Measurement of Socioeconomic Impacts of Ecotourism

Percentages of the problems faced in the region before ecotourism activities were listed as the lack of transportation in winter months and obligation to use routes through Georgia (86.9 %), education/health problems (52.5 %), power blackouts (24.6 %), insufficiency of income (23 %), insufficiency of village roads (11.5 %), scarcity of livestock and agricultural products (6.6 %), and communication

Table 15.2 Chi-square results of distribution of participants in ecotourism activity according to vocational groups

Vocation

Observed value

Expected value

Residual

2

2

10.2

-8.2

3

3

10.2

-7.2

4

4

10.2

-6.2

6

12

10.2

1.8

7

14

10.2

3.8

26

26

10.2

15.8

Total

61

Chi-square

41.787

Degrees of freedom

5

Significance level

0

Source: Aydin (2010)

Table 15.3 Chi-square results of distribution of participants in ecotourism activity according to educational status groups

Educational status

Observed value

Expected value

Residual

Not graduate

6

12.2

-6.2

University

5

12.2

-7.2

Secondary

13

12.2

0.8

High school

16

12.2

3.8

Elementary

21

12.2

OO

OO

Total

61

Educational status

Chi-square

52.194

Degrees of freedom

4

Significance level

0

Source: Aydin (2010)

problems (1.6 %); after ecotourism activities, the problems mentioned were the lack of transportation in winter months and obligation to use routes through Georgia (85.2 %), education/health problems (49.2 %), power blackouts and insufficiency of income (9.8 %), and insufficiency of village roads (6.6 %).

H0, which is the significance test of the difference between two matches (Table 15.4), was accepted to test for statistical difference between these values; it was determined with 95 % reliability that there was no difference between the problems faced in the region before and after ecotourism activities (t calculation = 2,497, p > 0.05).

The question “Was the initiation of ecotourism activities effective in the solution of problems faced in your area?” was answered as “yes” by 26.2 % of the villagers, “partially” by 42.6 % of villagers, and “no” by 31.1 % of the villagers.

Table 15.4 t test results for comparison of the problems faced in the region before and after ecotourism activities

Dual differences

95 % matched two-example

reliability Degrees of

Average interval________ freedom Significance

Average SD SE Lower Upper t (df level

Pre-ecotourism 57.016 178.343 22.834 11.34 102.69 2.497 60 0.015

Post­ecotourism Source: Aydin (2010)

Table 15.5 t test results for comparison of the change in the motives for migration from the country to the village before and after ecotourism activities

Dual differences

95 % matched two-example

Average reliability interval Degrees of Significance

Average SD SE Lower Upper t freedom (df) level

Pre-ecotourism 209.426 630.251 80.695 48.011 370.841 2.595 60 0.012

Post-ecotourism Source: Aydin (2010)