0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
102 vizualizări151 pagini
This document analyzes the digital divide among regions in Turkey. It provides background on measuring the digital divide and reviews literature on this topic. The document then presents statistics on ICT development in Turkey from sources like the Turkish Statistical Institute and International Telecommunications Union. It describes the study's data collection methodology. The results section uses statistical analyses like ANOVA and regression to compare ICT development indexes and usage across Turkey's 12 regions. The conclusions summarize key findings and implications.
This document analyzes the digital divide among regions in Turkey. It provides background on measuring the digital divide and reviews literature on this topic. The document then presents statistics on ICT development in Turkey from sources like the Turkish Statistical Institute and International Telecommunications Union. It describes the study's data collection methodology. The results section uses statistical analyses like ANOVA and regression to compare ICT development indexes and usage across Turkey's 12 regions. The conclusions summarize key findings and implications.
This document analyzes the digital divide among regions in Turkey. It provides background on measuring the digital divide and reviews literature on this topic. The document then presents statistics on ICT development in Turkey from sources like the Turkish Statistical Institute and International Telecommunications Union. It describes the study's data collection methodology. The results section uses statistical analyses like ANOVA and regression to compare ICT development indexes and usage across Turkey's 12 regions. The conclusions summarize key findings and implications.
Table of Contents I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii II. ABSTRACT iv III. ZET v IV. 1 INTRODUCTION 1 V. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 VI. 3 ITU FACTS AND FIGURES 10 3.1 General Review of ITU ICT Report ....................................................... 10 3.2 The ICT Development Index (IDI) ......................................................... 11 3.2.1 Introduction to the IDI .................................................................................................11 3.2.2 Indicators of ICT Development Index ...................................................................13 VII. 4 PROBLEM STATEMENT 17 VIII. 5 DATA PREPARATION 18 5.1 Preparation of ICT Development Index (IDI) ........................................ 22 5.2 Data Handling of Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey ............................................................................ 25 5.3 Coverage of the Survey ........................................................................... 25 5.4 Data collecting method ........................................................................... 26 IX. 6 METHODOLOGY 37 X. 7 RESULTS 39 7.1 ICT Develeopment Indexes of Twelve Regions in Turkey .................... 39 7.2 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................... 46 7.2.1 Computer usage frequency .........................................................................................46 7.2.2 Number of places which computers used in ........................................................47 7.2.3 Number of activities performed in computer ......................................................48 7.2.4 Internet usage frequency .............................................................................................49 7.2.5 Number of places which internet used in..............................................................50 7.2.6 Number of activities performed on internet .........................................................51 7.2.7 E-commerce Activities ................................................................................................52
7.2.8 Public Services or Administrations Activities on Internet ..............................................................................................................................................53 7.2.9 Activities on Handheld Devices ...............................................................................54 7.2.10 Security Software ...........................................................................................................55 7.2.11 Technological Devices Available at Home ..........................................................56 7.3 One-Way Anova Analysis ...................................................................... 58 7.3.1 Computer usage frequency .........................................................................................58 7.3.2 Activities on Computer ................................................................................................61 7.3.3 Activities on Internet ....................................................................................................65 7.3.4 E-commerce Activities ................................................................................................69 7.3.5 Security Software Used by an Individual .............................................................73 7.3.6 Technological Devices at Home ..............................................................................77 7.4 Two-way ANOVA Analysis ................................................................... 81 7.4.1 The Number of Activities Performed on Computer as Dependent Variable ..........................................................................................81 7.4.2 Number of Activities Performed on the Internet as Dependent Variable ............................................................................................................. 100 7.5 Regression Analysis .............................................................................. 120 7.5.1 Computer Usage Frequency as Dependent Variable ......................................................................................................................................... 123 7.5.2 The Number of Activities Performed On Computer as Dependent Variable ....................................................................................... 127 7.5.3 The Internet Usage Frequency as Dependent Variable ......................................................................................................................................... 131 7.5.4 The Number of Activity Performed on Internet as Dependent Variable .................................................................................................................. 134 XI. 8 CONCLUSIONS 138 XII. REFERENCES 141
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank our advisor Assist. Prof. Sona Mardikyan for supporting us throughout our project. We also would like to thank our juries Assist. Prof. Bertan Badur and Assist. Prof. Hande Kmlolu.
V
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) carries on ceaselessly. Along with increasing availability of internet access, ICTs have become an indispensable part of not only business but also daily life of many people. Regardless of the fact that ICTs have developed every day, there are remarkable differences between individuals, groups, regions, and countries in terms of reaching and sharing the information. At that point, the concept of a digital divide becomes crucial. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defined the digital divide as: The gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies and to their use of the Internet for wide variety of activities. Digital divide can be analyzed in two different scales: global and domestic. The former scale is about the analysis of the divide among different continents and countries while the latter is about the gap between groups and regions of the same country. In this study, domestic digital divide of Turkey will be measured and ICT development indices of regions of Turkey will be prepared and compared. Even though, there are several different views about measuring the digital divide, the survey called information and communication technologies (ICTs) usage on households and individuals carried out by Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) will be used. In literature review, the opinions and methodologies of different writers and researchers will be presented. Data are obtained by TurkStat, Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA), and International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Obtained data is analyzed by using SPSS 20.0. Several tests are applied such as Descriptive Statistics, One-Way Anova, Two-Way Anova and the Regression Analysis to obtain results. After these analyses, the results are interpreted and some suggestions are expressed.
V
ZET
Gnmzde, bilgi ve iletiim teknolojilerinin geliimi durmakszn devam etmektedir. nternete eriim olanaklarnn artmasyla birlikte, bilgi ve iletiim teknolojileri sadece i hayatnn deil, birok kiinin hayatnda vazgeilmez bir para haline gelmektedir. Teknolojinin bu kadar artmasnn aksine, bireyler gruplar, blgeler ve hatta lkeler arasnda bilgiye eriim ve bilgiyi paylama anlamnda gze arpar derecede farklar bulunmaktadr. Bu noktada dijital uurum konsepti ok nemli hale gelmektedir. Ekonomik Kalknma ve birlii rgt (OECD) dijital uurum kavramn aadaki ekilde aklamaktadr: Dijital uurum, farkl sosyoekonomik dzeydeki bireylerin, hane halklarnn, firmalarn veya lkelerin bilgi ve iletiim teknolojilerine eriimde ve kullanmnda yaad eitsizliktir. Bu almada, Trkiyenin yurt ii dijital uumu llecek ve blgesel dzeyde bilgi ve iletiim teknolojileri geliim indeksleri hesaplanp, karlatrlacaktr. Dijital uurumun hesaplanmasnda eitli grler olmasna ramen, bu aratrmada Trkiye statistik Kurumu (Tik) tarafndan yaynlanan Hanehalk Biliim Teknolojileri Kullanm Aratrmas kullanlacaktr. Ayrca, literatr taramasnda bir ok farkl yazara ait grler ve metodolojiler sunulacaktr. Aratrmada kullanlan veriler Tik, Uluslararas Telekomnikasyon Birlii (ITU) ve Bilgi Teknolojileri ve letiim Kurumundan (BTK) elde edilmi olup, analizlerde SPSS 20.0 versiyonu kullanlmtr. Analizlerde One-Way Anova, Two-Way Anova ve Regression analiz metotlar uygulanm, sonular yorumlanarak baz neriler sunulmutur. 1
1 INTRODUCTION In recent years, development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has increased overtly. This ever-growing increase makes easier to access new technologies and products. As more people use new technologies, ICTs influence societies, the way of the communications, daily routines and life styles of people. Life has been getting easier with new innovations. Day after day, ICTs become indispensable part of life for people. As a result of these progresses, governments needed to take into account ICTs and they have formed their policies in this way. Most of the developed and developing countries have prepared their national e-government and e-health platforms. In addition, The World Bank has settled many specific objectives related to ICTs in the Millennium Development Targets (World Bank, 2006) Furthermore, the World Bank has presented ICTs as a way of the accelerating economic development and reducing the poverty. In spite of continuous development of ICTs, members of a society do not have the same access level to ICTs. There is remarkable difference between individuals in terms of reaching the information. This difference is not only between individuals in society but also between groups, regions, countries and continents. Many countries try to implement new policies to decrease the difference between citizens. However, it is necessary to know the difference in the use of ICTs between people in order to achieve this goal. At that point, the concept of digital divide comes into prominence. According to Doong and Ho (2012), ICT resources are not divided equally throughout the world, there are differences between continents. The distribution of is not uniform even between countries or regions of a country. Considering the fact that ICTs affects economic growth, it is possible to have regions in a country with different socio-economic conditions. The phrase digital divide is used by Rice and Katz (2003) to refer the gap between those who have access to IT and those do not, which is defined by the OECD (2001) as: The gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies and to their use of the Internet for wide variety of activities. 2
Digital divide can be analyzed in two different scales: global and domestic. The former scale is about the analysis of the divide among different continents and countries while the latter is about the gap between groups and regions of the same country. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an international authority aimed to measure global digital divide. ITU publishes ICT development index (IDI) based on internationally agreed ICT indicators. The IDI is a standard tool which governments, development agencies, researchers and others are able to use to measure digital divide and compare ICT performance within and across countries. The index is based on 11 ICT indicators, grouped in three clusters: access, use and skills. Domestic digital divide comes up mostly in developing countries. Turkey is one of these developing countries. Turkey as candidate country of European Union follows Nomenclature of Territorial Statistics (NUTS) standards. Turkey has twelve regions in NUTS-1 level, namely; Istanbul, Western Marmara, Aegean, Eastern Marmara, Western Anatolia, Mediterranean, Middle Anatolia, Western Black Sea, Eastern Black Sea, North Eastern Anatolia, Middle Eastern Anatolia, and South Eastern Anatolia. These twelve regions are determined based on population, geography, regional development plans, fundamental statistical indicators, and socio-economic status. Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) carries out a yearly based survey called information and communication technologies (ICTs) usage on households and individuals. This survey is applied to around 40.000 individuals in NUTS-1 level. The survey helps to obtain data on ICT technologies in households, computer and internet usage and frequencies by individuals, e-commerce, e-government and security. Results of the survey give an idea about ICTs usage of citizens of Turkey. In this study, outputs of information and communication technologies (ICTs) usage survey on households and individuals, 2012 will be used to measure ICTs usage differences between regions of Turkey. While measuring the difference, One-Way Anova, Two-Way Anova and Regression Analysis methods will be applied. In addition, IDI which is normally used for global digital divide will be applied in domestic level and each region of Turkey will have its own IDI. Thus, these indices will be helpful while measuring domestic digital divide in Turkey.
3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The rapid development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has fundamentally altered many aspects of life and societies all around the World. ICTs, especially internet, have influenced peoples life styles in many ways. ICTs have become inevitable part of peoples life. However, the level of ICTs usage differs among people. The ICTs usage difference causes the term called Digital Divide. In this study, firstly, the literature on digital divide has been reviewed in order to find what kind of data and methodologies are used to measure digital divide. The term Digital Divide was used for the first time in 1990s by Larry Irving, the former secretary general of National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration. His purpose was to take public attention on the gap in usage of information and communication technologies. Formerly, the term was used for having or not, using or not using, knowing or not knowing computer and internet access. However, now the definition is replaced by the OECD definition; The gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio economical level with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies and to their use of internet for wide variety of activities. Wilson (2004, p. 300) describes the digital divide as an inequality in access, distribution, and use of information and communication technologies between two or more populations. Wilson claims that there are eight aspects of the digital divide which are physical access, financial access, cognitive access, design access, content access, production access, institutional access, and political access. In addition, there are also philosophical and sociological points of the digital divide because of a potentially missed opportunity on the part of millions of people to obtain desirable jobs and enhance their lives by using ICTs (Friedman, 2001). Fuchs & Horak (2007) stated that The digital divide refers to unequal patterns of material access to, usage capabilities of, and benefits from computer-based information- and communication technologies that are caused by certain stratification processes that produce classes of winners and losers of the information society, and participation in institutions governing ICTs and society. 4
Fuchs & Horak (2007) identify the sort of access to ICTs as follows; material access is the availability of hardware, software, applications, networks, and the usability of ICT devices and applications; usage and skill access is the capabilities needed for operating ICT hardware and applications, for producing meaningful online content, and for engaging in online communication and co-operation; advantage access means ICT usage that benefits the individual and advances a good society for all; institutional access is the participation of citizens in institutions that govern the Internet and ICTs, and the empowerment of citizens by ICTs to participate in political information, communication, and decision processes. Bagchi (2005) stated that digital divide is something more than digital. He denoted that it is sociological phenomenon reflecting wider contextual factors such as social, economic, cultural and learning in equalities. Apart from Bagchi, Wahl et al., (2000) expresses that the situation Neither race alone, income alone, education alone, geographic location alone or government policy alone sheds sufficient light to fully understand the access gap. According to Acilar (2011), because there is a huge variety of ICT that their capabilities are almost limitless and these technologies are changing rapidly, there is no consensus on how to measure the information society and the digital divide. Internet usage is one of most used indicators of the digital divide between countries. Even though the term digital divide appeared after the Internets expansion in the mid-1990s; but, it does not refer exclusively to the Internet, other important ICTs such as personal computers, cellular phones, etc. are also highly relevant to the digital divide issues (Vehovar, Sicherl, Hsing, & Dolnicar, 2006). Due to the fact that digital divide is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, many researchers used several different methodologies in order to measure the digital divide. In 2009, three researchers namely; Cilan, Bolat, Coskun stated in their research that it is obligatory to determine the proper variables to measure the digital divide. The very first studies were applied by The United States Department of Commerce for this purpose. They tried to find differences in the usage of digital technologies in business and in public administration (NTIA, 19982000). One of the initial methodological studies on measuring the digital divide was conducted by Ricci, who developed an adoption scale 5
for digital technology by collecting elementary indicators (Ricci, 2000). Over time, many national and international institutions showed interest in this area and have based their studies on different variables in order to measure the digital divide and many indices were developed for this purpose. Several elements of the information society have been measured with these indices. For instance, Corrochner and Ordaninin (2002) identified 6 components of a synthetic index of digitalization: markets, diffusion, infrastructure, Human Resources, competitiveness, and competition. Other components determining international digital divide described in other studies include ICT sector; ICT market and external trade; ICT penetration; ICT usage in households; ICT usage in enterprises; ICT education, training, and skills; and ICT in government and health. Besides, there are many sub variables and metrics measuring each component. ICT penetration; ICT usage in households; and ICT education, training, and skills components have obtained significance in measuring the digital divide between individuals. At the international level, mostly used indicators to estimate the digital divide in the world are number of personal computers, ability to access to internet, television and mobile phone ownership (OECD, 2001, p:5). In addition, internet speed in households, the time spent in internet, qualities of personal computers and literacy rate might be used to measure digital divide (ITU, 2002, p: 25) Every institution has its own criteria to calculate digital divide. Globally, however, there are five most commonly used criteria, namely; age, gender, education, place of residence and income levels. Age is one of the most commonly used criteria in measuring the digital divide. It is discovered that the Internet usage rate among young people is substantially higher than that among elderly people in both developed and developing countries (Friedman, 2001). There are various studies in the digital divide literature which found age differences. For example, Loges and Jung (2001) examined the digital divide between old and young Americans and they reported important differences between old and young Americans in Internet access level. Vicente and Lpez (2008) analyzed Internet adoption in the new member states and candidate countries of the European Union and stated that younger individuals are the most likely to use the Internet in all the countries. Although, Internet and e-mail usage has greatly incremented between 1995 and 2002, Enoch and Soker (2006) discovered that there is a significant gap between the different age groups, 6
especially between the youngest and the oldest university students. Many observers claim that the digital divide is basically a generational phenomenon and it will vanish in time as younger computer literate cohorts replace older non-users (Broos & Roe, 2006). However, since ICT is always improving, further advancement in ICTs may cause new digital divides between young and elderly people. Second of most widely used criteria in measuring the digital divide is gender. Gender issues in the use of ICT have been a popular criterion in most of the researches. UNESCO confirms the gender divide as one of the most significant inequalities to be amplified by the digital revolution (Primo, 2003). Bimber (2000) found out that there is a crucial gap between genders in terms of accessing and using the Internet. According to Bimber (2000) gender gap in the Internet may exist because of differences between men and women in socioeconomic status, which influence Internet access and use. Chen and Wellman (2004) discovered that gender is one of the significant factors affecting access to and use of the Internet; males are more likely than females both to access and to use the Internet. Carveth and Kretchmer (2002) explored that gender is one of the important forecaster of the digital divide in Western Europe. According to Ono and Zavodny (2003) gender gap in being online vanished by 2000, however, they found out that there is a gender gap in frequency and intensity of Internet use. Broos and Roe (2006) also found out that gender is one of the major factors structuring the digital divide. The third component of common measurement of digital divide is education. Vicente & Lpez (2008) found that educational attainment is one of the main determinants of Internet use; education positively affects the likelihood of an individual using the Internet. According to the results of their study, university education has a stronger effect than high school education in terms of Internet usage. Goldfarb & Prince (2008) found that high- income, educated people were more likely to have adopted the Internet by December 2001 in the US. Fourth of most commonly used digital divide measurement criteria is place of residence. Geographic location is a significant factor for individuals to access ICTs. Even though ICTs provide clear benefits to geographically isolated rural residents, rural citizens are expected to lag behind urban residents, because of limited telecommunication infrastructure, and culture (Hindman, 2000). Chen and Wellman (2004) found that geographic location is one of the crucial factors affecting peoples access to and use of 7
the Internet, with more prosperous regions having higher Internet penetration rates than poorer regions (Chen & Wellman, 2004). Hindman (2000) found that a larger percentage of urban residents have adopted and used various information technologies than have rural residents. Even developed nations face the digital divide because of geographic disparity, but, not much as developing countries. Labrianidis & Kalogeressis (2006) explored the main characteristics of the digital divide in Europes rural enterprises and found that rural firms appear to be more or less digital in the most developed countries, while in the less developed countries adoption has been much slower. Carveth and Kretchmer (2002) revealed that southern Europe countries have less computer and Internet penetration than Northern Europe countries. Demoussis and Giannakopoulos (2006) obtained similar result; differences in Internet use between Southern and Northern European states exist; people in the south of Europe show lower probabilities of Internet use than those living in the north of Europe. The last of the most commonly used criteria in measuring the digital divide is the income level. According to the Gartner Group's Digital Divide and American Society report, only 35% of the lowest socioeconomic status Americans have Internet access compared to over 50% for all other socioeconomic brackets (Smolenski, 2000). Research applied by the Pew Internet and American Life Project discovered that 31% of households earning less than $30,000 have access to Internet(Lenhart, 2000). Two other researches help collaborate the idea that less income level turns into the likelihood of no online access. Peizer (2000) claims that Lower-income Americans are less than half as likely as those with higher incomes to have an Internet connection at home. Another study conducted by Rutger's University discovered that 39% of the working poor and unemployed had access to the Internet compared to 76% of other employees (Beazley, 1999). Digital divide is not only a global problem; it is also a domestic problem. Owing to the fact that each region of a country has its own special demographics, ICTs usage levels might differ from region to region. Domestic digital divide problem was firstly realized in the end of 1990s in Turkey. As the topic was hot at that time all around World, Turkish Government decided to take an action and assigned The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) to research the topic in Turkey. Information Technology Penetration and Usage Survey was conducted in 2000 by TUBITAK. Their aim was to understand 8
citizens ICT usage frequency and objective. They have found that there is a digital divide between people with different income levels. After the first research was done, academicians have contributed to the topic. They analyzed the data or conducted different surveys and suggested different ideas on digital divide in Turkey. It was found that region has an important role in digital divide. Turkey has seven regions and they all have different rates of ICT ownership. Marmara region heads the list as it has the highest rate of ownership and the followings are Karadeniz, anadolu, and Ege regions and the worst region is Gney Dou Anadolu. There is a huge gap between Marmara and Gney Dou Anadolu regions. (Kknar, Zontul, Tfeki, Geray, Akar, zcivelek, 2000). Use of ICT in a country is parallel to its level of development (Cilan, 2012), ICTs have the potential to support economic growth, to provide opportunities, and to increase democracy in developing countries. (Aclar, 2011, p: 1). Therefore, this huge gap between regions is a problem for the development of Turkey. If all the citizens have the equal right to access to ICT, digital divide might be lower and the development of Turkey could be faster. Due to the fact that technology makes easier to access to information, social networks help to create new relationships, ICT provides the users with some opportunities. There is a positive relationship between having the ability of using technological devices and having and keeping a job, ICT offers the people a chance to change their lives. (Norris & Conceio, 2004, p. 69; McSorley, 2003, p. 76; Hacker & Mason, 2003, pp. 100-105; Hirschkop, 2003, p. 248; Kozma, McGhee, & Zalles, 2004, p. 361; Gunkel, 2003, p. 511). It is getting harder to get a job without the ability of using computer. Technology gives rise to create new job areas, and rate of labor force in ICT increases every day. Hence, if people have limited access to ICT, they find them in a disadvantaged position, they miss these job opportunities and digital divide increases because their economic conditions get worse. Since information society is multi-dimensional and complex, many index measures were developed to compare levels of information society, such as, information society index, digital opportunity index, ICT opportunity index, ICT development index, e-readiness index, network readiness index, digital access index, mobile/internet index, technology achievement index (Atici, 2010; ilan et al., 2009, Aclar, 2011). The ICT Development Index (IDI) is one of the most popular indexes among them. It is an index published by 9
the United Nations International Telecommunication Union based on internationally agreed information and communication technologies indicators. This makes it a valuable tool for benchmarking the most important indicators for measuring the information society. The IDI is a standard tool that governments, operators, development agencies, researchers and others can use to measure the digital divide and compare ICT performance within and across countries. IDI is often used to measure digital divide between countries. However, it is not possible to find a research comparing the regions of Turkey based on IDI. In addition, most of the researches compare seven regions of Turkey. On the contrary to these researches, Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK) conducts its surveys based on twelve statistical regions. TUIK determined these twelve regions based on population, geographies, regional development plans, certain statistical indicators and socio-economic conditions in order to produce comparable data with European Union. Considering the opportunity in IDI and data of TUIK, IDI of twelve regions of Turkey might be generated.
10
3 ITU FACTS AND FIGURES 3.1 General Review of ITU ICT Report ITU (International Telecommunication Union) has been established in 1865 and it is the only international organization whose primary focus is communications. It is unique among UN agencies in having both public and private sector membership. In addition to its 193 Member States, ITU membership includes ICT regulators, leading academic institutions and some 700 private companies. ITU is also one of the most important organizations that work comprehensively and conduct researches on the topic of Global Digital Divide. ITU has been publishing a yearly comprehensive report which is titled as Measuring Information Society since 2007 and in this report, the target is to monitor information society developments worldwide using two authoritative benchmarking tools. One of these tools is the ICT Development Index (IDI) tool which ranks 155 countries performance in terms of information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure and uptake. The other tool is the ICT Price Basket (IPB) which is a unique metric that tracks and compares the cost and affordability of ICT services in more than 160 countries globally. According to the report Measuring the Information Society, there has been a persistent growth in ICT uptake globally since the past year, and all key indicators has increased except the number of fixed telephone subscriptions, which has been declining since 2005 (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 Global ICT Access Indicators, 2001-2011 (source, ITU) 11
Mobile cellular telephone subscriptions have increased dramatically during the last ten years; and moreover active mobile-broadband subscriptions continue to increase thanks to the increasing availability of smartphones and tablet computers. By 2007, the increase of wired broadband subscriptions has slackened, yet there has been a major increase in the use of active mobile broadband. (Figure 3.2) Figure 3.2 Global ICT Developments, 2001-2011 Mobile traffic volumes are gradually being shifted from voice to data. People gradually become to prefer alternative mobile-web services instead of traditional mobile-cellular services such as voice and SMS and this new trend leads to a great deal of increase in active mobile broadband subscription. In developing countries mobile-broadband services can fulfill the demand for Internet access therefore fixed broadband Internet subscription has still been increasing but at lower rates.
3.2 The ICT Development Index (IDI) 3.2.1 Introduction to the IDI
The ICT Development Index (IDI) is a composite index combining 11 indicators into one benchmark measure that serves to monitor and compare developments in information and communication technology (ICT) across countries. The IDI was developed by ITU in 2008 and first presented in the 2009 edition of Measuring the Information Society. (ITU, 2009)
12
The main objectives of the IDI are to measure: The level and evolution over time of ICT developments in countries and relative to other countries. Progress in ICT development in both developed and developing countries: the index should be global and reflect changes taking place in countries at different levels of ICT development. The digital divide, i.e. differences between countries with different levels of ICT development. The development potential of ICTs or the extent to which countries can make use of ICTs to enhance growth and development, based on available capabilities and skills. The conceptual framework of ICT Development Index can be shown as a three-stage model. According to this model countries can increase their ICT use by improving ICT infrastructure and uptake and countries move towards information or knowledge-based societies as they increase their ICT use. As countries transform into information societies ICT skills also get to be improved and ICT use become more intense in general. (Figure 3.1)
Figure 3.3 ICT Development Index and Its Sub-Indices The three stages are as follows: Stage 1: ICT readiness (reflecting the level of networked infrastructure and access to ICTs) 13
Stage 2: ICT intensity (reflecting the level of use of ICTs in the society) Stage 3: ICT impact (reflecting the result/outcome of efficient and effective ICT use).
3.2.2 Indicators of ICT Development Index
The IDI includes 11 indicators in total and each indicator has its own reference value and weight to be used in the calculation of sub-indices and ICT Development Index. (Figure 3.4)
Figure 3.4 ICT Development Index: Indicators and Weights. ITU selected these 11 criteria based on certain criteria such as relevance for the index objectives, data availability and the results of various statistical analyses. These 11 criteria are explained in Measuring the Information Society report as follows:
14
3.2.2.1 ICT infrastructure and access indicators
a) Fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants Fixed-telephone subscriptions refers to the sum of active analogue fixed-telephone lines, voice-over-IP (VoIP) subscriptions, fixed wireless local loop (WLL) subscriptions, ISDN voice-channel equivalents and fixed public payphones. b) Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants A Mobile-cellular telephone subscription refers to the number of subscriptions to a public mobile-telephone service which provides access to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) using cellular technology. It includes both the number of postpaid subscriptions and the number of active prepaid accounts (i.e. that have been active during the past three months). c) International Internet bandwidth (bit/s) per Internet user International Internet bandwidth refers to the total used capacity of international Internet bandwidth, in megabits per second (Mbit/s). It is measured as the sum of used capacity of all Internet exchanges offering international bandwidth. d) Percentage of households with a computer A computer refers to a desktop or a laptop computer. It does not include equipment with some embedded computing abilities, such as mobile-cellular phones, personal digital assistants or TV sets. e) Percentage of households with Internet access The Internet is a worldwide public computer network. It provides access to a number of communication services, including the World Wide Web, and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (not assumed to be only a computer it may also be mobile phone, games machine, digital TV, etc.). Access can be via a fixed or mobile network.
15
3.2.2.2 ICT use indicators
a) Percentage of individuals using the Internet The percentage of individuals using the Internet indicator is based on results from national household surveys. Today, most developed and larger developing countries collect data on the number of Internet users through official household surveys. Turkish Statistical Institute carries out this research in Turkey. b) Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions refers to the number of subscriptions for high- speed access to the public Internet (a TCP/IP connection). High-speed access is defined as downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 Kbit/s. Fixed (wired) broadband includes cable modem, DSL, fiber and other fixed (wired)-broadband technologies. c) Active mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants Active mobile-broadband subscriptions refers to the sum of standard mobile-broadband subscriptions and dedicated mobile-broadband subscriptions to the public Internet. Standard mobile-broadband subscriptions refers to active mobile-cellular subscriptions with advertised data speeds of 256 Kbit/s or greater Dedicated mobile-broadband data subscriptions refers to subscriptions to dedicated data services (over a mobile network) All dedicated mobile-broadband subscriptions with recurring subscription fees are included regardless of actual use.
3.2.2.3 ICT skills indicators
a) Adult literacy rate According to UIS, the Adult literacy rate is defined as the percentage of population aged 15 years and over who can both read and write with understanding a short simple statement on his/her everyday life. Literacy represents a potential for further intellectual growth and contribution to economic-socio-cultural development of society.
16
b) Gross enrolment ratio (secondary and tertiary level) According to UIS, The gross enrolment ratio is the total enrolment in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the eligible official school-age population corresponding to the same level of education in a given school-year.
17
4 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The rapid development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has radically affected many sides of life and societies all around the World. ICTs, especially the internet has changed peoples life styles in many aspects. The life has become very hard without using ICTs. However, ability of people to reach ICTs in a society is not always the same. People may not reach ICTs due to economic conditions, education level or their place of residence. Therefore, digital divide appears between people. According to OECD, the term digital divide is defined as: The gap between individuals, households, businesses, and geographic areas at different socio-economical levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies and to their use of internet for wide variety of activities Ability of people to reach ICTs is commonly different in developing countries and Turkey is one of these countries. It has twelve statistical regions with very different socio- economic statuses. This research aims to analyze the digital divide between statistical regions of Turkey. In this purpose, the necessary data was obtained from International Telecommunications Union (ITU), Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) and Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA). After all data preparation process and an elaborated review of the literature on digital divide, the variables to use in analyses were determined. Difference between statistical regions of Turkey are examined by analyzing the outputs of Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey for the year 2012 and ICT development indices of each region are prepared by using data acquired from TurkStat and ICTA.
18
5 DATA PREPARATION
The aim of this report is to analyze the digital divide among NUTS-1(Nomenclature of Territorials Units for Statistics) regions in Turkey and to assess whether there are significant differences between them and if exists what factor accounts for the differences. In order to perform the analysis, the relevant data was obtained from International Telecommunications Union (ITU), Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) and Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA). While analyzing the digital divide, all comparisons were made in NUTS-1 level as showed below.
Table 5-1Statistical Regions of Turkey (NUTS of Turkey) Code Level 1 Code Level 2 Code Level 3 (12 regions) (26 sub-regions) (81 cities) TR1 stanbul TR10 stanbul sub-region TR100 stanbul TR2 Western Marmara TR21 Tekirda sub-region
TR211 Tekirda TR212 Edirne TR213 Krklareli TR22 Balkesir sub-region
TRC21 anlurfa TRC22 Diyarbakr TRC3 Mardin sub-region
TRC31 Mardin TRC32 Batman TRC33 rnak TRC34 Siirt
22
5.1 Preparation of ICT Development Index (IDI)
ITU uses IDI in order to examine differences between countries, regions, continents, etc. The IDI includes 11 indicators in total and each indicator has its own reference value and weight to be used in the calculation of sub-indices and ICT Development Index. In order to prepare IDI of the statistical regions of Turkey, Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey in 2012 by TurkStat and Elektronik Haberleme Sektrne likin l Baznda Yllk statistik Blteni by ICTA were used. Table 5-2Data format of Elektronik Haberleme Sektrne likin l Baznda Yllk statistik Blteni Population Data shows population statistics of Turkish Statistical Agency. Number of Fixed Telephony Access Lines It includes number of active fixed analogue telephony access lines, voice channels equivalent of ISDN lines, fixed wireless subscriptions, number of payphones and number of VoIP subscriptions. Santral Capacity of Fixed Telephony It shows total capacity of fixed telephone lines that can be handled. Number of Payphones It shows number of active payphones. Number of Mobile Telephony Subscriptions Total It shows total number of mobile telephony subscriptions. Number of Mobile Telephony Subscriptions - 2G It shows total number of 2G mobile telephony subscriptions. Number of Mobile Telephony Subscriptions - 3G It shows total number of 3G mobile telephony subscriptions. Number of Broadband Subscriptions - Total It shows total number of broadband internet subscriptions. Number of Fixed Broadband Subscriptions Total It shows total number of fixed broadband internet subscriptions. Fiber It shows number of fiber broadband internet subscriptions. xDSL It shows number of xDSL broadband internet subscriptions. Cable It shows number of Cable TV broadband internet subscriptions. Other It shows number of broadband internet subscriptions via other means (Frame Relay, Metr Ethernet, ATM, BPL). 23
Number of Mobile Broadband Subscriptions It shows number of mobile broadband internet subscriptions via 3G or other appropriate mobile networks. Mobile Broadband Dedicated It shows number of mobile broadband internet subscriptions via dedicated data cards. Standard Mobile Broadband It shows number of mobile broadband internet subscriptions via mobile phones. Number of Cable TV Subscriptions It shows number of cable TV subscriptions. The length of fiber It shows length of fiber rolled out for transmission and access.
Although there was accurate information about fixed telephony, mobile cellular and fixed broadband Internet services subscription, and adult literacy rate of Turkey as a country in ITUs 2008-2013 reports, there was no NUTS-1-based information on them. NUTS-1- based information of IDI (ICT Development Index) sub-indexes was needed to perform this analysis. The data about the five indicators of ICT access sub-index was obtained from different sources. The fixed-telephone subscriptions and mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions were acquired from ICTAs official website. Although the information about the two indicators in the ICTA report did not cover all the factors and elements that they are required to have according to the definitions of those two indicators in the official ICT 2013 report, it was attempted to collect relevant data to them as much as possible to come up with those two indicators. There was city-based information of those sub-indexes on ICTA 2013 report called Elektronik Haberleme Sektrne likin l Baznda Yllk statistik Blteni and the information was processed to turn them into desired form. First, the cities were grouped according to NUTS-1 of Turkey which consists of 12 regions. Then all same types of data of the cities in each NUTS-1 region of Turkey was summed and averaged to represent their data types for their NUTS-1 region as a whole. Next, the average results for those two indicators of each NUTS-1 region were individually multiplied by 100 and then divided by the total population of their specific NUTS-1 region in order to reveal fixed-telephone subscriptions and mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. The process was done for 12 NUTS-1 regions of Turkey. Although International Internet bandwidth (bits/s) per Internet user of Turkey as a country was available, neither city-based information nor NUTS-1 based information of the same indicator was available since there were no official and reliable reports and 24
sources related to them. Hence, the country-wide information of this indicator was used to perform the analysis. The percentage of households with a computer was acquired directly from the CD sent by TurkStat in 2013, which includes specific information of ICT of Turkey measured in 2012. The last indicators of ICT access sub-index which is the percentage of households with Internet access was obtained directly from the database center on the official website of TurkStat. The data about the three indicators of ICT use sub-index was collected from TurkStat official website and ICTA official website. The information of percentage of individuals using the Internet indicator for each NUTS-1 region was obtained from TurkStat official website. The information about fixed-broadband subscriptions and wireless-broadband subscriptions inhabitants on city basis was acquired from ICTAs report which was published in 2013. After aggregating them according to each NUTS-1 region, aggregated results were multiplied by 100 and then divided by the total population of their regions in order to achieve the metrics of subscription per 100 inhabitants for those two indicators. The data about the three indicators of the last sub-index which is ICT skills was obtained from TurkStat official website. There were accurate information on adult literacy rate and gross secondary enrollment ratio on the official website but the remaining indicator which is tertiary gross enrolment ratio could not be accurately captured due to the definitions of this indicator on ITU-Measuring the Information Society 2013 report. It is stated in the report that the gross enrolment ratio is the total enrolment in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the eligible official school-age population corresponding to the same level of education in a given school-year. The data on this indicator was not available on the official website, so the relevant data was requested from TurkStat official office in Ankara. It was possible to compute that ratio for Turkey as a whole but due to the students studying in different cities than their own cities, that ratio could not be the real reflection of the enrollment ratios of each city. Hence, this indicator is eliminated. Table 5-3ICT Development Index Data Source ICT DEVELOPMENT INDEX % % Data Source ICT ACCESS 1. Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants 2 0 4 0 ICTA's yearly report 2. Mobile cellular telephone subscription 2 0 ICTA's yearly report 25
3. International internet bandwidth per internet user 2 0 Could not found 4. Percentage of households with computer 2 0 TurkStat's survey 5.Percentage of households with internet 2 0 TurkStat's survey ICT USE 6. Percentage of individuals using the internet 3 3 4 0 TurkStat's survey 7. Fixed (wired)-broadband internet subscriptions per inhabitants 3 3 ICTA's yearly report 8. Active mobile-broadband internet subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 3 3 ICTA's yearly report ICT SKILL 9. Adult Literacy rate 3 3 2 0 TurkStats regional statistics 10. Secondary gross enrollment ratio 3 3
TurkStats regional statistics 11. Territory gross enrollment ratio 3 3 Could not calculated 5.2 Data Handling of Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey
Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey for the year 2012 was obtained from Turkish Statistical Institute. The petition was written to TurkStat and the micro data was sent within a CD to Boazii University Management Information Systems Department by TurkStat. According to TurkStat, the objective of the Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey is to determine criteria of Information Society and producing related statistics. Due to understand social, cultural and economic developments occurred in Information Society in recent years and also to follow up policies applying these subjects, Households ICT Usage Survey has been performed on a regular basis-year periods since 2004. 5.3 Coverage of the Survey
All private households who are living in the territory of Republic of Turkey are covered. Residents of schools, dormitories, kinder-gardens, rest homes for elderly persons, special hospitals, military barracks and recreation quarters for officers are not covered. Also the residential places having less than 1% of populations are left out of coverage since it is 26
thought that not be able to reach enough sample household number. While performing this process, putting in order was performed considering population of settlements and they are excluded from the coverage till it reaches 1% of the population. Individuals aged 16-74 are covered. Geographical area covered: All settlements in Turkey have been covered in sample selection. Urban: Settlements with a population of 20.001 and over. Rural: Settlements with a population of 20.000 or less.
Reference and application period Reference period is January-March 2012 and some of the questions the last 12 months (April 2011 - March 2012) for the reference period were investigated. Field application is completed within three weeks after the end of the reference week of labor force.
5.4 Data collecting method The data are compiled from households selected according to the sampling method. The statistical unit used in Household ICT Usage Survey is households. For all individuals in the household demographic information (age, gender) are taken. Educational status, labor force status and the use of ICT questions will be asked to the individuals in the 16- 74 age groups. The survey is applied by the interviewers using face to face interview method and during this process data are directly transferred into laptops (computer-assisted personal interview method). The survey was answered by 19307 men and 20054 women, totally 39361 people. Table 5-4 Number of People Answered the Survey. Region Male Female Total 01 2509 2490 4999 02 1048 1075 2123 03 1918 1971 3889 27
Micro data was needed to be handled before all analyses. All unnecessary fields were deleted and the answers of the same questions were got together. For example; there were six answers of the question Where have you used a computer in the last 3 months? and all the answers had their own column with a specific number in the excel sheet. Those numbers were replaced with the number 1 and sum of the all answer columns for an individual were calculated in a new column. Thanks to this process, continues data was obtained. Data structure:
Figure 5.1 Data Structure of TurkStat Survey
Data before handled:
Figure 5.2 Appearance of the Survey Results in Excel Sheet. 28
After handling process:
Figure 5.3 an Example of the Handled Survey Results In order to make usage frequency data continuous, a different method was applied. There were four answers in this type of questions as followings: 1. Every day 2. At least once a week 3. At least once a month 4. Less than once a month The total was supposed to be 90 days and the ratios of the four answers were calculated as followings: 1. 90/90 2. 12/90 3. 3/90 4. 1/90
Table 5-5 Turkstat Households Survey Variables Column names before handling Question Answer options Variable name Scale Type BT_BILGISAYAR_MASAUSTU BT_BILGISAYAR_TASINABILIR BT_TELEFON_CEP BT_OYUNKONSOL BT_BILGISAYAR_EL "Which of the following do you have in your home?" 1-Desktop computer (PC) 2-Portable computer 3-Mobile phone or smartphone 4-Game console TechDevices Scale 29
5-Handheld computer 6-Telephone 7-Digital photograph machine / camera 8-DVD / VCD / DVX "9-Printer, scanner, fax or multi-function device 90-None of above 98-None of the above, but other INT_BAGLANMA_MASAUSTU INT_BAGLANMA_TASINABILIR INT_BAGLANMA_DIGER_TASINABILIR INT_BAGLANMA_TELEFON_CEP INT_BAGLANMA_AVUCICI INT_BAGLANMA_OYUNKONSOL INT_BAGLANMA_DIGER_CIHAZ Which of the following used devices in your home have Internet access?
1-Desktop computer (PC) 2-Portable computer (laptop, tablet) 3-Other portable devices 31-Mobile or smartphone access to Internet (3G, GPRS,UMTS) 32-Handheld computer (PALM, PDA) 4-Game console (Playstation,vb.) 98-None of the above, but other (:.......) InternetDevices Scale NUTS1 (NUTS- 1)" "Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics-Level 1 (NUTS-1)" Region Nominal
Table 5-6 TurkStat Individuals Survey Variables
Column names before handling Question Answer options Variable name Scale Type YAS Age 0...99 Age Ordinal CINSIYET Gender 1-Man Gender Nominal 30
2-Woman OKUL_BITEN Highest level of education successfully completed? 1-None 2-None but not illiterate 3-Primary school 4-Primary education 5-Secondary school or vocational school 6-High school 7-Vocational or technical high school 8-Higher education graduate 9-Master or doctorate Education Ordinal CALISMA_DURUM Did you work to earn income in cash or in kind in the reference week (26 March-1 April)? 1-Yes 2-No Employment Nominal BILG_KULLANIM_SIKLIK How often on average have you used a computer in the last 3 months? 1-Every day 2-At least once a week 3-At least once a month 4-Less than once a month ComputerFrequency
Scale BILG_KULLANILAN_YER_EV BILG_KULLANILAN_YER_ISYERI BILG_KULLANILAN_YER_EGITIM BILG_KULLANILAN_YER_INTCAFE BILG_KULLANILAN_YER_BASKAEV BILG_KULLANILAN_YER_DIGER "Where have you used a computer in the last 3 months? (multiple answers allowed) " 1-At home 2-At place of work (other than home) 3-At place of education 4-At Internet cafe 5-At another persons home ComputerPlaces Scale 31
(friends, relatives, etc.) "98-None of the above, but other BILG_ISLEM_KOPYA_DOSYA BILG_ISLEM_KOPYA_BILGI BILG_ISLEM_TABLO BILG_ISLEM_ZIP BILG_ISLEM_AYGIT_BAGLAMA BILG_ISLEM_YAZILIM BILG_ISLEM_DOSYA_AKTARMA BILG_ISLEM_SUNUM BILG_ISLEM_FORMAT BILG_ISLEM_HICBIRI Which of the following computer related activities have you already carried out? (multiple answers allowed)
1-Copying or moving a file or folder 2-Using copy and paste tools to duplicate or move information within a document 3-Using basic arithmetic formulas in a spreadsheet 4-Compressing files 5-Connecting and installing new devices (e.g. a modem, a printer) 6-Writing a computer program using a specialized programming language "7-Transferring files between computer and other devices (from digital camera or from/to mobile phone, mp3/mp4 player)" "8-Creating electronic presentations with presentation software (e.g. slides), including e.g. images, sound, video or charts" ComputerActivity Scale 32
9-Installing a new or replacing an old operating system 90-None of above INTERNET_KULLANIM_SIKLIK On average how often did you use the Internet in the last 3 months? 1-Every day 2-At least once a week 3-At least once a month 4-Less than once a month InternetFrequency Scale INT_KULLANILAN_YER_EV INT_KULLANILAN_YER_ISYERI INT_KULLANILAN_YER_EGITIM INT_KULLANILAN_YER_INT_CAFE INT_KULLANILAN_YER_BASKAEV INT_KULLANILAN_YER_KABLOSUZ INT_KULLANILAN_YER_DIGER "Where have you used the Internet in the last 3 months (using a computer or any other means)? (multiple answers allowed) " 1-At home 2-At place of work (other than home) 3-At place of education 4-At Internet cafe 5-At another persons home (friends, relatives, etc.) 6-Hotspot ( shopping center, airport, etc.) 99-None of the above, but other InternetPlaces INT_FAALIYET_EPOSTA INT_FAALIYET_TELEFON INT_FAALIYET_SOHBETODALARI INT_FAALIYET_GAZETE INT_FAALIYET_MALHIZ_BILGI INT_FAALIYET_RADYOTV INT_FAALIYET_OYUNFILM INT_FAALIYET_DIGERKISI_OYUN INT_FAALIYET_ICERIKYUKLEME For which of the following activities did you use the Internet in the last 3 months for private purposes?
1-Sending / receiving e-mails 2-Telephoning over the Internet / video calls (via webcam) over the Internet "3-Posting messages to chat sites, social network sites, blogs, newsgroups or InternetActivity Scale 33
INT_FAALIYET_WEBSITE INT_FAALIYET_SAGLIK_BASVR INT_FAALIYET_SEYAHAT_ISLEM INT_FAALIYET_MALHIZMET_SATIS INT_FAALIYET_BANKA_ISLEM on-line discussion forum, use of instant messaging " 4-Reading or downloading online news / newspapers / news magazines 5-Finding information about goods or services 6-Listening to web radios or watching web television 7-Playing or downloading games, images, films or music 71-Playing networked games with other persons "8-Uploading self- created content (text, images, photos, videos, music etc) to any website to be shared" 9-Creating websites or blogs 10-Making an appointment with a practitioner via a website (e.g. of a hospital or a health care centre) 11-Using services related to travel and accommodation 12-Selling goods or services, e.g. via auctions (e.g. eBay) 13-Internet banking 34
MOBIL_INT_FAALIYET_EPOSTA MOBIL_INT_FAALIYET_GAZETE MOBIL_INT_FAALIYET_EKITAP MOBIL_INT_FAALIYET_OYUNFILM MOBIL_INT_FAALIYET_PODCAST MOBIL_INT_FAALIYET_SOSYALMEDYA MOBIL_INT_FAALIYET_DIGER For which of the following activities did you use the Internet via a handheld device in the last 3 months for private purpose? (one single answer needed) 1-Sending / receiving e-mails 2-Reading or downloading online news, newspapers, news magazines 3-Reading or downloading online books or e-books 4-Playing or downloading games, images, video or music 5-Using podcast service to automatically receive audio or video files of interest "6-Participating in social networks (creating user profile, posting messages or other contributions to facebook, twitter, etc.)" 98-None of the above, but other HandheldActivity Scale EDEVLET_BILGI_EDINME EDEVLET_FORM_INDIRME EDEVLET_FORM_GONDERME EDEVLET_HICBIRI "For which of the following activities relating to interaction with public services or administrations did you use the Internet for private purpose? " 1-Obtaining information from public authorities websites 2-Downloading official forms 3-Sending filled in forms 90-Don't use PublicServices Scale ETICARET_TUR_GIDA ETICARET_TUR_EVESYASI What types of goods or services did you buy or 1-Foods or Groceries 2-Household goods EcommerceActivity Scale 35
ETICARET_TUR_ILAC ETICARET_TUR_FILMMUZIK ETICARET_TUR_KITAPDERGI ETICARET_TUR_EOGRENME ETICARET_TUR_GIYIM ETICARET_TUR_OYUNYAZILIM ETICARET_TUR_BILGISAYARYAZILIM ETICARET_TUR_BILGISAYARDONANIM ETICARET_TUR_ELEKTRONIK_ARAC ETICARET_TUR_TELEKOM_HIZMET ETICARET_TUR_FINANSAL_HIZMET ETICARET_TUR_KONAKLAMA ETICARET_TUR_SEYAHAT ETICARET_TUR_BILETALIM ETICARET_TUR_DIGER order over the Internet for private use in the last 12 months?
3-Medicine 4-Films, music 5-Books / Magazines / Newspapers 6-e-learning material 7-Clothes, sports goods 8-Video games software and upgrades 9-Other computer software and upgrades 10-Other computer software and upgrades 11-Electronic equipment 12- Telecommunication services 13-Share purchases, insurance policies and other financial services 14-Holiday accommodation 15-Other travel arrangements 16-Tickets 98-None of the above, but other GUVENLIK_YAZILIM_ANTIVIRUS GUVENLIK_YAZILIM_FIREWALL GUVENLIK_YAZILIM_EPOSTA_FILTRE GUVENLIK_YAZILIM_WEB_FILTRE Which of the following security softwares or devices do you use? (multiple 1-Antivirus or spyware software 2-Firewall as a hardware or a software SecurityNumber Scale 36
GUVENLIK_YAZILIM_BILINMEYEN GUVENLIK_YAZILIM_DIGER answers allowed) 3-E-mail filter to prevent unwanted e- mails 4-Parental control or web filtering software 99-Exists but contents unknown 98-None of the above, but other IBBS1 (NUTS-1) "Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics- Level 1 (NUTS-1)" Region Nominal
Table 5-7 Dummy Variables for Regression Analysis Variable Name Decription Values Scale Type g dummy for Gender None Nominal e1 dummy for Education None Nominal e2 dummy for Education None Nominal e3 dummy for Education None Nominal e4 dummy for Education None Nominal e5 dummy for Education None Nominal e6 dummy for Education None Nominal e7 dummy for Education None Nominal e8 dummy for Education None Nominal w1 dummy for Working Situation None Nominal w2 dummy for Working Situation None Nominal r1 dummy for Region None Nominal r2 dummy for Region None Nominal 37
r3 dummy for Region None Nominal r4 dummy for Region None Nominal r5 dummy for Region None Nominal r6 dummy for Region None Nominal r7 dummy for Region None Nominal r8 dummy for Region None Nominal r9 dummy for Region None Nominal r10 dummy for Region None Nominal r11 dummy for Region None Nominal
6 METHODOLOGY
Descriptive statistics are used to describe the basic attributes of the data in the study. In order to acquire simple summaries about the sample and the measures, Descriptive statics are conducted for computer usage frequency, number of places in which computers are used, number of activities performed on computer, internet usage frequency, number of places in which the Internet is used, number of activities performed on the Internet, number of e-commerce activities, number of public services or administrations activities on the Internet, number of activities performed on handheld devices, number of security software, number of technological devices available at home, and number of technological available devices connected to the Internet at home. 38
One Way Anova Analysis is used to determine whether there are any significant differences between the means of independent groups. The means between the groups are compared and tried to determine whether any of those means is significantly different from each other. Anova Analysis is conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between regions in terms of; computer usage frequency number of activities performed on computer number of activities performed on the Internet number of activities performed on computer number of e-commerce activities number of security software used by an individual number of technological devices at home Two-Way Anova Analysis is conducted to examine the influence of different categorical independent variables such as region, gender, age, education level, and working status on one dependent variable such as the number of activities performed on computer, and the number of activities performed on the Internet. While the One-Way Anova measures the significant effect of one independent variable, the Two-Way Anova is used when there is more than one independent variable and multiple observations for each independent variable. The purposes of regression analysis are to understand the relationship between variables and to predict the value of one based on the other. In any regression model, the variable to be predicted is called the dependent variable or response variable. The value of this is said to be dependent upon the value of an independent variable, which is sometimes called an explanatory variable or a predictor variable. Linear Regression analysis can include more than one independent variable which is called multiple regression analysis. In this report, multiple regression analysis has been employed since there are many independent variables which have an effect on each dependent variable. Linear Regression analysis is conducted to specify which independent variables such as gender, age, 39
education level, working status, region have a significant effect on; computer usage frequency, the Number of Activities Performed On Computer, the Internet Usage Frequency , the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet. When building the model, forward stepwise regression has been used, which is an automated process to systematically add or delete independent variables from a regression model by putting the most significant variable in the model first and then adding the next variable that will improve the model the most, given that the first variable is already in the model.
7 RESULTS
7.1 ICT Develeopment Indexes of Twelve Regions in Turkey
The overall scores of each region in Turkey for 2012 can be seen in the table below. Due to the socioeconomic differences among regions of Turkey, the IDI scores of regions vary widely. According to the overall results, Istanbul heads the list whereas Sout Eastern Anatolia has the lowest point. General Score of Turkey is highlighted in the table. According to the analysis applied for this report, Turkeys general IDI score for 2012 has been estimated to be 4,868 approximately whereas it was calcuted to be 4,6 approximately by ITU in 2012, meaning that they are very close to each other. It can be easily seen from the table below that Istanbul, West Anatolia, East Marmara, West Marmara, and Aegean are scored above the average while Eastern Black Sea, 40
Central Anatolia, Mediterranean, Western Black Sea, North Eastern Anatolia, Central Eastern Anatolia, and South Eastern Anatolia are scored below the average.
Table 7-1 General IDI Scores
IDI Overall Group REGION SCORE 1 TR1 stanbul 6,587 2 TR5 West Anatolia 5,850 2 TR4 East Marmara 5,659 2 TR2 West Marmara 5,467 2 TR3 Aegean 5,462
TURKEY General 4,868 3 TR9 East Black Sea 4,704 3 TR7 Central Anatolia 4,700 3 TR6 Mediterranean 4,651 3 TR8 West Black Sea 4,615 4 TRA North East Anatolia 3,852 4 TRB Central East Anatolia 3,542 4 TRC South East Anatolia 3,324
Additionally, four different groups were observed according to the scores. The groups are; 1. Istanbul 2. Western Anatolia, Eastern Marmara, Westert Marma, and Eagean 3. Eastern Black Sear, Central Anatolia, Mediterranean, and Western Black Sea 4. North Eastern Anatolia, Central Eastern Anatolia, and South Eastern Anatolia
The table below shows the ICT access scores of regions. According to it, Turkeys general ICT Access score is 1,883. Region TR1, TR5, TR4, TR3, and TR2 are above the average in descending order whereas TR7, TR9, TR8, TR6, TRA, TRB, and TRC are below the average, in descending order. Table 7-2 ICT Access Scores of Regions ICT Access REGION SCORE TR1 stanbul 2,608 41
TR5 West Anatolia 2,207 TR4 East Marmara 2,200 TR3 Aegean 2,155 TR2 West Marmara 2,086 TURKEY General 1,883 TR7 Central Anatolia 1,852 TR9 East Black Sea 1,819 TR8 West Black Sea 1,764 TR6 Mediterranean 1,724 TRA North East Anatolia 1,601 TRB Central East Anatolia 1,403 TRC South East Anatolia 1,180
The table below illustrates the ICT Use scores of the regions. According to it, Turkeys general ICT Use score is 1,551. Region TR1, TR5, TR4, TR2, and TR3 are above the average in descending order while TR6, TR9, TR7, TR8, TRA, TRC, and TRB are below the average in descending order.
Table 7-3 ICT Use Scores of Regions ICT Use REGION SCORE TR1 stanbul 2,520 TR5 West Anatolia 2,139 TR4 East Marmara 1,945 TR2 West Marmara 1,852 TR3 Aegean 1,806 TURKEY General 1,551 TR6 Mediterranean 1,476 TR9 East Black Sea 1,397 TR7 Central Anatolia 1,395 TR8 West Black Sea 1,377 TRA North East Anatolia 0,975 TRC South East Anatolia 0,877 TRB Central East Anatolia 0,849
The table below illustrates the ICT Skills scores of the regions. According to it, Turkeys general ICT Skills score is 1,434. Region TR2, TR4, TR5, TR3, TR9, TR8, TR1, TR7, 42
and TR6 are above the average in descending order respectively while TRB, TRA, and TRC are below the average in descending order respectively.
Table 7-4 ICT Skills Scores of Regions ICT Skills REGION SCORE TR2 West Marmara 1,528 TR4 East Marmara 1,513 TR5 West Anatolia 1,503 TR3 Aegean 1,501 TR9 East Black Sea 1,488 TR8 West Black Sea 1,474 TR1 stanbul 1,459 TR7 Central Anatolia 1,454 TR6 Mediterranean 1,451 TURKEY General 1,434 TRB Central East Anatolia 1,290 TRA North East Anatolia 1,276 TRC South East Anatolia 1,267
Turkeys general values for each indicators are illustrated in the table below. Table 7-5 General IDI Values of Turkey Turkey General 2012 Indicators ICt access Fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 69,443 Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 84,762 International Internet bandwidth per Internet user** 40,350
Percentage of households with a computer 45,713 Percentage of households with Internet access 46,149 ICt use 43
Percentage of individuals using the Internet 46,592 Fixed (wired)-broadband Internet subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 9,292 Wireless-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 14,567 ICT skills Adult literary rate 91,271 Secondary gross enrolment ratio 70,545 Tertiary gross enrolment ratio 55,400 44
Table 7-6 Scores of Territorial Units of Turkey (NUTS-1 Level) SCORES Indicators TR1 TR2 TR3 TR4 TR5 TR6 TR7 TR8 TR9 TR10 TR11 TR12 ICt Access Fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 89,18 79,30 93,69 78,70 76,01 51,46 78,12 66,82 77,90 67,51 47,30 27,32 Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 123,27 86,20 90,86 91,51 97,29 88,06 74,24 82,30 84,59 66,28 65,44 67,10 International Internet bandwidth per Internet user** 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 40,35 Percentage of households with a computer 67,90 48,07 51,38 60,33 63,11 41,48 42,01 41,58 41,24 29,45 31,24 30,77 Percentage of households with Internet access 63,33 58,77 46,66 56,79 52,44 44,37 46,82 39,93 34,85 44,70 37,66 27,47 ICt use Percentage of individuals using the Internet 62,10 53,30 50,40 55,90 59,80 45,30 48,00 40,60 40,80 35,30 31,80 35,80 Fixed (wired)-broadband Internet subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 16,60 12,10 11,80 12,20 13,90 8,80 7,50 8,30 8,40 4,50 3,80 3,60 Wireless-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 28,20 13,70 14,90 17,50 18,00 13,20 12,20 13,40 14,10 11,30 9,50 8,80 ICT skills Adult literary rate 91,92 95,19 95,65 93,46 93,90 92,92 92,50 92,25 90,16 85,53 86,48 85,31 Secondary gross enrolment ratio 73,72 80,88 76,42 80,45 78,46 71,48 72,35 75,62 79,93 52,37 53,56 51,30 Tertiary gross enrolment ratio 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 55,40 45
Figure 7.1 Nomenclature of Territorial Units of Turkey (NUTS-1 Level) based on IDI Scores ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 46 7.2 Descriptive Statistics The general descriptive statistics of Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey 2012 are given below. 7.2.1 Computer usage frequency Table 7-7 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Computer Usage Frequency N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4999 ,28429 ,438449 ,006201 ,27213 ,29645 ,000 1,000 2 2123 ,18017 ,372081 ,008075 ,16433 ,19600 ,000 1,000 3 3889 ,23179 ,409162 ,006561 ,21893 ,24465 ,000 1,000 4 3588 ,23275 ,408460 ,006819 ,21938 ,24612 ,000 1,000 5 3634 ,27420 ,434245 ,007203 ,26008 ,28833 ,000 1,000 6 4298 ,15499 ,348637 ,005318 ,14456 ,16542 ,000 1,000 7 2610 ,15446 ,348568 ,006823 ,14108 ,16784 ,000 1,000 8 2735 ,15736 ,351904 ,006729 ,14417 ,17056 ,000 1,000 9 1621 ,13012 ,325106 ,008075 ,11428 ,14596 ,000 1,000 10 2377 ,09281 ,280080 ,005745 ,08155 ,10408 ,000 1,000 11 2990 ,11116 ,301808 ,005519 ,10034 ,12199 ,000 1,000 12 4497 ,09438 ,280660 ,004185 ,08618 ,10259 ,000 1,000 Total 39361 ,18355 ,374913 ,001890 ,17985 ,18725 ,000 1,000
According to Statistics; Average computer usage frequency in Turkey is 0,18355 days. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,28429 days. The lowest average belongs to North Eastern Anatolia region with 0,280080 days.
Figure 7.2 Average Computer Usage Frequency Based on Regions 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 1 3 5 7 9 11 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 47 7.2.2 Number of places which computers used in
Table 7-8 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Places Which Computers Used in. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4999 ,60 ,846 ,012 ,57 ,62 0 5 2 2123 ,45 ,817 ,018 ,42 ,49 0 5 3 3889 ,51 ,823 ,013 ,48 ,54 0 5 4 3588 ,52 ,806 ,013 ,49 ,55 0 5 5 3634 ,58 ,851 ,014 ,55 ,61 0 5 6 4298 ,37 ,723 ,011 ,35 ,40 0 5 7 2610 ,37 ,716 ,014 ,34 ,40 0 5 8 2735 ,38 ,732 ,014 ,35 ,40 0 5 9 1621 ,25 ,523 ,013 ,23 ,28 0 3 10 2377 ,21 ,537 ,011 ,19 ,23 0 4 11 2990 ,29 ,689 ,013 ,27 ,32 0 4 12 4497 ,20 ,481 ,007 ,18 ,21 0 3 Total 39361 ,41 ,747 ,004 ,40 ,42 0 5
According to Statistics; Average number of places to use computer for an individual in Turkey is 0,41. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,60 places. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 0,20 places.
Figure 7.3 Average Numbers of Places Which Computers Used in Based on Regions 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 48 7.2.3 Number of activities performed in computer
According to Statistics; Average number of computer activities carried out for an individual in Turkey is 1,11. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 1,70 activities. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 0,51 activities.
Figure 7.4 Average Numbers of Activities Performed in Computer Based on Regions 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 49 7.2.4 Internet usage frequency
According to Statistics; Average internet usage frequency for an individual in Turkey is 0,18067 days. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,28291 days. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 0,275480 days.
Figure 7.5 Average Internet Usage Frequency Based on Regions 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 50 7.2.5 Number of places which internet used in
Table 7-11 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Places Which Internet Used in. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4999 ,61 ,918 ,013 ,59 ,64 0 6 2 2123 ,47 ,871 ,019 ,43 ,51 0 5 3 3889 ,52 ,863 ,014 ,49 ,55 0 6 4 3588 ,52 ,854 ,014 ,50 ,55 0 6 5 3634 ,59 ,915 ,015 ,56 ,62 0 5 6 4298 ,38 ,753 ,011 ,35 ,40 0 5 7 2610 ,36 ,728 ,014 ,33 ,38 0 6 8 2735 ,37 ,730 ,014 ,34 ,40 0 6 9 1621 ,24 ,510 ,013 ,21 ,26 0 2 10 2377 ,21 ,541 ,011 ,19 ,23 0 4 11 2990 ,28 ,693 ,013 ,26 ,31 0 5 12 4497 ,18 ,463 ,007 ,17 ,20 0 3 Total 39361 ,41 ,782 ,004 ,40 ,42 0 6
According to Statistics; Average number of places which computer used in for an individual in Turkey is 0,41 places. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,61 places. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 0,18 places.
Figure 7.6 Average Number of Places Which Internet Used in Based on Regions 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 51 7.2.6 Number of activities performed on internet
According to Statistics; Average number of internet activities carried out for an individual in Turkey is 1,37. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 2,08 activities. The lowest average belongs to North Eastern Anatolia region with 0,65 activities.
Figure 7.7 Average Number of Internet Activities in Based on Regions 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 52 7.2.7 E-commerce Activities
According to Statistics; Average number of e-commerce activities in Turkey is 0,11. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,19 activities. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 0,03 activities.
Figure 7.8 Average number of e-commerce activities in based on regions 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 53 7.2.8 Public Services or Administrations Activities on Internet
According to Statistics; Average number public services or administrations activities on internet in Turkey is 0,22. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,40 activities. The lowest average belongs to East Black sea region with 0,06 activities.
Figure 7.9 Average Number of E-commerce Activities in Based on Regions 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 54 7.2.9 Activities on Handheld Devices
According to Statistics; Average number of activities on handheld devices in Turkey is 0,14. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,29 activities. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 0,02 activities.
Figure 7.10 Average Activities on Handheld Devices in Based on Regions 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 55 7.2.10 Security Software
According to Statistics; Average number security software that a person using in his/her computer in Turkey is 0,25. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 0,47 software. The lowest average belongs to North Eastern Anatolia region with 0,09 software.
Figure 7.11 Average Number of Security Software in a Computer Based on Regions 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 56 7.2.11 Technological Devices Available at Home
According to Statistics; Average number of technological devices available at home in Turkey is 2,77. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 3,54 devices. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 1,63 devices.
Figure 7.12 Average Numbers of Technological Devices Available at Home Based on Regions 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 57 Technological Devices Connected to Internet at Home Table 7-18 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Technological Devices Connected to Internet Available at Home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 1456 1,19 1,300 ,034 1,12 1,25 0 6 2 701 1,04 1,271 ,048 ,94 1,13 0 5 3 1269 ,84 1,168 ,033 ,77 ,90 0 6 4 1041 1,06 1,129 ,035 ,99 1,13 0 6 5 1060 1,04 1,180 ,036 ,97 1,11 0 6 6 1215 ,77 1,126 ,032 ,71 ,84 0 6 7 707 ,83 1,164 ,044 ,75 ,92 0 5 8 772 ,76 1,109 ,040 ,68 ,84 0 5 9 468 ,50 ,839 ,039 ,43 ,58 0 4 10 472 ,84 1,126 ,052 ,74 ,94 0 4 11 573 ,77 1,136 ,047 ,68 ,87 0 5 12 871 ,29 ,623 ,021 ,25 ,33 0 4 Total 10605 ,86 1,157 ,011 ,84 ,89 0 6
According to Statistics; Average number of technological devices connected to internet available at home in Turkey is 0,86. The highest average belongs to stanbul region with 1,19 devices. The lowest average belongs to South Eastern Anatolia region with 0,29 devices.
Figure 7.13 Average Numbers of Technological Devices Available at Home Based on Regions 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 58 7.3 One-Way Anova Analysis
7.3.1 Computer usage frequency
H0= There is no significant difference between regions in terms of computer usage frequency H1= There is a significant difference between regions in terms of computer usage frequency As it is shown on ANOVA table below p-value (0,000) is less than the significance level (0.05) which shows that there is a significant difference between regions in terms of computer usage frequency Table 7-19 Anova Test for Regions-computer Usage Frequency ANOVA Computer usage frequency Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 181,565 11 16,506 121,380 ,000 Within Groups 5350,880 39349 ,136 Total 5532,445 39360
H0= There is no significant difference between regions in terms of number of activities on computer H1= There is a significant difference between regions in terms of number of activities on computer ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 62 As it is shown on ANOVA table below p-value (0,000) is less than the significance level (0.05) which shows that there is a significant difference between regions number of activities on computer Table 7-21 Anova Test for Regions - Activities on Computer ANOVA Activities on Computer Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 5991,817 11 544,711 120,678 ,000 Within Groups 177612,112 39349 4,514 Total 183603,930 39360
H0= There is no significant difference between regions in terms of number of activities on internet H1= There is a significant difference between regions in terms of number of activities on internet As it is shown on ANOVA table below p-value (0,000) is less than the significance level (0.05) which shows that there is a significant difference between regions number of activities on internet
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 66 Table 7-23 Anova Test for Regions - Activities on Internet ANOVA Number of activities on internet Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 8921,818 11 811,074 114,272 ,000 Within Groups 279290,600 39349 7,098 Total 288212,418 39360
H0= There is no significant difference between regions in terms of number of e-commerce activities H1= There is a significant difference between regions in terms of number of e-commerce activities As it is shown on ANOVA table below p-value (0,000) is less than the significance level (0.05) which shows that there is a significant difference between regions number of e- commerce activities Table 7-25 Anova Test for Regions- E-commerce Activities ANOVA E-commerce activities Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 111,657 11 10,151 31,305 ,000 Within Groups 12758,804 39349 ,324 Total 12870,461 39360
H0= There is no significant difference between regions in terms of number of security software used by an individual H1= There is a significant difference between regions in terms of number of security software used by an individual As it is shown on ANOVA table below p-value (0,000) is less than the significance level (0.05) which shows that there is a significant difference between regions and number of security software used by an individual Table 7-27 Anova Test for Regions- Security Software Used by an Individual ANOVA Number of security software Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 651,957 11 59,269 142,935 ,000 Within Groups 16316,327 39349 ,415 Total 16968,284 39360
Post Hoc Tests As it is shown on Multiple Comparison table below there are significant differences between regions.
H0= There is no significant difference between regions in terms of number of technological devices at home H1= There is a significant difference between regions in terms of number of technological devices at home As it is shown on ANOVA table below p-value (0,000) is less than the significance level (0.05) which shows that there is a significant difference between regions and number of technological devices at home Table 7-29 Anova Test for Regions- Technological Devices at Home ANOVA Technological devices at Home Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3287,200 11 298,836 101,530 ,000 Within Groups 31178,700 10593 2,943 Total 34465,899 10604
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 81 7.4 Two-way ANOVA Analysis
7.4.1 The Number of Activities Performed on Computer as Dependent Variable
a) Region * Gender The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known. Table 7-31 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Gender-Number of Activities Performed on Computer Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Number of activities performed on computer Gender Mean Std. Deviation N 1 1 2,01 2,756 2509 2 1,40 2,456 1048 3 1,52 2,385 1918 4 1,68 2,554 1778 5 2,03 2,892 1764 6 1,28 2,360 2077 7 1,37 2,354 1285 8 1,24 2,329 1319 9 1,11 2,066 797 10 ,71 1,658 1190 11 1,09 2,248 1477 12 ,76 1,593 2145 Total 1,40 2,403 19307 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 82 2 1 1,39 2,345 2490 2 ,86 1,849 1075 3 ,98 1,879 1971 4 1,03 2,016 1810 5 1,32 2,326 1870 6 ,72 1,720 2221 7 ,74 1,765 1325 8 ,80 1,821 1416 9 ,53 1,370 824 10 ,40 1,215 1187 11 ,53 1,572 1513 12 ,29 ,979 2352 Total ,83 1,854 20054 Total 1 1,70 2,578 4999 2 1,13 2,187 2123 3 1,24 2,160 3889 4 1,36 2,321 3588 5 1,66 2,640 3634 6 ,99 2,073 4298 7 1,05 2,099 2610 8 1,01 2,093 2735 9 ,81 1,771 1621 10 ,55 1,462 2377 11 ,81 1,956 2990 12 ,51 1,330 4497 Total 1,11 2,160 39361
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 83 According to the table above, men(gender 1) in region 5 has the highest number of activities performed on computer compared to men living in other regions whereas women in region 1 has the highest number of activities performed on computer compared to women living in other regions. The particular rows are the "Gender", "Region" and Gender * Region rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables (the "Gender" and "Region rows) and their interaction (the " Gender * Region " row) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, "the number of activities performed on computer". H0= Gender and region level do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. H1= Gender and region level have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. A two-way Anova analysis was conducted that examined the effect of region and gender level on the number of activities performed on computer. There was a statistically significant interaction between the effects of gender and region level on the number of activities performed on computer. Table 7-32 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Gender-Number of Activities Performed on Computer Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Number of activities performed on computer Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 9149,884 a 23 397,821 89,703 0,000 ,050 Intercept 40904,398 1 40904,398 9223,382 0,000 ,190 Gender 2694,920 1 2694,920 607,668 ,000 ,015 Region 5946,770 11 540,615 121,901 ,000 ,033 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 84 Gender * Region 89,260 11 8,115 1,830 ,044 ,001 Error 174454,045 39337 4,435 Total 232239,000 39361 Corrected Total 183603,930 39360 a. R Squared = ,050 (Adjusted R Squared = ,049)
b) Region * Age Groups The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known. Table 7-33 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Age Groups-Number of Activities Performed on Computer Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Number of activities performed on computer Ages Mean Std. Deviation N 1,00 1 0,00000 0,000000 796 2 0,00000 0,000000 270 3 0,00000 0,000000 533 4 0,00000 0,000000 543 5 0,00000 0,000000 597 6 0,00000 0,000000 784 7 0,00000 0,000000 487 8 0,00000 0,000000 399 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 85 9 0,00000 0,000000 229 10 0,00000 0,000000 518 11 0,00000 0,000000 671 12 0,00000 0,000000 1148 Total 0,00000 0,000000 6975 2,00 1 0,00000 0,000000 440 2 0,00000 0,000000 162 3 0,00000 0,000000 294 4 0,00000 0,000000 344 5 0,00000 0,000000 328 6 0,00000 0,000000 493 7 0,00000 0,000000 274 8 0,00000 0,000000 257 9 0,00000 0,000000 159 10 0,00000 0,000000 345 11 0,00000 0,000000 400 12 0,00000 0,000000 658 Total 0,00000 0,000000 4154 3,00 1 ,59895 ,468418 362 2 ,44150 ,473052 133 3 ,54487 ,467003 257 4 ,55061 ,470929 271 5 ,57848 ,470520 250 6 ,37616 ,452122 343 7 ,45142 ,468330 201 8 ,39904 ,459223 170 9 ,35679 ,452734 95 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 86 10 ,22879 ,400061 234 11 ,21210 ,374213 321 12 ,21547 ,381472 462 Total ,40402 ,463759 3099 4,00 1 ,57769 ,476203 409 2 ,51200 ,483223 112 3 ,53215 ,476542 245 4 ,56461 ,477746 230 5 ,54445 ,480025 277 6 ,37318 ,461067 250 7 ,38579 ,469678 175 8 ,37606 ,464190 170 9 ,45942 ,478227 99 10 ,26114 ,418384 167 11 ,31600 ,441609 244 12 ,23618 ,402319 396 Total ,42867 ,474675 2774 5,00 1 ,51182 ,481956 948 2 ,38259 ,469646 335 3 ,47050 ,486123 595 4 ,45802 ,478136 595 5 ,49091 ,479686 575 6 ,33568 ,455599 620 7 ,35176 ,459950 376 8 ,35574 ,460510 420 9 ,32643 ,454777 235 10 ,18984 ,376363 319 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 87 11 ,19865 ,383499 401 12 ,20742 ,391687 632 Total ,37778 ,468096 6051 6,00 1 ,29704 ,439941 1399 2 ,18877 ,376055 645 3 ,24650 ,414235 1238 4 ,23932 ,407508 1068 5 ,34331 ,461785 1045 6 ,17452 ,364708 1211 7 ,15285 ,344239 699 8 ,17744 ,368645 754 9 ,10513 ,293678 458 10 ,11939 ,318002 506 11 ,16590 ,363670 605 12 ,11841 ,314601 794 Total ,21222 ,394543 10422 7,00 1 ,10435 ,298515 645 2 ,03542 ,177215 466 3 ,06316 ,236074 727 4 ,05199 ,214992 537 5 ,10673 ,301395 562 6 ,04081 ,192897 597 7 ,01452 ,112421 398 8 ,02730 ,161062 565 9 ,01932 ,131397 346 10 ,00868 ,084152 288 11 ,02058 ,140712 348 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 88 12 ,01538 ,120931 407 Total ,04856 ,209051 5886 Total 1 ,28429 ,438449 4999 2 ,18017 ,372081 2123 3 ,23179 ,409162 3889 4 ,23275 ,408460 3588 5 ,27420 ,434245 3634 6 ,15499 ,348637 4298 7 ,15446 ,348568 2610 8 ,15736 ,351904 2735 9 ,13012 ,325106 1621 10 ,09281 ,280080 2377 11 ,11116 ,301808 2990 12 ,09438 ,280660 4497 Total ,18355 ,374913 39361
The figure below shows each age group.
Figure 7.14 Age Groups for Two-Way Anova Analysis ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 89 H0= Age and region level do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. H1= Age and region level have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. The particular rows are the "Age_Groups", "Region" and Age_Groups * Region rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables ("Age_Groups", "Region" rows) and their interaction (the " AgeGroups * Region " row) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, " AgeGroups * Region ". Table 7-34 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Age Groups-Computer Usage Frequency Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Computer Usage Frequency Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 1287,732 a 83 15,515 143,561 0,000 Intercept 1174,696 1 1174,696 10869,648 0,000 Age_Groups 855,645 6 142,607 1319,569 0,000 Region 147,738 11 13,431 124,277 ,000 Age_Groups * Region 109,959 66 1,666 15,416 ,000 Error 4244,713 39277 ,108 Total 6858,528 39361 Corrected Total 5532,445 39360 a. R Squared = ,233 (Adjusted R Squared = ,231)
c) Region * Education Level The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 90 "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known. Table 7-35 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Education Level-Number of Activities Performed on Computer Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Number of activities performed on computer Region Mean Std. Deviation N 1 0 0,00 0,000 1370 1 ,02 ,127 185 2 ,25 ,853 202 3 ,64 1,272 1216 4 3,48 2,374 316 5 1,66 2,070 326 6 3,68 2,649 491 7 3,46 2,731 296 8 5,30 2,641 542 9 5,91 2,757 55 Total 1,70 2,578 4999 2 0 0,00 0,000 539 1 ,02 ,134 111 2 ,08 ,269 65 3 ,31 ,943 710 4 2,86 2,766 120 5 1,17 1,704 106 6 2,73 2,524 142 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 91 7 3,27 2,696 153 8 4,43 2,785 169 9 7,75 ,707 8 Total 1,13 2,187 2123 3 0 0,00 0,000 925 1 ,02 ,282 201 2 ,15 ,669 150 3 ,36 ,963 1223 4 3,03 2,316 241 5 1,13 1,478 215 6 3,05 2,598 305 7 3,04 2,387 229 8 4,36 2,407 376 9 5,88 2,271 24 Total 1,24 2,160 3889 4 0 0,00 0,000 1003 1 ,01 ,081 154 2 ,50 1,287 105 3 ,43 1,008 984 4 3,68 2,769 212 5 1,46 1,957 258 6 3,09 2,542 275 7 2,94 2,571 271 8 4,80 2,649 312 9 6,07 2,814 14 Total 1,36 2,321 3588 5 0 0,00 0,000 1034 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 92 1 ,01 ,090 123 2 ,23 ,831 75 3 ,38 ,986 865 4 3,36 2,751 223 5 1,78 2,283 249 6 3,52 2,856 329 7 3,62 2,930 255 8 4,89 2,766 394 9 5,68 2,517 87 Total 1,66 2,640 3634 6 0 0,00 0,000 1394 1 ,05 ,557 279 2 ,21 ,889 180 3 ,32 ,891 1177 4 2,79 2,631 320 5 1,01 1,678 190 6 2,87 2,520 300 7 2,83 2,590 172 8 4,67 2,862 260 9 6,92 1,324 26 Total ,99 2,073 4298 7 0 0,00 0,000 862 1 ,02 ,125 190 2 ,08 ,345 89 3 ,34 ,923 681 4 2,58 2,409 192 5 1,27 1,722 124 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 93 6 3,24 2,617 173 7 3,12 2,591 136 8 5,22 2,430 156 9 7,14 1,345 7 Total 1,05 2,099 2610 8 0 0,00 0,000 773 1 0,00 0,000 228 2 ,11 ,488 113 3 ,27 ,749 836 4 2,73 2,609 175 5 1,53 1,911 131 6 2,98 2,680 144 7 3,07 2,638 149 8 5,06 2,636 175 9 6,18 2,786 11 Total 1,01 2,093 2735 9 0 0,00 0,000 504 1 0,00 0,000 136 2 ,03 ,244 67 3 ,25 ,792 421 4 2,22 1,927 88 5 1,15 1,920 105 6 2,56 2,405 135 7 2,26 1,986 72 8 4,08 2,686 92 9 9,00 1 Total ,81 1,771 1621 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 94 10 0 0,00 0,000 1025 1 ,00 ,063 250 2 ,11 ,520 167 3 ,26 ,727 416 4 1,96 2,128 160 5 ,76 1,390 88 6 2,28 2,206 134 7 2,78 2,267 59 8 4,29 2,432 75 9 3,00 0,000 3 Total ,55 1,462 2377 11 0 0,00 0,000 1200 1 0,00 0,000 354 2 ,13 ,488 193 3 ,28 ,859 435 4 2,09 2,493 251 5 1,29 1,903 127 6 3,14 2,862 221 7 3,34 3,037 83 8 4,78 2,911 120 9 6,00 2,608 6 Total ,81 1,956 2990 12 0 0,00 0,000 1927 1 ,01 ,178 595 2 ,19 ,793 316 3 ,36 ,960 664 4 1,40 1,699 406 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 95 5 1,06 1,539 84 6 2,03 1,872 299 7 3,04 2,218 26 8 3,74 2,218 170 9 3,00 1,700 10 Total ,51 1,330 4497 Total 0 0,00 0,000 12556 1 ,01 ,217 2806 2 ,18 ,735 1722 3 ,37 ,971 9628 4 2,65 2,504 2704 5 1,36 1,894 2003 6 3,03 2,601 2948 7 3,15 2,645 1901 8 4,75 2,664 2841 9 5,91 2,495 252 Total 1,11 2,160 39361
H0= Region and education level do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. H1= Region and education level have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. The particular rows are the "Region", "Education Level" and Region*Education Level" rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables ("Region", "Education Level rows) and their interaction (the " Region*Education Level " row) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, " AgeGroups * Region ". ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 96 Table 7-36 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Education Level-Number of Activities Performed on Computer Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Number of activities performed on computer Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 97730,317 a 119 821,263 375,286 0,000 ,532 Intercept 23541,676 1 23541,676 10757,657 0,000 ,215 Region 616,523 11 56,048 25,612 ,000 ,007 Education Level 67162,697 9 7462,522 3410,091 0,000 ,439 Region * Education Level 2400,599 99 24,248 11,081 ,000 ,027 Error 85873,612 39241 2,188 Total 232239,000 39361 Corrected Total 183603,930 39360 a. R Squared = ,532 (Adjusted R Squared = ,531)
d) Region * Working Situation The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known.
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 97 Table 7-37 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Working Situation-Number of Activities Performed on Computer Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Number of activities performed on computer Region Mean Std. Deviation N 1 0 0,00 0,000 1370 1 3,28 2,892 1632 2 1,57 2,401 1997 Total 1,70 2,578 4999 2 0 0,00 0,000 539 1 2,03 2,677 746 2 1,05 2,047 838 Total 1,13 2,187 2123 3 0 0,00 0,000 925 1 2,28 2,549 1280 2 1,14 2,041 1684 Total 1,24 2,160 3889 4 0 0,00 0,000 1003 1 2,62 2,760 1109 2 1,32 2,218 1476 Total 1,36 2,321 3588 5 0 0,00 0,000 1034 1 3,48 3,029 1063 2 1,53 2,446 1537 Total 1,66 2,640 3634 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 98 6 0 0,00 0,000 1394 1 2,00 2,676 1256 2 1,06 2,034 1648 Total ,99 2,073 4298 7 0 0,00 0,000 862 1 2,19 2,666 701 2 1,16 2,108 1047 Total 1,05 2,099 2610 8 0 0,00 0,000 773 1 1,67 2,519 964 2 1,15 2,156 998 Total 1,01 2,093 2735 9 0 0,00 0,000 504 1 1,43 2,289 509 2 ,97 1,758 608 Total ,81 1,771 1621 10 0 0,00 0,000 1025 1 1,18 2,041 696 2 ,75 1,548 656 Total ,55 1,462 2377 11 0 0,00 0,000 1200 1 1,81 2,644 634 2 1,10 2,181 1156 Total ,81 1,956 2990 12 0 0,00 0,000 1927 1 1,49 2,004 826 2 ,62 1,381 1744 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 99 Total ,51 1,330 4497 Total 0 0,00 0,000 12556 1 2,28 2,721 11416 2 1,16 2,104 15389 Total 1,11 2,160 39361
H0= Region and working situation do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. H1= Region and working situation have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on computer. The particular rows are the "Region", "Working Situation" and " Region * Working Situation " rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables ("Region", "Working Situation" rows) and their interaction (the " Region * Working Situation " row) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, Number of activities performed on computer ".
Table 7-38 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Working Situation-Number of Activities Performed on Computer Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Number of activities performed on computer Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 37938,821 a 35 1083,966 292,637 0,000 ,207 Intercept 39833,784 1 39833,784 10753,870 0,000 ,215 Region 3983,224 11 362,111 97,759 ,000 ,027 Working Situation 23953,394 2 11976,697 3233,332 0,000 ,141 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 100 Region * Working situation 3164,922 22 143,860 38,838 ,000 ,021 Error 145665,109 39325 3,704 Total 232239,000 39361 Corrected Total 183603,930 39360 a. R Squared = ,207 (Adjusted R Squared = ,206)
7.4.2 Number of Activities Performed on the Internet as Dependent Variable
a) Region * Gender The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known. Table 7-39 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Gender-the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: The number of activities performed on the Internet Region Mean Std. Deviation N 1 1 2,47 3,435 2509 2 1,68 2,937 2490 Total 2,08 3,221 4999 2 1 1,81 3,178 1048 2 1,06 2,363 1075 Total 1,43 2,819 2123 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 101 3 1 1,94 3,020 1918 2 1,29 2,559 1971 Total 1,61 2,815 3889 4 1 2,13 3,252 1778 2 1,38 2,677 1810 Total 1,76 2,999 3588 5 1 2,43 3,469 1764 2 1,53 2,775 1870 Total 1,97 3,163 3634 6 1 1,52 2,853 2077 2 ,85 2,138 2221 Total 1,17 2,531 4298 7 1 1,70 2,948 1285 2 ,86 2,182 1325 Total 1,27 2,621 2610 8 1 1,46 2,756 1319 2 ,98 2,304 1416 Total 1,21 2,544 2735 9 1 1,40 2,830 797 2 ,67 1,988 824 Total 1,03 2,465 1621 10 1 ,87 2,107 1190 2 ,43 1,439 1187 Total ,65 1,817 2377 11 1 1,31 2,627 1477 2 ,51 1,669 1513 Total ,91 2,231 2990 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 102 12 1 1,09 2,260 2145 2 ,34 1,286 2352 Total ,70 1,854 4497 Total 1 1,74 2,997 19307 2 1,01 2,337 20054 Total 1,37 2,706 39361
H0= Region and gender do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. H1= Region and gender have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. The particular rows are the "Gender", "Region" and " Gender * Region " rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables (the "Gender" and "Region rows) and their interaction (the " Gender * Region " row) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, "interest in politics".
Table 7-40 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Gender-the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: The number of activities performed on the Internet Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 14196,744 a 23 617,250 88,611 0,000 ,049 Intercept 61916,167 1 61916,167 8888,529 0,000 ,184 Region 8830,968 11 802,815 115,250 ,000 ,031 Gender 4508,933 1 4508,933 647,291 ,000 ,016 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 103 Region * Gender 144,333 11 13,121 1,884 ,036 ,001 Error 274015,675 39337 6,966 Total 361915,000 39361 Corrected Total 288212,418 39360 a. R Squared = ,049 (Adjusted R Squared = ,049)
b) Region * Age Groups The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known. Table 7-41 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Age Groups-the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: The number of activities performed on the Internet ages Mean Std. Deviation N 1,00 1 0,00 0,000 796 2 0,00 0,000 270 3 0,00 0,000 533 4 0,00 0,000 543 5 0,00 0,000 597 6 0,00 0,000 784 7 0,00 0,000 487 8 0,00 0,000 399 9 0,00 0,000 229 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 104 10 0,00 0,000 518 11 0,00 0,000 671 12 0,00 0,000 1148 Total 0,00 0,000 6975 2,00 1 0,00 0,000 440 2 0,00 0,000 162 3 0,00 0,000 294 4 0,00 0,000 344 5 0,00 0,000 328 6 0,00 0,000 493 7 0,00 0,000 274 8 0,00 0,000 257 9 0,00 0,000 159 10 0,00 0,000 345 11 0,00 0,000 400 12 0,00 0,000 658 Total 0,00 0,000 4154 3,00 1 4,39 3,324 362 2 3,73 3,544 133 3 4,27 3,138 257 4 4,34 3,196 271 5 4,34 3,374 250 6 3,24 3,108 343 7 4,12 3,277 201 8 3,42 3,078 170 9 3,08 3,341 95 10 1,53 2,292 234 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 105 11 2,31 3,007 321 12 1,74 2,433 462 Total 3,28 3,227 3099 4,00 1 4,53 3,814 409 2 4,71 4,050 112 3 4,51 3,575 245 4 4,78 3,878 230 5 4,32 3,963 277 6 3,15 3,393 250 7 3,49 3,607 175 8 3,52 3,689 170 9 3,76 3,659 99 10 2,07 2,829 167 11 2,89 3,427 244 12 2,07 2,837 396 Total 3,61 3,673 2774 5,00 1 3,88 3,659 948 2 3,37 3,628 335 3 3,18 3,431 595 4 3,63 3,630 595 5 3,96 3,754 575 6 2,51 3,475 620 7 2,86 3,446 376 8 2,80 3,346 420 9 2,63 3,599 235 10 1,50 2,739 319 11 1,61 2,860 401 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 106 12 1,49 2,607 632 Total 2,91 3,503 6051 6,00 1 2,06 3,048 1399 2 1,22 2,392 645 3 1,56 2,576 1238 4 1,61 2,664 1068 5 2,15 3,008 1045 6 1,22 2,474 1211 7 1,08 2,253 699 8 1,18 2,407 754 9 ,72 1,899 458 10 ,67 1,802 506 11 ,95 2,129 605 12 ,67 1,728 794 Total 1,39 2,556 10422 7,00 1 ,59 1,765 645 2 ,21 1,056 466 3 ,33 1,323 727 4 ,28 1,170 537 5 ,60 1,771 562 6 ,20 1,004 597 7 ,13 ,874 398 8 ,11 ,716 565 9 ,14 ,977 346 10 ,06 ,445 288 11 ,11 ,819 348 12 ,10 ,742 407 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 107 Total ,27 1,203 5886 Total 1 2,08 3,221 4999 2 1,43 2,819 2123 3 1,61 2,815 3889 4 1,76 2,999 3588 5 1,97 3,163 3634 6 1,17 2,531 4298 7 1,27 2,621 2610 8 1,21 2,544 2735 9 1,03 2,465 1621 10 ,65 1,817 2377 11 ,91 2,231 2990 12 ,70 1,854 4497 Total 1,37 2,706 39361
H0= Region and Age_Groups do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. H1= Region and Age_Groups have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. The particular rows are the "Region", " Age_Groups and Age_Groups * Region " rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables and there have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, the number of activities performed on the Internet.".
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 108 Table 7-42 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Age Groups-the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: The number of activities performed on the Internet Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 81245,570 a 83 978,862 185,763 0,000 Intercept 73043,390 1 73043,390 13861,762 0,000 Age_Groups 57662,087 6 9610,348 1823,798 0,000 Region 7759,485 11 705,408 133,868 ,000 Age_Groups * Region 6367,952 66 96,484 18,310 ,000 Error 206966,848 39277 5,269 Total 361915,000 39361 Corrected Total 288212,418 39360 a. R Squared = ,282 (Adjusted R Squared = ,280)
c) Region * Education Level The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known.
H0= Region and Education Level do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. H1= Region and Education Level have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. The particular rows are the Education Level ", "Region" and " Education Level * Region " rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables and their interaction have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, the number of activities performed on the Internet".
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 115 Table 7-44 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Education Level- the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: The number of activities performed on the Internet Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 139370,908 a 119 1171,184 308,774 0,000 ,484 Intercept 34275,095 1 34275,095 9036,384 0,000 ,187 Region 749,940 11 68,176 17,974 ,000 ,005 Education Level 95367,620 9 10596,402 2793,666 0,000 ,391 Region * Education Level 2930,996 99 29,606 7,805 ,000 ,019 Error 148841,510 39241 3,793 Total 361915,000 39361 Corrected Total 288212,418 39360 a. R Squared = ,484 (Adjusted R Squared = ,482)
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 116 d) Region * Working Situation The Descriptive Statistics table below provides the mean and standard deviation for each combination of the groups of the independent variables. In addition, the table provides "Total" rows, which allows means and standard deviations for groups only split by one independent variable, or none at all, to be known.
Table 7-45 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Working Situation- the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: The number of activities performed on the Internet Region Mean Std. Deviation N 1 0 0,00 0,000 1370 1 3,97 3,647 1632 2 1,95 3,031 1997 Total 2,08 3,221 4999 2 0 0,00 0,000 539 1 2,55 3,400 746 2 1,36 2,724 838 Total 1,43 2,819 2123 3 0 0,00 0,000 925 1 2,94 3,317 1280 2 1,49 2,674 1684 Total 1,61 2,815 3889 4 0 0,00 0,000 1003 1 3,42 3,614 1109 2 1,69 2,804 1476 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 117 Total 1,76 2,999 3588 5 0 0,00 0,000 1034 1 4,13 3,672 1063 2 1,79 2,908 1537 Total 1,97 3,163 3634 6 0 0,00 0,000 1394 1 2,41 3,309 1256 2 1,22 2,455 1648 Total 1,17 2,531 4298 7 0 0,00 0,000 862 1 2,70 3,343 701 2 1,37 2,637 1047 Total 1,27 2,621 2610 8 0 0,00 0,000 773 1 2,06 3,120 964 2 1,33 2,547 998 Total 1,21 2,544 2735 9 0 0,00 0,000 504 1 1,76 3,114 509 2 1,26 2,592 608 Total 1,03 2,465 1621 10 0 0,00 0,000 1025 1 1,41 2,580 696 2 ,85 1,899 656 Total ,65 1,817 2377 11 0 0,00 0,000 1200 1 2,09 3,015 634 ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 118 2 1,20 2,490 1156 Total ,91 2,231 2990 12 0 0,00 0,000 1927 1 2,11 2,832 826 2 ,80 1,893 1744 Total ,70 1,854 4497 Total 0 0,00 0,000 12556 1 2,82 3,427 11416 2 1,41 2,632 15389 Total 1,37 2,706 39361
H0= Region and Working situation do not have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. H1= Region and Working situation have a significant effect on the number of activities performed on the Internet. The particular rows are the Working Situation ", "Region" and Working Situation * Region " rows, and these are highlighted below. The independent variables and their interaction have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable, the number of activities performed on the Internet".
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 119 Table 7-46 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Region*Working Situation- the Number of Activities Performed on the Internet Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: The number of activities performed on the Internet Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 57479,974 a 35 1642,285 279,904 0,000 ,199 Intercept 60405,189 1 60405,189 10295,189 0,000 ,207 Region 5679,116 11 516,283 87,993 ,000 ,024 Working Situation 36742,643 2 18371,321 3131,125 0,000 ,137 Region * Working Situation 4452,383 22 202,381 34,493 ,000 ,019 Error 230732,444 39325 5,867 Total 361915,000 39361 Corrected Total 288212,418 39360 a. R Squared = ,199 (Adjusted R Squared = ,199)
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 120 7.5 Regression Analysis
The purposes of regression analysis are to understand the relationship between variables and to predict the value of one based on the other. In any regression model, the variable to be predicted is called the dependent variable or response variable. The value of this is said to be dependent upon the value of an independent variable, which is sometimes called an explanatory variable or a predictor variable. Linear Regression analysis can include more than one independent variable which is called multiple regression analysis. In this report, multiple regression analysis has been employed since there are many independent variables which have an effect on each dependent variable. Independent Variables: Age Gender Education Level Working Status Region These independent variables have been included in the regression analysis to specify and measure which independent variables have a significant effect on the dependent variables which are: Computer Usage Frequency The Number of Activities Performed On Computer The Internet Usage Frequency The Number of Activities Performed On The Internet Since the independent variables of Gender, Education Level, Working Status, and Region are not continuous, dummy variables are used to represent them in the model. The names of dummy variables for those independent variables are:
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 121 g: Gender Table 7-47 Dummy Table for Gender Gender g Male 1 Female 0
e: Education Level Table 7-48 Dummy Table for Education Level Education Level e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None but not illiterate 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Primary School 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Primary Education 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Secondary school or vocational school 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 High School 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Vocational or Technical High School 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Higher education graduate 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Master or doctorate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
w: Working Status Table 7-49 Dummy Variables for Working Status Working Situation w1 w2 Not Eligible 0 0 Employed 1 0 Unemployed 0 1
When building the model, forward stepwise regression has been used, which is an automated process to systematically add or delete independent variables from a regression model by putting the most significant variable in the model first and then adding the next variable that will improve the model the most, given that the first variable is already in the model.
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 123 7.5.1 Computer Usage Frequency as Dependent Variable
Table 7-51 Anova Table for Computer Usage Frequency ANOVA a
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 21 Regression 2427,277 21 115,585 1531,862 ,000 v
Residual 2949,258 39087 ,075 Total 5376,535 39108 a. Dependent Variable: Computer Usage Frequency
The observed significance level, or p-value, for the calculated F value is shown in ANOVA table above. This is then compared to the level of significance () to make the decision. A low significance level for F proves a relationship exists between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables. In this case, since is lower than 0,05, it can be concluded that there is a linear relationship between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables. Table 7-52 Model Summary for Computer Usage Frequency Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 21 ,672u ,451 ,451 ,274688
The Model Summary table above shows R 2 values for the 21st model. R 2 , also called coefficient of determination, is the proportion of variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the regression equation.
In the 21st Model, the R 2 value of all independent variables together is 0,451. This means that about 45% of the variability in computer usage frequency is explained by the regression equation based on the independent variables in the 21st model.
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 124 Coefficients table below shows that in predicting the computer usage frequency, the independent variables in the 21st Model can be used because all of them are statistically significant which means their p-value is below the threshold of 0,05. Column B indicates that to what extend and in which direction each independent variable affects the computer usage frequency.
Some independent variables in the 21st Model do not account for the computer usage frequency. Those independent variables are e1 and e2. Their p value is above the threshold of 0,05. Therefore, they are excluded from the model. It can be concluded from the tables above that the regression equation for computer usage frequency based on independent variables is:
= 0,076 + 0,671 8 + 0,418 6 + 0,409 7 + 0,267 4 + 0,168 1 + 0,169 5 0,002 + 0,091 2 0,088 11 + 0,026 0,088 10 0,088 9 0,068 5 0,083 8 0,065 6 0,063 7 0,061 1 + 0,019 3 0,027 2 0,026 3 0,016 4 According to the formula, the independent variables affecting the computer usage frequency positively in descending effect order are e8, e6, e7, e4, e5, w1, w2, g and e3. This means that education level of a person has the most prominent effect on computer usage frequency, following them working situation and gender, respectively. The independent variables of age, r4, r3, r2, r1, r7, r6, r5, r8, r11, r10 and r9 have negative effects on computer usage frequency in ascending order. An example application of the equation can be seen in the table below. A person is randomly selected who is 29-year-old female with an e6 education level (high school) and w2 working ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 126 situation (unemployed) living in Istanbul. The output of the equation is 0,546. The actual value is 0,033 which mean she uses computer at least once a month. Table 7-54 Example calculation of Computer Usage Frequency for Regression Equation Variables Coefficient Values (for a person) Coefficient*values Sum Constant 0,076 0,076 0,546 e8 0,671 0 0 e6 0,418 1 0,418 e7 0,409 0 0 e4 0,267 0 0 w1 0,168 0 0 e5 0,169 0 0 Age -0,002 29 -0,058 w2 0,091 1 0,091 r11 -0,088 0 0 g 0,026 0 0 r10 -0,088 0 0 r9 -0,088 0 0 r5 -0,068 0 0 r8 -0,083 0 0 r6 -0,065 0 0 r7 -0,063 0 0 r1 -0,061 0 0 e3 0,019 1 0,019 r2 -0,027 0 0 r3 -0,026 0 0 r4 -0,016 0 0
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 127 Table 7-55 Residual Statistics for Computer Usage Frequency Residuals Statisticsa Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value -,24241 ,88923 ,17877 ,249130 39109 Residual -,861527 1,048095 ,000000 ,274615 39109 Std. Predicted Value -1,691 2,852 ,000 1,000 39109 Std. Residual -3,136 3,816 ,000 1,000 39109 a. Dependent Variable: Computer Usage Frequency
7.5.2 The Number of Activities Performed On Computer as Dependent Variable
Table 7-56 Anova Table for the Number of Activities Performed On Computer ANOVA a
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 20 Regression 94492,808 20 4724,640 2260,102 ,000 u
Residual 81711,672 39088 2,090 Total 176204,480 39108 a. Dependent Variable: The Number of Activities Performed On Computer
The observed significance level, or p-value, for the calculated F value is shown in ANOVA table above. This is then compared to the level of significance () to make the decision. A low significance level for F proves a relationship exists between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables. In this case, since is lower than 0,05, it can be concluded that there is a linear relationship between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables.
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 128 Table 7-57 Model Summary for the Number of Activities Performed On Computer Model Summary u
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 20 ,732 t ,536 ,536 1,446
The Model Summary table above shows R 2 values for the 20th model. R 2 ,also called coefficient of determination, is the proportion of variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the regression equation.
In the 20th Model, the R 2 value of all independent variables together is 0,536. This means that about 54% of the variability in the number activities performed on computer is explained by the regression equation based on the independent variables in the 21st model. Table 7-58 Coefficient Table for the Number of Activities Performed On Computer Coefficients a
Coefficients table below shows that in predicting the number of activities performed on computer, the independent variables in the 20th Model can be used because all of them are statistically significant which means their p-value is below the threshold of 0,05. Column B indicates that to what extend and in which direction each independent variable affects the number of activities performed on computer. Some independent variables in the 20th Model do not account for the number of activities performed on computer. Those independent variables are e1, e2, and e3. Their p value is above the threshold of 0,05. Therefore, they are excluded from the model. It can be concluded from the tables above that the regression equation for the number of activities performed on computer based on independent variables is: ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 130
= 0,467 + 4,069 8 + 2,394 6 + 2,454 7 + 1,845 4 + 0,794 5 + 1,131 1 0,020 + 0,830 2 + 0,251 0,610 11 0,523 9 0,403 10 0,341 5 0,412 8 0,281 2 0,269 7 0,278 1 0,254 6 0,176 3 0,065 4 According to the formula, the independent variables affecting the computer usage frequency positively in descending effect order are e8, e7, e6, e4, w1, w2, e5, and g. This means that education level of a person has the most prominent effect on computer usage frequency, following them working situation and gender, respectively. The independent variables of age, r4, r3, r6, r7, r1, r2, r5, r10, r8, r9 and r11 have negative effects on computer usage frequency in ascending order.
Table 7-59 Residual Statistics for the Number of Activities Performed On Computer Residuals Statistics a
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value -2,13 5,48 1,08 1,554 39109 Residual -5,133 8,680 ,000 1,445 39109 Std. Predicted Value -2,064 2,829 ,000 1,000 39109 Std. Residual -3,550 6,004 ,000 1,000 39109 a. Dependent Variable: The Number of Activities Performed On Computer
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 131 7.5.3 The Internet Usage Frequency as Dependent Variable
Table 7-60 Anova Table for the Internet Usage Frequency ANOVA a
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 21 Regression 2355,998 21 112,190 1482,835 ,000 v
Residual 2957,297 39087 ,076 Total 5313,294 39108
The observed significance level, or p-value, for the calculated F value is shown in ANOVA table above. This is then compared to the level of significance () to make the decision. A low significance level for F proves a relationship exists between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables. In this case, since is lower than 0,05, it can be concluded that there is a linear relationship between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables.
Table 7-61 Model Summary for the Internet Usage Frequency Model Summary v
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 21 ,666 u ,443 ,443 ,275062
The Model Summary table above shows R 2 values for the 21st model. R 2 ,also called coefficient of determination, is the proportion of variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the regression equation.
In the 21st Model, the R 2 value of all independent variables together is 0,443. This means that about 44% of the variability in the Internet usage frequency is explained by the regression equation based on the independent variables in the 21st model. ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 132 Table 7-62 Coefficient Table for the Internet Usage Frequency Coefficients a
Coefficients table above shows that in predicting the Internet usage frequency, the independent variables in the 21st Model can be used because all of them are statistically significant which means their p-value is below the threshold of 0,05. Column B indicates that to what extend and in which direction each independent variable affects the Internet usage frequency.
Some independent variables in the 21st Model do not account for the number of activities performed on computer. Those independent variables are e1, and e2. Their p value is above the threshold of 0,05. Therefore, they are excluded from the model. It can be concluded from the tables above that the regression equation for the Internet usage frequency based on independent variables is:
= 0,077 + 0,657 8 + 0,408 6 + 0,402 7 +0,266 4 + 0,166 1 + 0,162 5 + 0,091 2 + 0,027 + 0,017 3 0,002 0,019 4 0,027 3 0,03 2 0,059 1 0,066 7 0,07 5 0,072 6 0,09 9 0,09 8 0,092 10 0,093 11 According to the formula, the independent variables affecting the computer usage frequency positively in descending effect order are e8, e6, e7, e4, w1, e5, w2, g, and e3. This means that education level of a person has the most prominent effect on computer usage frequency, following them working situation and gender, respectively. The independent variables of age, r4, r3, r2, r1, r7, r5, r6, r9, r8, r10 and r11 have negative effects on computer usage frequency in ascending order.
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 134 Table 7-63 Residual Statistics for the Internet Usage Frequency Residuals Statistics a
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value -,24391 ,87764 ,17589 ,245445 39109 Residual -,862028 1,026380 ,000000 ,274989 39109 Std. Predicted Value -1,710 2,859 ,000 1,000 39109 Std. Residual -3,134 3,731 ,000 1,000 39109 a. Dependent Variable: The Internet Usage Frequency
7.5.4 The Number of Activity Performed on Internet as Dependent Variable
Table 7-64 Anova Table for the Number of Activity Performed on Internet ANOVA a
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 21 Regression 135555,727 21 6455,035 1778,777 ,000 v
Residual 141843,518 39087 3,629 Total 277399,245 39108
The observed significance level, or p-value, for the calculated F value is shown in ANOVA table above. This is then compared to the level of significance () to make the decision. A low significance level for F proves a relationship exists between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables. In this case, since is lower than 0,05, it can be concluded that there is a linear relationship between Y and at least one of the independent (X) variables. ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 135 Table 7-65 Model Summary for the Number of Activity Performed on Internet Model Summary v
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 21 ,699 u ,489 ,488 1,905
The Model Summary table above shows R 2 values for the 21st model. R 2 , also called coefficient of determination, is the proportion of variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the regression equation.
In the 21st Model, the R 2 value of all independent variables together is 0,489. This means that about 49% of the variability in the Internet usage frequency is explained by the regression equation based on the independent variables in the 21st model. Table 7-66 Coefficient Table for the Number of Activity Performed on Internet
Coefficients table above shows that in predicting the number of activities performed on the Internet, the independent variables in the 21st Model can be used because all of them are statistically significant which means their p-value is below the threshold of 0,05. Column B indicates that to what extend and in which direction each independent variable affects the Internet usage frequency. Some independent variables in the 21st Model do not account for the number of activities performed on computer. Those independent variables are e1, and e3. Their p value is above the threshold of 0,05. Therefore, they are excluded from the model. It can be concluded from the tables above that the regression equation for the Internet usage frequency based on independent variables is: ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 137
= 0,541 + 4,667 8 +3,02 7 + 2,998 6 + 2,028 4 + 1,449 1 + 1,074 5 + 1,03 2 +0,338 0,024 0,115 2 0,131 3 0,146 4 0,264 2 0,303 1 0,331 6 0,368 7 0,455 5 0,489 8 0,576 10 0,67 11 0,676 9 According to the formula, the independent variables affecting the number of activities performed on the Internet positively in descending effect order are e8, e7, e6, e4, w1, e5, w2, and g. This means that education level of a person has the most prominent effect on computer usage frequency, following them working situation and gender, respectively. The independent variables of age, e2, r3, r4, r2, r1, r6, r7, r5, r8, r10, r11 and r9 have negative effects on computer usage frequency in ascending order. Table 7-67 Residual Statistics for the Number of Activity Performed on Internet Residuals Statistics a
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value -2,47 6,47 1,33 1,862 39109 Residual -6,210 13,310 ,000 1,904 39109 Std. Predicted Value -2,044 2,763 ,000 1,000 39109 Std. Residual -3,260 6,987 ,000 1,000 39109 a. Dependent Variable: The Number of Activity Performed On The Internet
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 138 8 CONCLUSIONS
This paper explored the aspects of the digital divide in Turkey. The IDI score of each region is estimated and compared to each other. While analyzing, instead of addressing the full set of issues related to the digital divide, ITUs ICT key indicators were used to measure the differences between the regions. According to the results, Istanbul has the highest overall IDI score whereas South Eastern Anatolia has the lowest overall IDI score. Istanbul also heads the list in terms of ICT Access and ICT Use scores, whereas it comes in seventh in terms of ICT Skills in which Western Marmara heads. For all sub indices, North Eastern Anatolia, Sout Eastern Anatolia, and Central Eastern Anatolia were oserved to have the lowest three points. Hence, in terms of ICT Development Index and all sub-indices of it namely ICT Access, ICT Use, and ICT Skills, the scores were observed to gradually decrease from western part of Turkey towards the eastern part of it. To verify and prove whether such a decrease in ICT scores towards the eastern part of Turkey is meaningful, One-Way ANOVA was applied to the data obtained from the CD which was sent by Turkstat. 0.05 is taken as the measurement significance level to evaluate the statistically significance level. As a result, there is a significant difference among regions in terms of computer usage frequency, number of activities performed on computer, number of activities performed on the Internet, number of e-commerce activities, number of security sofware used by an individual, and number of technological devices at home. For all those dependent variables, statistically significant differences were observed among the regions, and the difference is increasing towards the eastern parts of Turkey. To further elaborate the analysis, Two-Way ANOVA was conducted to examine the influence of different categorical independent variables such as region, gender, age, education level, and working status on one dependent variable such as the number of activities performed on computer, and the number of activities performed on the Internet. According to the results, significant differences were observed among genders in different regions, age groups in different regions, education level in different regions, and working stuations in different regions in terms of number of activities performed on computer. The same differences were also observed for the number of activities performed on the Internet. ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 139 Regression Analysis was also applied to predict a continuous dependent variable from a number of independent variables. The dependent variables used in regression can be either continuous or dichotomous. The variables first must ve converted into variables that have only two levels so that independent variables with more than two levels can be used in regression analysis. Thus, in order to use regression analysis, dummy coding is used. When building the model, forward stepwise regression was selected. The results of the regression analysis indicates that there are significant relationships between independent variables (namely age, gender, education level, working status, and region) and the dependent variables which are; Computer Usage Frequency The Number of Activities Performed On Computer The Internet Usage Frequency The Number of Activities Performed On The Internet This means that those independent variables can be used to predict each dependent variables score. Given the region, age, gender, education level, and working status, computer usage frequency can be predicted at a rate of 45%, number of activities performed on computer at a rate of 54%, the Internet usage frequency at a rate of 44%, and the number of activities performed on the Internet at a rate of 49%. As conclusion, there are significant differences between the regions in terms of all the dependent variables above even though rapid developments in computer science and information technologies. Furthermore, significant differences were observed for the interaction of age group and region, gender and region, education level and region, and working status and region. The rate of computer and Internet use of male citizens is higher than that of females. Also, as the education level increases, the rate of computer and Internet use also increases among citizens. There is significant gap between western part of Turkey and eastern parts of it in terms of computer and the Internet usage. The situation in Turkey is strictly related with socio-economical development. So the Turkish Government must start to advance socio-economical situation of the regions, especially estern regions, by enhancing level of literacy and building IT tools according to the capabilities of users. Thus, education, especially in eastern parts of the country, inversting in ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 140 and taking necessary actions for providing ICTs and information technology services with affordable costs are essential for decreasing the digital divide among the regions.
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 141 REFERENCES
Aclar, A. (2011) Exploring the Aspects of Digital Divide in a Developing Country. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology Vol. 8, Bilecik University, Turkey. Atici, B. (2010). Information society statistics and indicators: The case of Turkey. African Journal of Business Management, 4 (7), 1363-1371. Bagchi, K. (2005). Factors contributing to Global Digital Divide: Some empirical results. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8 (3), 47 65. Beazley, M. (1999). Record of the DTI/social exclusion policy action team 15 visit to the Sparkbrook, Sparkhill and Tyseley area regeneration initiative (sstari) Birmingham. Birmingham, United Kingdom: University of Birmingham, School of Public Policy. Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press), 81(3), 868-876. Broos, A., & Roe, K. (2006). The digital divide in the playstation generation: Self- efficacy, locus of control and ICT adoption among adolescents. Poetics, 34, 306- 317. Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (2014). Electronic Communications Statistics at Provincial Level. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://eng.btk.gov.tr/kutuphane_ve_veribankasi/yil_istatistikleri/ehsyibApril2014.pd f Carveth, R., & Kretchmer, S. B. (2002). Policy options to combat the digital divide in Western Europe.Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 5(3), 115-123. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol5/v5n3p115-123.pdf Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide - Within and between countries. IT&Society, 1(7), 39-45. ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 142 Corrochner N., and Ordaninin A. (2002). Measuring the digital divide: A framework for the analysis of cross-country differences, in Journal of Information Technology, No. 17/2002, pp. 9-19. ilan, . A. Analyzing Domestic Digital Divide in Turkey. The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 20, Num 2, 2012. ilan, . A., Bolat, B. A., & Cokun, E. (2009). Analyzing digital divide within and between member and candidate countries of European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 98105. Danhof, Clarence H. (1969) Change in Agriculture: The Northern United States, 1820-1870. Cambridge: Harvard UP. Demoussis, M., & Giannakopoulos, N. (2006). Facets of the digital divide in Europe: Determination and extent of internet use. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(3), 235-246. Enoch, Y., & Soker, Z. (2006). Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: University students' use of web-based instruction. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 21(2), 99-110. Friedman, W. H. (2001). The digital divide. Prooceeding of Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2081-2086. Fuchs, Christian and EvaHorak (2007), Informational capitalism and the digital divide in Africa,Masaryk University of Law and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.11- 32. Goldfarb, A., & Prince J. (2008). Internet adoption and usage patterns are different: Implications for the digital divide. Information Economics and Policy, 20, 2-15. Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: Toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media Society, 5(4), 499-522. Hacker L. K., & Mason, S. M. (2003). Ethical gaps in studies of the digital divide. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(2), 99-115. Hindman, D. B. (2000). The rural-urban digital divide. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 549-560. Hirschkop, K. (2003). Democracy and new technologies. In R. W. McChesney et al. (Eds.), Capitalism and the Information Age-The Political Economy of Global ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 143 Communication Revolution (N. S. nga, Tran., pp. 241-253). Ankara: Epos Yaynclk. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 5(3), 115-123. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol5/v5n3p115-123.pdf ITU(2002). World Telecommunication Development Report. Reinventing Telecoms, Executive summary. Kozma, R., McGhee, R., & Zalles, D. (2004). Closing the digital divide: Evaluation of the world links program. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(4), 361-38. Kknar, A., Zontul, H., Tfeki, T., Geray, H., Akar, M. ve zcivelek, R. (2000). Saysal uurum: Dnya ve Trkiyede durum. VI. Trkiye'de nternet Konferans, 9-11 Kasm 2000, stanbul. Labrianidis, L., & Kalogeressis, T. (2006). The digital divide in Europe's rural enterprises. European Planning Studies, 14(1), 23-39. Lebo, H. (2000, November). The UCLA Internet report: Surveying the digital future. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA Center Center for Communication Policy. Lenhart, A. (2000) Main Report, Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved May 20, 2014 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2000/09/21/main-report-27/ Loges, W. E., & Jung J. Y. (2001). Exploring the digital divide internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28 (4), 536-562. McSorley, K. (2003). The secular salvation story of the digital divide. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(2), 75-87. Norris, D. T., & Conceio, S. (2004). Narrowing the digital divide in low-income, urban communities. In New Directions for Child And Adolescent Development, No. 101, Spring, 69-81. NTIA (US Department of Commerce department). (1998). Falling through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide. Retrieved April 30, 2014 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/. ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 144 NTIA (US Department of Commerce department). (1999). Falling through the Net III: Defining the Digital Divide. Retrieved March 14, 2014 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/part1.html. NTIA (US Department of Commerce department). (2000). Falling through the Net IV: Towards Digital Inclusion. Retrieved May 28, 2014 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html. Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender and the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 111-121. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2001). Understanding The Digital Divide. Ozturk, L. (2005). Trkiyede Dijital Eitsizlik: Tbitak-Bilten Anketleri zerine Bir Deerlendirme. Erciyes niversitesi ktisadi ve dari Bilimler Fakltesi Dergisi, Say: 24, Ocak - Haziran 2005, ss. 111-131. Peizer, J., (2000). Bridging the digital divide: first you need the bridge. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from http://www.mediachannel.org/views/oped/peizer.shtml. Primo, N. (2003). Gender issues in the information society. Geneva: UNESCO Publications for the World Summit on the Information Society. Retrieved April 20, 2014, from http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/250561f24133814c18284feedc30b b5egender_issues.pdf Ricci, A. (2000) Measuring Information Society: Dyamics of European Data on Usage of Information and Communication Technologies in Europe since 1995, Telematics and Informatics 17(1/2): 14167. Seferolu, S. S., Avc, . ve Kalayc, E. (2008). Saysal uurum: Trkiye'deki durum ve mcadelede uygulanabilecek politikalar. 25. Ulusal Biliim Kurultay, Biliim'08 Bildiriler Kitab (BTIE-2008), 17-21, Ankara: Trkiye Biliim Dernei. Smolenski, M. (2000). The Digital Divide and American Society, Stanford, CT: Gartner Group. Thierer, A. (2000, July). Is the 'digital divide' a virtual reality? Consumers' Research Magazine, 83 (7), 16-21. ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 145 Tubitak-Bilten (2000). Survey on use of IT (in Turkish). Retrieved January 10, 2014 from: http://www.bilten.metu.edu.tr/web-2002-v1/tr/docs/kamusal-22ocak.pdf Turkish Statistical Institute (2012). Information and Communication Technologies Usage in Households and Individuals Survey Uuz, H (2011, June) Digital Divide in Turkey and Bridging the Digital Divide, US-China Public Administration, 1-2. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/execsumfttn00.htm. Wahl, E., George, Y., Jolly, E., Jeffers, L., Ba, H., McDermott, M., Moeller, B.,Riconscente, M., Shankar, S., and Thompson, J. (2000). Perspective on Access: The View from the Other Side of the Information Highway / Technology in Service to Community. Draft Report. New York: EDCs Center for Children and Technology. Wilson, Ernest J. (2004) The information revolution and developing countries, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vehovar, V., Sicherl, P., Hsing, T., & Dolnicat, V. (2006, November-December). Methodological challenger of digital divide measurements. The Information Society, 22(5), 279-2+0. doi: 10.1080/01972240600904076 Vicente, M. R., & Lpez A. J. (2008). Some empirical evidence on Internet diffusion in the New Member States and Candidate Countries of the European Union. Applied Economics Letters, 15, 1015-1018.