The document summarizes the results of a survey comparing expenditures of Turkish and foreign tourists in Northern Cyprus. It finds that while Turkish tourists spent more on entertainment, foreign tourists spent more on transportation. For most other expenditure categories like accommodations, food, activities, and shopping, the differences in spending between Turkish and foreign tourists were not statistically significant. The document uses statistical tests like ANOVA to analyze relationships between nationality and various types of expenditures.

1. GIRNE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Department of Industrial Engineering
IE401-IE402
“Comparison of Expenditure From Foreign and
Turkish Citizens Came to North Cyprus“
Students Name
Umur OZ 121703002

2. 1.INTRODUCTION
2.GENERAL STATISTICS
3.MEASUREMENT OF SATISFACTION
4.CORRELATION
5.COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURE
6.CONCLUSION

3. 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%.

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

5. 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%.

6. 2.2.Gender
- The population of male is higher than
female population which is 51% and 49%
respectively.

7. 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%.

8. 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%.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 2.7.Accommodation Type
Nationality * AccomodationType Crosstabulation
Count
AccomodationType
TotalHotel
Bungalo
ws Resorts
Apart
Hotels
Nation
ality
GERM
AN
24 1 1 2 28
IRANI
AN
0 4 0 0 4
RUSSI
A
6 0 0 0 6
SWED
EN
6 0 0 1 7
TC 146 3 28 35 212
UK 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.

12. 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.

13. 2.9.Monthly Income
Nationality * MonthlyIncome Crosstabulation
Count
MonthlyIncome
Total
Under
1000
1001-
1500
1501-
1800
More
Than
1800
National
ity
GERMA
N
1 8 12 7 28
IRANIA
N
0 1 3 0 4
RUSSIA 0 1 5 0 6
SWEDE
N
0 3 4 0 7
TC 47 93 49 23 212
UK 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.

14. 3.MEASUREMENT OF SATISFACTION
• Transportation Prices
• Food Prices
• Tour and Taxi Prices
• Prices of Things
• Accommodation Prices
• Trip Prices

15. 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.

16. 3.2.Food Prices
- 37% of tourist say food prices expensive
but in the other hand 36.3% say food prices
are normal.

17. 3.3. Tour and Taxi Prices
- The chart tells us that the population
thinking the tour and taxi prices are
normal.

18. 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.

19. 3.5.Accommodation Prices
- On this chart we can see easily tourists
are deciding on the normal for
accommodation prices.

20. 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.

21. 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 OrganizingHoliday
MonthlyIncome 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).

22. 5.COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES
• Tour Expenditures
• Personal Expenditures
• We apply ANOVA TEST to see relationships
between those Turkish and Foreign tourists
expenditures.

23. 5.1.TOUR EXPENDITURES COMPARISATION
• Tour Expenditures
• Extra Accommodation Expenditures
• Extra Food Expenditures
• Extra Transportation Expenditures
• Extra Activity Expenditures
• Shopping Expenditures
• Extra Entertainment Expenditures

24. 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. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 82 371,5854 190,02254 20,98448 329,8328 413,3379 100,00 750,00
FOREIGN 44 421,4545 123,70867 18,64978 383,8437 459,0654 100,00 700,00
Total 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.

25. 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 Bound
TURKISH 67 135,0000 134,39821 16,41935 102,2177 167,7823 25,00 600,00
FOREIGN 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
ANOVA
TourAccomodation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2621,739 1 2621,739 ,161 ,689
Within 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

26. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 75 86,0667 50,10323 5,78542 74,5390 97,5944 15,00 200,00
FOREIGN 43 84,4186 46,29370 7,05972 70,1715 98,6657 20,00 200,00
Total 118 85,4661 48,55602 4,46994 76,6136 94,3186 15,00 200,00
ANOVA
TourFood
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 74,233 1 74,233 ,031 ,860
Within 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.

27. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 60 27,5000 24,26024 3,13198 21,2329 33,7671 5,00 100,00
FOREIGN 37 41,6216 27,86510 4,58099 32,3309 50,9123 5,00 100,00
Total 97 32,8866 26,46573 2,68719 27,5526 38,2206 5,00 100,00
ANOVA
TourTransportation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 4564,050 1 4564,050 6,918 ,010
Within 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.

28. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 46 56,3043 42,47136 6,26206 43,6919 68,9168 10,00 150,00
FOREIGN 35 72,5714 45,47739 7,68708 56,9494 88,1935 15,00 180,00
Total 81 63,3333 44,26483 4,91831 53,5456 73,1211 10,00 180,00
ANOVA
TourActivity
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 5259,689 1 5259,689 2,743 ,102
Within 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.

29. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 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 ,984
Within 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.

30. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 67 284,3284 405,23365 49,50717 185,4841 383,1726 10,00 1000,00
FOREIGN 32 113,1250 235,49108 41,62933 28,2214 198,0286 10,00 1000,00
Total 99 228,9899 366,89610 36,87445 155,8138 302,1660 10,00 1000,00
ANOVA
TourEntertainment
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 634766,714 1 634766,714 4,903 ,029
Within 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.

31. 5.2.PERSONAL EXPENDITURES COMPARISATION
• Accommodation Expenditures
• Food Expenditures
• Transportation Expenditures
• Activity Expenditures
• Shopping Expenditures
• Entertainment Expenditures

32. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 115 635,9130 525,90589 49,04098 538,7632 733,0628 ,00 2500,00
FOREIGN 43 329,3023 228,71427 34,87860 258,9145 399,6902 140,00 1400,00
Total 158 552,4684 483,28156 38,44782 476,5266 628,4101 ,00 2500,00
ANOVA
PersonalAccomodation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2942279,142 1 2942279,142 13,609 ,000
Within 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.

33. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 124 119,8387 115,17208 10,34276 99,3659 140,3116 20,00 500,00
FOREIGN 44 124,0909 94,08848 14,18437 95,4854 152,6964 35,00 500,00
Total 168 120,9524 109,78470 8,47007 104,2302 137,6746 20,00 500,00
ANOVA
PersonalFood
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 587,208 1 587,208 ,048 ,826
Within 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.

34. 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.
Descriptives
PersonalTransportation
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 123 74,1789 60,78921 5,48118 63,3283 85,0294 10,00 280,00
FOREIGN 44 76,0227 35,88709 5,41018 65,1121 86,9334 25,00 200,00
Total 167 74,6647 55,22785 4,27366 66,2269 83,1024 10,00 280,00
ANOVA
PersonalTransportation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 110,179 1 110,179 ,036 ,850
Within 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.

35. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 73 76,9041 63,69702 7,45517 62,0425 91,7657 5,00 300,00
FOREIGN 42 103,6905 57,96403 8,94404 85,6276 121,7533 10,00 300,00
Total 115 86,6870 62,75885 5,85229 75,0936 98,2803 5,00 300,00
ANOVA
PersonalActivity
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 19129,425 1 19129,425 5,028 ,027
Within 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.

36. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 88 116,3068 86,12839 9,18132 98,0580 134,5557 ,00 400,00
FOREIGN 43 90,0000 85,86396 13,09413 63,5750 116,4250 10,00 400,00
Total 131 107,6718 86,60320 7,56656 92,7022 122,6413 ,00 400,00
ANOVA
PersonalShopping
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 19990,170 1 19990,170 2,700 ,103
Within 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.

37. 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
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper Bound
TURKISH 102 248,7255 349,22027 34,57796 180,1321 317,3189 10,00 2000,00
FOREIGN 43 75,0000 109,25614 16,66141 41,3759 108,6241 10,00 650,00
Total 145 197,2069 308,80250 25,64465 146,5183 247,8955 10,00 2000,00
ANOVA
PersonalEntertainment
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 912909,479 1 912909,479 10,184 ,002
Within 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.

38. 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.

39. • 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.