,103Within Groups 955024,716 129 7403,292 Total 975014,885 130

- p>0.05, it means Ho is not rejected. - If we check the table differences for shoppinh expenditure is small as you see. It doesn’t show significant relationship between those two groups.

5.2.6.Entertainment Expenditures• Ho : Amount of spending of tourists don’t shows a significant difference

for entertainment expenditures.• H1 : Amount of spending of tourists shows a significant difference for

entertainment expenditures.Descriptives

PersonalEntertainment



ANOVAPersonalEntertainment Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 912909,479 1 912909,479 10,184 ,002Within Groups 12818784,314 143 89641,848 Total 13731693,793 144

- p<0.05, it means we have to accept H1. - As you see Turkish tourists spending 248€ for entertainment more than 3 times when we compare with foreign tourists.

6.CONCLUSION• In this survey, Turkish tourists are the majority with 212 tourists and rest of the survey constitute by foreign

tourists with 88 tourists. • The results of the test we applied shows that Turkish tourists and foreign tourists expenditure similar to each

other in 7 expenditure type, out of 17 expenditure. • In those years (2011-2015) Turkish tourists rate increased, as a result it affect by reducing the foreign

tourists rates. • When we look at the tourism statistics for 2015 year, both sides of island (TRNC and Republic of Cyprus), we

can see the differences oblivously.

•To increase that rate North Cyprus should do some procedures as;▫Tour Agencies must do some campaigns.▫Hotels and Tour Agencies must use the media

marketing techniques more effective (SWOT Analysis).

▫Goverment could shift the investments in to the tourism sector.

▫Support the activities for potential tourists.

Data & Analytics

Comparison of Tourists Expenditures in TRNC