You are on page 1of 151

BOAZ UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION


SYSTEMS

ANALYZING
DIGITAL DIVIDE
AMONG REGIONS OF
TURKEY

June, 2014

Serkan TOSO
evki Mert ATLI


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


TR221
Balkesir
TR222
anakkale
TR3 Aegean
TR31 zmir sub-region TR310
zmir
TR32 Aydn sub-region


TR321
Aydn
TR322
Denizli
TR323
Mula
TR33 Manisa sub-region


TR331
Manisa
TR332
Afyonkarahisar
19

TR333
Ktahya
TR334
Uak
TR4 Eastern Marmara
TR41 Bursa sub-region


TR411
Bursa
TR412
Eskiehir
TR413
Bilecik
TR42 Kocaeli sub-region


TR421
Kocaeli
TR422
Sakarya
TR423
Dzce
TR424
Bolu
TR425
Yalova
TR5 Western Anatolia
TR51 Ankara sub-region TR511
Ankara
TR52 Konya sub-region


TR521
Konya
TR522
Karaman
TR6


Mediterranean
TR61 Antalya sub-region


TR611
Antalya
TR612
Isparta
TR613
Burdur
TR62 Adana sub-region


TR621
Adana
TR622
Mersin
TR63 Hatay sub-region


TR631
Hatay
TR632
Kahramanmara
TR613
Osmaniye
TR7 Middle Anatolia TR71 Krkkale sub-region


TR711
Krkkale
TR712
Aksaray
20

TR713
Nide
TR714
Nevehir
TR715
Krehir
TR72 Kayseri sub-region


TR721
Kayseri
TR722
Sivas
TR723
Yozgat
TR8 Western Black Sea
TR81 Zonguldak sub-region


TR811
Zonguldak
TR812
Karabk
TR813
Bartn
TR82 Kastamonu sub-region


TR821
Kastamonu
TR822
ankr
TR823
Sinop
TR83 Samsun sub-region


TR831
Samsun
TR832
Tokat
TR833
orum
TR834
Amasya
TR9 Eastern Black Sea TR90 Trabzon sub-region


TR901
Trabzon
TR902
Ordu
TR903
Giresun
TR904
Rize
TR905
Artvin
TR906
Gmhane


TRA


North Eastern Anatolia


TRA1


Erzurum sub-region


TRA11
Erzurum
TRA12
Erzincan
TRA13
Bayburt
21

TRA2 Ar sub-region


TRA21
Ar
TRA22
Kars
TRA23
Idr
TRA24
Ardahan
TRB Middle Eastern Anatolia
TRB1 Malatya sub-region


TRB11
Malatya
TRB12
Elaz
TRB13
Bingl
TRB14
Tunceli
TRB2 Van sub-region


TRB21
Van
TRB22
Mu
TRB23
Bitlis
TRB24
Hakkari
TRC South Eastern Anatolia
TRC1 Gaziantep sub-region


TRC11
Gaziantep
TRC12
Adyaman
TRC13
Kilis
TRC2 anlurfa 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

04 1778 1810 3588
05 1764 1870 3634
06 2077 2221 4298
07 1285 1325 2610
08 1319 1416 2735
09 797 824 1621
10 1190 1187 2377
11 1477 1513 2990
12 2145 2352 4497
Grand Total 19307 20054 39361

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

BT_TELEFON_SABIT
BT_FOTOGRAF_KAMERA
BT_DVD_VCD_OYNATICI
BT_COK_FONKSIYONLU_CIHAZ
BT_HICBIRI
BT_DIGER



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

Table 7-9 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Activities Performed in Computer.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 4999 1,70 2,578 ,036 1,63 1,77 0 9
2 2123 1,13 2,187 ,047 1,03 1,22 0 9
3 3889 1,24 2,160 ,035 1,18 1,31 0 9
4 3588 1,36 2,321 ,039 1,28 1,43 0 9
5 3634 1,66 2,640 ,044 1,58 1,75 0 9
6 4298 ,99 2,073 ,032 ,93 1,05 0 9
7 2610 1,05 2,099 ,041 ,97 1,13 0 9
8 2735 1,01 2,093 ,040 ,93 1,09 0 9
9 1621 ,81 1,771 ,044 ,73 ,90 0 9
10 2377 ,55 1,462 ,030 ,49 ,61 0 9
11 2990 ,81 1,956 ,036 ,74 ,88 0 9
12 4497 ,51 1,330 ,020 ,48 ,55 0 9
Total 39361 1,11 2,160 ,011 1,09 1,13 0 9

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

Table 7-10 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Internet Usage Frequency.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 4999 ,28291 ,438348 ,006200 ,27075 ,29506 ,000 1,000
2 2123 ,18153 ,373324 ,008102 ,16564 ,19742 ,000 1,000
3 3889 ,22820 ,406777 ,006523 ,21541 ,24099 ,000 1,000
4 3588 ,23119 ,408510 ,006820 ,21782 ,24456 ,000 1,000
5 3634 ,27013 ,432589 ,007176 ,25607 ,28420 ,000 1,000
6 4298 ,15347 ,347577 ,005302 ,14307 ,16386 ,000 1,000
7 2610 ,14766 ,341588 ,006686 ,13455 ,16077 ,000 1,000
8 2735 ,15391 ,348266 ,006659 ,14085 ,16696 ,000 1,000
9 1621 ,12298 ,316475 ,007860 ,10757 ,13840 ,000 1,000
10 2377 ,09223 ,278838 ,005719 ,08102 ,10345 ,000 1,000
11 2990 ,10742 ,297519 ,005441 ,09675 ,11809 ,000 1,000
12 4497 ,09061 ,275480 ,004108 ,08255 ,09866 ,000 1,000
Total 39361 ,18067 ,372777 ,001879 ,17699 ,18436 ,000 1,000

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

Table 7-12 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Activities Performed on Internet.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 4999 2,08 3,221 ,046 1,99 2,17 0 14
2 2123 1,43 2,819 ,061 1,31 1,55 0 14
3 3889 1,61 2,815 ,045 1,52 1,70 0 14
4 3588 1,76 2,999 ,050 1,66 1,85 0 14
5 3634 1,97 3,163 ,052 1,86 2,07 0 14
6 4298 1,17 2,531 ,039 1,10 1,25 0 14
7 2610 1,27 2,621 ,051 1,17 1,37 0 14
8 2735 1,21 2,544 ,049 1,11 1,31 0 14
9 1621 1,03 2,465 ,061 ,91 1,15 0 14
10 2377 ,65 1,817 ,037 ,57 ,72 0 12
11 2990 ,91 2,231 ,041 ,83 ,99 0 14
12 4497 ,70 1,854 ,028 ,64 ,75 0 12
Total 39361 1,37 2,706 ,014 1,34 1,40 0 14

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

Table 7-13 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of E-commerce Activities.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 4999 ,19 ,867 ,012 ,17 ,22 0 15
2 2123 ,14 ,699 ,015 ,11 ,17 0 16
3 3889 ,15 ,661 ,011 ,13 ,17 0 12
4 3588 ,11 ,500 ,008 ,10 ,13 0 8
5 3634 ,16 ,681 ,011 ,14 ,18 0 13
6 4298 ,08 ,475 ,007 ,07 ,09 0 12
7 2610 ,09 ,567 ,011 ,07 ,12 0 12
8 2735 ,11 ,546 ,010 ,09 ,13 0 8
9 1621 ,05 ,355 ,009 ,03 ,07 0 6
10 2377 ,05 ,360 ,007 ,04 ,06 0 7
11 2990 ,04 ,319 ,006 ,03 ,06 0 7
12 4497 ,03 ,235 ,003 ,02 ,04 0 6
Total 39361 ,11 ,572 ,003 ,10 ,11 0 16

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

Table 7-14 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Public Services or
Administrations Activities on Internet.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 4999 ,40 ,824 ,012 ,38 ,42 0 3
2 2123 ,22 ,644 ,014 ,20 ,25 0 3
3 3889 ,22 ,655 ,011 ,20 ,24 0 3
4 3588 ,25 ,675 ,011 ,23 ,28 0 3
5 3634 ,37 ,827 ,014 ,34 ,40 0 3
6 4298 ,18 ,580 ,009 ,17 ,20 0 3
7 2610 ,24 ,721 ,014 ,21 ,27 0 3
8 2735 ,18 ,558 ,011 ,16 ,20 0 3
9 1621 ,06 ,306 ,008 ,05 ,08 0 3
10 2377 ,10 ,467 ,010 ,08 ,12 0 3
11 2990 ,17 ,599 ,011 ,14 ,19 0 3
12 4497 ,07 ,379 ,006 ,06 ,08 0 3
Total 39361 ,22 ,648 ,003 ,21 ,23 0 3

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

Table 7-15 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Activities Hand-held
Devices.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 4999 ,29 ,916 ,013 ,26 ,31 0 6
2 2123 ,13 ,591 ,013 ,11 ,16 0 6
3 3889 ,17 ,693 ,011 ,15 ,19 0 6
4 3588 ,17 ,664 ,011 ,15 ,19 0 6
5 3634 ,26 ,878 ,015 ,23 ,28 0 6
6 4298 ,13 ,611 ,009 ,11 ,15 0 6
7 2610 ,11 ,551 ,011 ,09 ,13 0 6
8 2735 ,13 ,573 ,011 ,10 ,15 0 6
9 1621 ,04 ,422 ,010 ,02 ,06 0 6
10 2377 ,05 ,372 ,008 ,03 ,06 0 6
11 2990 ,10 ,559 ,010 ,08 ,12 0 6
12 4497 ,02 ,263 ,004 ,01 ,03 0 6
Total 39361 ,14 ,650 ,003 ,14 ,15 0 6

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

Table 7-16 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Security Software.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 4999 ,47 ,873 ,012 ,44 ,49 0 4
2 2123 ,25 ,632 ,014 ,22 ,28 0 4
3 3889 ,34 ,778 ,012 ,32 ,37 0 4
4 3588 ,26 ,596 ,010 ,24 ,27 0 4
5 3634 ,43 ,838 ,014 ,40 ,46 0 4
6 4298 ,21 ,606 ,009 ,19 ,23 0 4
7 2610 ,22 ,620 ,012 ,20 ,25 0 4
8 2735 ,21 ,565 ,011 ,19 ,23 0 4
9 1621 ,10 ,334 ,008 ,09 ,12 0 3
10 2377 ,09 ,361 ,007 ,07 ,10 0 4
11 2990 ,13 ,521 ,010 ,11 ,15 0 4
12 4497 ,10 ,404 ,006 ,08 ,11 0 4
Total 39361 ,25 ,657 ,003 ,25 ,26 0 4

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

Table 7-17 General Descriptive Statistics of Regions and Number of Technological
Devices Available at Home.
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 1456 3,54 1,873 ,049 3,44 3,63 0 9
2 701 2,83 1,839 ,069 2,69 2,96 0 8
3 1269 2,85 1,854 ,052 2,74 2,95 0 9
4 1041 3,15 1,770 ,055 3,04 3,26 0 9
5 1060 3,46 1,889 ,058 3,35 3,58 0 9
6 1215 2,47 1,741 ,050 2,37 2,56 0 9
7 707 2,55 1,645 ,062 2,42 2,67 0 8
8 772 2,63 1,646 ,059 2,51 2,75 0 8
9 468 2,54 1,484 ,069 2,41 2,68 0 7
10 472 2,24 1,534 ,071 2,10 2,38 0 7
11 573 2,03 1,452 ,061 1,91 2,15 0 7
12 871 1,63 1,220 ,041 1,55 1,71 0 8
Total 10605 2,77 1,803 ,018 2,73 2,80 0 9

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

Post Hoc Tests
As it is shown on Multiple Comparison table below there are significant differences
between regions.
Table 7-20 Post Hoc Analysis for Region-Computer Usage Frequency
Multiple Comparison
(I) Region (J) Region Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1
2 ,104122
*
0,009553 0 0,0729 0,13534
3 ,052498
*
0,007885 0 0,02673 0,07827
4 ,051538
*
0,008069 0 0,02517 0,07791
5 0,010086 0,008039 0,984 -0,01619 0,03636
6 ,129299
*
0,007671 0 0,10423 0,15437
7 ,129831
*
0,008905 0 0,10073 0,15894
8 ,126927
*
0,008771 0 0,09826 0,15559
9 ,154171
*
0,01054 0 0,11972 0,18862
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 59
10 ,191476
*
0,009188 0 0,16145 0,2215
11 ,173125
*
0,008525 0 0,14526 0,20099
12 ,189904
*
0,007579 0 0,16513 0,21467
2
1 -,104122
*
0,009553 0 -0,13534 -0,0729
3 -,051624
*
0,009951 0 -0,08415 -0,0191
4 -,052585
*
0,010097 0 -0,08558 -0,01959
5 -,094036
*
0,010073 0 -0,12696 -0,06111
6 0,025177 0,009782 0,295 -0,00679 0,05715
7 0,025708 0,010778 0,416 -0,00951 0,06093
8 0,022805 0,010666 0,595 -0,01206 0,05766
9 ,050048
*
0,012163 0,002 0,0103 0,0898
10 ,087354
*
0,011012 0 0,05136 0,12334
11 ,069002
*
0,010466 0 0,0348 0,10321
12 ,085782
*
0,00971 0 0,05405 0,11752
3
1 -,052498
*
0,007885 0 -0,07827 -0,02673
2 ,051624
*
0,009951 0 0,0191 0,08415
4 -0,00096 0,008536 1 -0,02886 0,02694
5 -,042412
*
0,008508 0 -0,07022 -0,01461
6 ,076801
*
0,008161 0 0,05013 0,10347
7 ,077333
*
0,009331 0 0,04684 0,10783
8 ,074429
*
0,009203 0 0,04435 0,1045
9 ,101673
*
0,010902 0 0,06604 0,1373
10 ,138978
*
0,009601 0 0,1076 0,17036
11 ,120627
*
0,008969 0 0,09131 0,14994
12 ,137406
*
0,008075 0 0,11102 0,1638
4
1 -,051538
*
0,008069 0 -0,07791 -0,02517
2 ,052585
*
0,010097 0 0,01959 0,08558
3 0,00096 0,008536 1 -0,02694 0,02886
5 -,041451
*
0,008679 0 -0,06982 -0,01309
6 ,077762
*
0,008339 0 0,05051 0,10502
7 ,078293
*
0,009487 0 0,04729 0,1093
8 ,075390
*
0,009361 0 0,0448 0,10598
9 ,102633
*
0,011036 0 0,06657 0,1387
10 ,139939
*
0,009752 0 0,10807 0,17181
11 ,121587
*
0,009131 0 0,09174 0,15143
12 ,138366
*
0,008255 0 0,11139 0,16534
5
1 -0,01009 0,008039 0,984 -0,03636 0,01619
2 ,094036
*
0,010073 0 0,06111 0,12696
3 ,042412
*
0,008508 0 0,01461 0,07022
4 ,041451
*
0,008679 0 0,01309 0,06982
6 ,119213
*
0,00831 0 0,09205 0,14637
7 ,119745
*
0,009462 0 0,08882 0,15067
8 ,116841
*
0,009335 0 0,08633 0,14735
9 ,144085
*
0,011014 0 0,10809 0,18008
10 ,181390
*
0,009728 0 0,1496 0,21318
11 ,163039
*
0,009105 0 0,13328 0,1928
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 60
12 ,179818
*
0,008226 0 0,15294 0,2067
6
1 -,129299
*
0,007671 0 -0,15437 -0,10423
2 -0,02518 0,009782 0,295 -0,05715 0,00679
3 -,076801
*
0,008161 0 -0,10347 -0,05013
4 -,077762
*
0,008339 0 -0,10502 -0,05051
5 -,119213
*
0,00831 0 -0,14637 -0,09205
7 0,000532 0,009151 1 -0,02938 0,03044
8 -0,00237 0,00902 1 -0,03185 0,02711
9 0,024872 0,010748 0,466 -0,01026 0,06
10 ,062177
*
0,009426 0 0,03137 0,09298
11 ,043826
*
0,008782 0 0,01513 0,07253
12 ,060605
*
0,007866 0 0,0349 0,08631
7
1 -,129831
*
0,008905 0 -0,15894 -0,10073
2 -0,02571 0,010778 0,416 -0,06093 0,00951
3 -,077333
*
0,009331 0 -0,10783 -0,04684
4 -,078293
*
0,009487 0 -0,1093 -0,04729
5 -,119745
*
0,009462 0 -0,15067 -0,08882
6 -0,00053 0,009151 1 -0,03044 0,02938
8 -0,0029 0,010091 1 -0,03588 0,03007
9 0,02434 0,011662 0,632 -0,01377 0,06245
10 ,061645
*
0,010455 0 0,02748 0,09582
11 ,043294
*
0,009878 0,001 0,01101 0,07558
12 ,060073
*
0,009074 0 0,03042 0,08973
8
1 -,126927
*
0,008771 0 -0,15559 -0,09826
2 -0,02281 0,010666 0,595 -0,05766 0,01206
3 -,074429
*
0,009203 0 -0,1045 -0,04435
4 -,075390
*
0,009361 0 -0,10598 -0,0448
5 -,116841
*
0,009335 0 -0,14735 -0,08633
6 0,002372 0,00902 1 -0,02711 0,03185
7 0,002904 0,010091 1 -0,03007 0,03588
9 0,027244 0,011559 0,436 -0,01053 0,06502
10 ,064549
*
0,010341 0 0,03075 0,09834
11 ,046198
*
0,009757 0 0,01431 0,07809
12 ,062977
*
0,008942 0 0,03375 0,0922
9
1 -,154171
*
0,01054 0 -0,18862 -0,11972
2 -,050048
*
0,012163 0,002 -0,0898 -0,0103
3 -,101673
*
0,010902 0 -0,1373 -0,06604
4 -,102633
*
0,011036 0 -0,1387 -0,06657
5 -,144085
*
0,011014 0 -0,18008 -0,10809
6 -0,02487 0,010748 0,466 -0,06 0,01026
7 -0,02434 0,011662 0,632 -0,06245 0,01377
8 -0,02724 0,011559 0,436 -0,06502 0,01053
10 0,037305 0,011878 0,073 -0,00152 0,07613
11 0,018954 0,011374 0,884 -0,01822 0,05613
12 ,035733
*
0,010683 0,039 0,00082 0,07065
10
1 -,191476
*
0,009188 0 -0,2215 -0,16145
2 -,087354
*
0,011012 0 -0,12334 -0,05136
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 61
3 -,138978
*
0,009601 0 -0,17036 -0,1076
4 -,139939
*
0,009752 0 -0,17181 -0,10807
5 -,181390
*
0,009728 0 -0,21318 -0,1496
6 -,062177
*
0,009426 0 -0,09298 -0,03137
7 -,061645
*
0,010455 0 -0,09582 -0,02748
8 -,064549
*
0,010341 0 -0,09834 -0,03075
9 -0,03731 0,011878 0,073 -0,07613 0,00152
11 -0,01835 0,010134 0,812 -0,05147 0,01477
12 -0,00157 0,009351 1 -0,03213 0,02899
11
1 -,173125
*
0,008525 0 -0,20099 -0,14526
2 -,069002
*
0,010466 0 -0,10321 -0,0348
3 -,120627
*
0,008969 0 -0,14994 -0,09131
4 -,121587
*
0,009131 0 -0,15143 -0,09174
5 -,163039
*
0,009105 0 -0,1928 -0,13328
6 -,043826
*
0,008782 0 -0,07253 -0,01513
7 -,043294
*
0,009878 0,001 -0,07558 -0,01101
8 -,046198
*
0,009757 0 -0,07809 -0,01431
9 -0,01895 0,011374 0,884 -0,05613 0,01822
10 0,018352 0,010134 0,812 -0,01477 0,05147
12 0,016779 0,008702 0,742 -0,01166 0,04522
12
1 -,189904
*
0,007579 0 -0,21467 -0,16513
2 -,085782
*
0,00971 0 -0,11752 -0,05405
3 -,137406
*
0,008075 0 -0,1638 -0,11102
4 -,138366
*
0,008255 0 -0,16534 -0,11139
5 -,179818
*
0,008226 0 -0,2067 -0,15294
6 -,060605
*
0,007866 0 -0,08631 -0,0349
7 -,060073
*
0,009074 0 -0,08973 -0,03042
8 -,062977
*
0,008942 0 -0,0922 -0,03375
9 -,035733
*
0,010683 0,039 -0,07065 -0,00082
10 0,001572 0,009351 1 -0,02899 0,03213
11 -0,01678 0,008702 0,742 -0,04522 0,01166

7.3.2 Activities on Computer

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


Post Hoc Tests
As it is shown on Multiple Comparison table below there are significant differences
between regions.
Table 7-22 Post Hoc Analysis for Region - Activities on Computer
Multiple Comparison
(I) Region (J) Region
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
2 ,573
*
0,055 0 0,39 0,75
3 ,456
*
0,045 0 0,31 0,6
4 ,343
*
0,046 0 0,19 0,5
5 0,035 0,046 1 -0,12 0,19
6 ,709
*
0,044 0 0,56 0,85
7 ,647
*
0,051 0 0,48 0,81
8 ,692
*
0,051 0 0,53 0,86
9 ,887
*
0,061 0 0,69 1,09
10 1,149
*
0,053 0 0,98 1,32
11 ,891
*
0,049 0 0,73 1,05
12 1,185
*
0,044 0 1,04 1,33
2
1 -,573
*
0,055 0 -0,75 -0,39
3 -0,117 0,057 0,665 -0,3 0,07
4 -,229
*
0,058 0,005 -0,42 -0,04
5 -,537
*
0,058 0 -0,73 -0,35
6 0,136 0,056 0,397 -0,05 0,32
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 63
7 0,074 0,062 0,989 -0,13 0,28
8 0,119 0,061 0,736 -0,08 0,32
9 ,314
*
0,07 0 0,09 0,54
10 ,576
*
0,063 0 0,37 0,78
11 ,318
*
0,06 0 0,12 0,52
12 ,612
*
0,056 0 0,43 0,8
3
1 -,456
*
0,045 0 -0,6 -0,31
2 0,117 0,057 0,665 -0,07 0,3
4 -0,112 0,049 0,491 -0,27 0,05
5 -,420
*
0,049 0 -0,58 -0,26
6 ,253
*
0,047 0 0,1 0,41
7 ,191
*
0,054 0,019 0,02 0,37
8 ,236
*
0,053 0,001 0,06 0,41
9 ,431
*
0,063 0 0,23 0,64
10 ,693
*
0,055 0 0,51 0,87
11 ,435
*
0,052 0 0,27 0,6
12 ,729
*
0,047 0 0,58 0,88
4
1 -,343
*
0,046 0 -0,5 -0,19
2 ,229
*
0,058 0,005 0,04 0,42
3 0,112 0,049 0,491 -0,05 0,27
5 -,308
*
0,05 0 -0,47 -0,14
6 ,365
*
0,048 0 0,21 0,52
7 ,303
*
0,055 0 0,12 0,48
8 ,348
*
0,054 0 0,17 0,52
9 ,543
*
0,064 0 0,34 0,75
10 ,805
*
0,056 0 0,62 0,99
11 ,548
*
0,053 0 0,38 0,72
12 ,842
*
0,048 0 0,69 1
5
1 -0,035 0,046 1 -0,19 0,12
2 ,537
*
0,058 0 0,35 0,73
3 ,420
*
0,049 0 0,26 0,58
4 ,308
*
0,05 0 0,14 0,47
6 ,673
*
0,048 0 0,52 0,83
7 ,612
*
0,055 0 0,43 0,79
8 ,656
*
0,054 0 0,48 0,83
9 ,852
*
0,063 0 0,64 1,06
10 1,113
*
0,056 0 0,93 1,3
11 ,856
*
0,052 0 0,68 1,03
12 1,150
*
0,047 0 0,99 1,3
6
1 -,709
*
0,044 0 -0,85 -0,56
2 -0,136 0,056 0,397 -0,32 0,05
3 -,253
*
0,047 0 -0,41 -0,1
4 -,365
*
0,048 0 -0,52 -0,21
5 -,673
*
0,048 0 -0,83 -0,52
7 -0,062 0,053 0,991 -0,23 0,11
8 -0,017 0,052 1 -0,19 0,15
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 64
9 0,178 0,062 0,149 -0,02 0,38
10 ,440
*
0,054 0 0,26 0,62
11 ,182
*
0,051 0,016 0,02 0,35
12 ,476
*
0,045 0 0,33 0,62
7
1 -,647
*
0,051 0 -0,81 -0,48
2 -0,074 0,062 0,989 -0,28 0,13
3 -,191
*
0,054 0,019 -0,37 -0,02
4 -,303
*
0,055 0 -0,48 -0,12
5 -,612
*
0,055 0 -0,79 -0,43
6 0,062 0,053 0,991 -0,11 0,23
8 0,045 0,058 1 -0,15 0,23
9 ,240
*
0,067 0,018 0,02 0,46
10 ,502
*
0,06 0 0,3 0,7
11 ,244
*
0,057 0,001 0,06 0,43
12 ,538
*
0,052 0 0,37 0,71
8
1 -,692
*
0,051 0 -0,86 -0,53
2 -0,119 0,061 0,736 -0,32 0,08
3 -,236
*
0,053 0,001 -0,41 -0,06
4 -,348
*
0,054 0 -0,52 -0,17
5 -,656
*
0,054 0 -0,83 -0,48
6 0,017 0,052 1 -0,15 0,19
7 -0,045 0,058 1 -0,23 0,15
9 0,195 0,067 0,13 -0,02 0,41
10 ,457
*
0,06 0 0,26 0,65
11 ,199
*
0,056 0,02 0,02 0,38
12 ,493
*
0,052 0 0,32 0,66
9
1 -,887
*
0,061 0 -1,09 -0,69
2 -,314
*
0,07 0 -0,54 -0,09
3 -,431
*
0,063 0 -0,64 -0,23
4 -,543
*
0,064 0 -0,75 -0,34
5 -,852
*
0,063 0 -1,06 -0,64
6 -0,178 0,062 0,149 -0,38 0,02
7 -,240
*
0,067 0,018 -0,46 -0,02
8 -0,195 0,067 0,13 -0,41 0,02
10 ,262
*
0,068 0,007 0,04 0,49
11 0,004 0,066 1 -0,21 0,22
12 ,298
*
0,062 0 0,1 0,5
10
1 -1,149
*
0,053 0 -1,32 -0,98
2 -,576
*
0,063 0 -0,78 -0,37
3 -,693
*
0,055 0 -0,87 -0,51
4 -,805
*
0,056 0 -0,99 -0,62
5 -1,113
*
0,056 0 -1,3 -0,93
6 -,440
*
0,054 0 -0,62 -0,26
7 -,502
*
0,06 0 -0,7 -0,3
8 -,457
*
0,06 0 -0,65 -0,26
9 -,262
*
0,068 0,007 -0,49 -0,04
11 -,258
*
0,058 0,001 -0,45 -0,07
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 65
12 0,036 0,054 1 -0,14 0,21
11
1 -,891
*
0,049 0 -1,05 -0,73
2 -,318
*
0,06 0 -0,52 -0,12
3 -,435
*
0,052 0 -0,6 -0,27
4 -,548
*
0,053 0 -0,72 -0,38
5 -,856
*
0,052 0 -1,03 -0,68
6 -,182
*
0,051 0,016 -0,35 -0,02
7 -,244
*
0,057 0,001 -0,43 -0,06
8 -,199
*
0,056 0,02 -0,38 -0,02
9 -0,004 0,066 1 -0,22 0,21
10 ,258
*
0,058 0,001 0,07 0,45
12 ,294
*
0,05 0 0,13 0,46
12
1 -1,185
*
0,044 0 -1,33 -1,04
2 -,612
*
0,056 0 -0,8 -0,43
3 -,729
*
0,047 0 -0,88 -0,58
4 -,842
*
0,048 0 -1 -0,69
5 -1,150
*
0,047 0 -1,3 -0,99
6 -,476
*
0,045 0 -0,62 -0,33
7 -,538
*
0,052 0 -0,71 -0,37
8 -,493
*
0,052 0 -0,66 -0,32
9 -,298
*
0,062 0 -0,5 -0,1
10 -0,036 0,054 1 -0,21 0,14
11 -,294
*
0,05 0 -0,46 -0,13


7.3.3 Activities on Internet

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

Post Hoc Tests
As it is shown on Multiple Comparison table below there are significant differences
between regions.
Table 7-24 Post Hoc Analysis for Region - Activities on Internet
Multiple Comparison
(I) Region (J) Region
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
2 ,646
*
0,069 0 0,42 0,87
3 ,467
*
0,057 0 0,28 0,65
4 ,322
*
0,058 0 0,13 0,51
5 0,111 0,058 0,749 -0,08 0,3
6 ,903
*
0,055 0 0,72 1,08
7 ,803
*
0,064 0 0,59 1,01
8 ,867
*
0,063 0 0,66 1,07
9 1,051
*
0,076 0 0,8 1,3
10 1,430
*
0,066 0 1,21 1,65
11 1,172
*
0,062 0 0,97 1,37
12 1,379
*
0,055 0 1,2 1,56
2
1 -,646
*
0,069 0 -0,87 -0,42
3 -0,179 0,072 0,344 -0,41 0,06
4 -,324
*
0,073 0,001 -0,56 -0,09
5 -,534
*
0,073 0 -0,77 -0,3
6 ,257
*
0,071 0,014 0,03 0,49
7 0,158 0,078 0,678 -0,1 0,41
8 0,221 0,077 0,151 -0,03 0,47
9 ,406
*
0,088 0 0,12 0,69
10 ,784
*
0,08 0 0,52 1,04
11 ,526
*
0,076 0 0,28 0,77
12 ,733
*
0,07 0 0,5 0,96
3 1 -,467
*
0,057 0 -0,65 -0,28
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 67
2 0,179 0,072 0,344 -0,06 0,41
4 -0,145 0,062 0,445 -0,35 0,06
5 -,355
*
0,061 0 -0,56 -0,15
6 ,436
*
0,059 0 0,24 0,63
7 ,337
*
0,067 0 0,12 0,56
8 ,400
*
0,066 0 0,18 0,62
9 ,585
*
0,079 0 0,33 0,84
10 ,963
*
0,069 0 0,74 1,19
11 ,705
*
0,065 0 0,49 0,92
12 ,912
*
0,058 0 0,72 1,1
4
1 -,322
*
0,058 0 -0,51 -0,13
2 ,324
*
0,073 0,001 0,09 0,56
3 0,145 0,062 0,445 -0,06 0,35
5 -,211
*
0,063 0,038 -0,42 -0,01
6 ,581
*
0,06 0 0,38 0,78
7 ,481
*
0,069 0 0,26 0,71
8 ,545
*
0,068 0 0,32 0,77
9 ,729
*
0,08 0 0,47 0,99
10 1,108
*
0,07 0 0,88 1,34
11 ,850
*
0,066 0 0,63 1,07
12 1,057
*
0,06 0 0,86 1,25
5
1 -0,111 0,058 0,749 -0,3 0,08
2 ,534
*
0,073 0 0,3 0,77
3 ,355
*
0,061 0 0,15 0,56
4 ,211
*
0,063 0,038 0,01 0,42
6 ,792
*
0,06 0 0,6 0,99
7 ,692
*
0,068 0 0,47 0,92
8 ,756
*
0,067 0 0,54 0,98
9 ,940
*
0,08 0 0,68 1,2
10 1,318
*
0,07 0 1,09 1,55
11 1,060
*
0,066 0 0,85 1,28
12 1,268
*
0,059 0 1,07 1,46
6
1 -,903
*
0,055 0 -1,08 -0,72
2 -,257
*
0,071 0,014 -0,49 -0,03
3 -,436
*
0,059 0 -0,63 -0,24
4 -,581
*
0,06 0 -0,78 -0,38
5 -,792
*
0,06 0 -0,99 -0,6
7 -0,1 0,066 0,939 -0,32 0,12
8 -0,036 0,065 1 -0,25 0,18
9 0,148 0,078 0,753 -0,11 0,4
10 ,527
*
0,068 0 0,3 0,75
11 ,269
*
0,063 0,001 0,06 0,48
12 ,476
*
0,057 0 0,29 0,66
7
1 -,803
*
0,064 0 -1,01 -0,59
2 -0,158 0,078 0,678 -0,41 0,1
3 -,337
*
0,067 0 -0,56 -0,12
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 68
4 -,481
*
0,069 0 -0,71 -0,26
5 -,692
*
0,068 0 -0,92 -0,47
6 0,1 0,066 0,939 -0,12 0,32
8 0,064 0,073 0,999 -0,17 0,3
9 0,248 0,084 0,126 -0,03 0,52
10 ,626
*
0,076 0 0,38 0,87
11 ,368
*
0,071 0 0,14 0,6
12 ,576
*
0,066 0 0,36 0,79
8
1 -,867
*
0,063 0 -1,07 -0,66
2 -0,221 0,077 0,151 -0,47 0,03
3 -,400
*
0,066 0 -0,62 -0,18
4 -,545
*
0,068 0 -0,77 -0,32
5 -,756
*
0,067 0 -0,98 -0,54
6 0,036 0,065 1 -0,18 0,25
7 -0,064 0,073 0,999 -0,3 0,17
9 0,184 0,084 0,544 -0,09 0,46
10 ,563
*
0,075 0 0,32 0,81
11 ,305
*
0,07 0,001 0,07 0,53
12 ,512
*
0,065 0 0,3 0,72
9
1 -1,051
*
0,076 0 -1,3 -0,8
2 -,406
*
0,088 0 -0,69 -0,12
3 -,585
*
0,079 0 -0,84 -0,33
4 -,729
*
0,08 0 -0,99 -0,47
5 -,940
*
0,08 0 -1,2 -0,68
6 -0,148 0,078 0,753 -0,4 0,11
7 -0,248 0,084 0,126 -0,52 0,03
8 -0,184 0,084 0,544 -0,46 0,09
10 ,378
*
0,086 0,001 0,1 0,66
11 0,12 0,082 0,95 -0,15 0,39
12 ,328
*
0,077 0,001 0,08 0,58
10
1 -1,430
*
0,066 0 -1,65 -1,21
2 -,784
*
0,08 0 -1,04 -0,52
3 -,963
*
0,069 0 -1,19 -0,74
4 -1,108
*
0,07 0 -1,34 -0,88
5 -1,318
*
0,07 0 -1,55 -1,09
6 -,527
*
0,068 0 -0,75 -0,3
7 -,626
*
0,076 0 -0,87 -0,38
8 -,563
*
0,075 0 -0,81 -0,32
9 -,378
*
0,086 0,001 -0,66 -0,1
11 -,258
*
0,073 0,021 -0,5 -0,02
12 -0,051 0,068 1 -0,27 0,17
11
1 -1,172
*
0,062 0 -1,37 -0,97
2 -,526
*
0,076 0 -0,77 -0,28
3 -,705
*
0,065 0 -0,92 -0,49
4 -,850
*
0,066 0 -1,07 -0,63
5 -1,060
*
0,066 0 -1,28 -0,85
6 -,269
*
0,063 0,001 -0,48 -0,06
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 69
7 -,368
*
0,071 0 -0,6 -0,14
8 -,305
*
0,07 0,001 -0,53 -0,07
9 -0,12 0,082 0,95 -0,39 0,15
10 ,258
*
0,073 0,021 0,02 0,5
12 ,207
*
0,063 0,045 0 0,41
12
1 -1,379
*
0,055 0 -1,56 -1,2
2 -,733
*
0,07 0 -0,96 -0,5
3 -,912
*
0,058 0 -1,1 -0,72
4 -1,057
*
0,06 0 -1,25 -0,86
5 -1,268
*
0,059 0 -1,46 -1,07
6 -,476
*
0,057 0 -0,66 -0,29
7 -,576
*
0,066 0 -0,79 -0,36
8 -,512
*
0,065 0 -0,72 -0,3
9 -,328
*
0,077 0,001 -0,58 -0,08
10 0,051 0,068 1 -0,17 0,27
11 -,207
*
0,063 0,045 -0,41 0

7.3.4 E-commerce Activities

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


ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 70
Post Hoc Tests
As it is shown on Multiple Comparison table below there are significant differences
between regions.
Table 7-26 Post Hoc Analysis for Region- E-commerce Activities
Multiple Comparison
(I) Region (J) Region
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
2 ,052
*
0,015 0,02 0 0,1
3 0,038 0,012 0,078 0 0,08
4 ,079
*
0,012 0 0,04 0,12
5 0,031 0,012 0,337 -0,01 0,07
6 ,111
*
0,012 0 0,07 0,15
7 ,097
*
0,014 0 0,05 0,14
8 ,083
*
0,014 0 0,04 0,13
9 ,141
*
0,016 0 0,09 0,19
10 ,141
*
0,014 0 0,09 0,19
11 ,146
*
0,013 0 0,1 0,19
12 ,163
*
0,012 0 0,12 0,2
2
1 -,052
*
0,015 0,02 -0,1 0
3 -0,014 0,015 0,999 -0,06 0,04
4 0,027 0,016 0,848 -0,02 0,08
5 -0,021 0,016 0,97 -0,07 0,03
6 ,058
*
0,015 0,006 0,01 0,11
7 0,045 0,017 0,222 -0,01 0,1
8 0,03 0,016 0,794 -0,02 0,08
9 ,088
*
0,019 0 0,03 0,15
10 ,088
*
0,017 0 0,03 0,14
11 ,094
*
0,016 0 0,04 0,15
12 ,110
*
0,015 0 0,06 0,16
3
1 -0,038 0,012 0,078 -0,08 0
2 0,014 0,015 0,999 -0,04 0,06
4 0,041 0,013 0,072 0 0,08
5 -0,007 0,013 1 -0,05 0,04
6 ,073
*
0,013 0 0,03 0,11
7 ,059
*
0,014 0,002 0,01 0,11
8 0,045 0,014 0,073 0 0,09
9 ,103
*
0,017 0 0,05 0,16
10 ,103
*
0,015 0 0,05 0,15
11 ,108
*
0,014 0 0,06 0,15
12 ,125
*
0,012 0 0,08 0,17
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 71
4
1 -,079
*
0,012 0 -0,12 -0,04
2 -0,027 0,016 0,848 -0,08 0,02
3 -0,041 0,013 0,072 -0,08 0
5 -,048
*
0,013 0,016 -0,09 0
6 0,031 0,013 0,387 -0,01 0,07
7 0,018 0,015 0,987 -0,03 0,07
8 0,003 0,014 1 -0,04 0,05
9 ,061
*
0,017 0,017 0,01 0,12
10 ,061
*
0,015 0,003 0,01 0,11
11 ,067
*
0,014 0 0,02 0,11
12 ,083
*
0,013 0 0,04 0,12
5
1 -0,031 0,012 0,337 -0,07 0,01
2 0,021 0,016 0,97 -0,03 0,07
3 0,007 0,013 1 -0,04 0,05
4 ,048
*
0,013 0,016 0 0,09
6 ,080
*
0,013 0 0,04 0,12
7 ,066
*
0,015 0 0,02 0,11
8 ,052
*
0,014 0,018 0 0,1
9 ,110
*
0,017 0 0,05 0,17
10 ,110
*
0,015 0 0,06 0,16
11 ,115
*
0,014 0 0,07 0,16
12 ,131
*
0,013 0 0,09 0,17
6
1 -,111
*
0,012 0 -0,15 -0,07
2 -,058
*
0,015 0,006 -0,11 -0,01
3 -,073
*
0,013 0 -0,11 -0,03
4 -0,031 0,013 0,387 -0,07 0,01
5 -,080
*
0,013 0 -0,12 -0,04
7 -0,013 0,014 0,999 -0,06 0,03
8 -0,028 0,014 0,682 -0,07 0,02
9 0,03 0,017 0,817 -0,02 0,08
10 0,03 0,015 0,65 -0,02 0,08
11 0,036 0,014 0,262 -0,01 0,08
12 ,052
*
0,012 0,001 0,01 0,09
7
1 -,097
*
0,014 0 -0,14 -0,05
2 -0,045 0,017 0,222 -0,1 0,01
3 -,059
*
0,014 0,002 -0,11 -0,01
4 -0,018 0,015 0,987 -0,07 0,03
5 -,066
*
0,015 0 -0,11 -0,02
6 0,013 0,014 0,999 -0,03 0,06
8 -0,015 0,016 0,999 -0,07 0,04
9 0,043 0,018 0,403 -0,02 0,1
10 0,043 0,016 0,232 -0,01 0,1
11 0,049 0,015 0,059 0 0,1
12 ,065
*
0,014 0 0,02 0,11
8
1 -,083
*
0,014 0 -0,13 -0,04
2 -0,03 0,016 0,794 -0,08 0,02
3 -0,045 0,014 0,073 -0,09 0
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 72
4 -0,003 0,014 1 -0,05 0,04
5 -,052
*
0,014 0,018 -0,1 0
6 0,028 0,014 0,682 -0,02 0,07
7 0,015 0,016 0,999 -0,04 0,07
9 0,058 0,018 0,053 0 0,12
10 ,058
*
0,016 0,015 0,01 0,11
11 ,064
*
0,015 0,001 0,01 0,11
12 ,080
*
0,014 0 0,03 0,13
9
1 -,141
*
0,016 0 -0,19 -0,09
2 -,088
*
0,019 0 -0,15 -0,03
3 -,103
*
0,017 0 -0,16 -0,05
4 -,061
*
0,017 0,017 -0,12 -0,01
5 -,110
*
0,017 0 -0,17 -0,05
6 -0,03 0,017 0,817 -0,08 0,02
7 -0,043 0,018 0,403 -0,1 0,02
8 -0,058 0,018 0,053 -0,12 0
10 0 0,018 1 -0,06 0,06
11 0,006 0,018 1 -0,05 0,06
12 0,022 0,016 0,976 -0,03 0,08
10
1 -,141
*
0,014 0 -0,19 -0,09
2 -,088
*
0,017 0 -0,14 -0,03
3 -,103
*
0,015 0 -0,15 -0,05
4 -,061
*
0,015 0,003 -0,11 -0,01
5 -,110
*
0,015 0 -0,16 -0,06
6 -0,03 0,015 0,65 -0,08 0,02
7 -0,043 0,016 0,232 -0,1 0,01
8 -,058
*
0,016 0,015 -0,11 -0,01
9 0 0,018 1 -0,06 0,06
11 0,006 0,016 1 -0,05 0,06
12 0,022 0,014 0,938 -0,03 0,07
11
1 -,146
*
0,013 0 -0,19 -0,1
2 -,094
*
0,016 0 -0,15 -0,04
3 -,108
*
0,014 0 -0,15 -0,06
4 -,067
*
0,014 0 -0,11 -0,02
5 -,115
*
0,014 0 -0,16 -0,07
6 -0,036 0,014 0,262 -0,08 0,01
7 -0,049 0,015 0,059 -0,1 0
8 -,064
*
0,015 0,001 -0,11 -0,01
9 -0,006 0,018 1 -0,06 0,05
10 -0,006 0,016 1 -0,06 0,05
12 0,016 0,013 0,989 -0,03 0,06
12
1 -,163
*
0,012 0 -0,2 -0,12
2 -,110
*
0,015 0 -0,16 -0,06
3 -,125
*
0,012 0 -0,17 -0,08
4 -,083
*
0,013 0 -0,12 -0,04
5 -,131
*
0,013 0 -0,17 -0,09
6 -,052
*
0,012 0,001 -0,09 -0,01
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 73
7 -,065
*
0,014 0 -0,11 -0,02
8 -,080
*
0,014 0 -0,13 -0,03
9 -0,022 0,016 0,976 -0,08 0,03
10 -0,022 0,014 0,938 -0,07 0,03
11 -0,016 0,013 0,989 -0,06 0,03


7.3.5 Security Software Used by an Individual

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.



ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 74
Table 7-28 Post Hoc Analysis for Region- Security Software Used by an Individual
Multiple Comparison
(I) Region (J) Region
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
2 ,218
*
0,017 0 0,16 0,27
3 ,125
*
0,014 0 0,08 0,17
4 ,214
*
0,014 0 0,17 0,26
5 0,039 0,014 0,19 -0,01 0,08
6 ,259
*
0,013 0 0,21 0,3
7 ,247
*
0,016 0 0,2 0,3
8 ,263
*
0,015 0 0,21 0,31
9 ,365
*
0,018 0 0,31 0,43
10 ,380
*
0,016 0 0,33 0,43
11 ,339
*
0,015 0 0,29 0,39
12 ,373
*
0,013 0 0,33 0,42
2
1 -,218
*
0,017 0 -0,27 -0,16
3 -,093
*
0,017 0 -0,15 -0,04
4 -0,004 0,018 1 -0,06 0,05
5 -,179
*
0,018 0 -0,24 -0,12
6 0,041 0,017 0,407 -0,01 0,1
7 0,03 0,019 0,917 -0,03 0,09
8 0,045 0,019 0,397 -0,02 0,11
9 ,148
*
0,021 0 0,08 0,22
10 ,162
*
0,019 0 0,1 0,23
11 ,122
*
0,018 0 0,06 0,18
12 ,155
*
0,017 0 0,1 0,21
3
1 -,125
*
0,014 0 -0,17 -0,08
2 ,093
*
0,017 0 0,04 0,15
4 ,089
*
0,015 0 0,04 0,14
5 -,086
*
0,015 0 -0,13 -0,04
6 ,133
*
0,014 0 0,09 0,18
7 ,122
*
0,016 0 0,07 0,18
8 ,137
*
0,016 0 0,08 0,19
9 ,240
*
0,019 0 0,18 0,3
10 ,255
*
0,017 0 0,2 0,31
11 ,214
*
0,016 0 0,16 0,27
12 ,248
*
0,014 0 0,2 0,29
4
1 -,214
*
0,014 0 -0,26 -0,17
2 0,004 0,018 1 -0,05 0,06
3 -,089
*
0,015 0 -0,14 -0,04
5 -,175
*
0,015 0 -0,22 -0,13
6 0,045 0,015 0,089 0 0,09
7 0,033 0,017 0,68 -0,02 0,09
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 75
8 0,049 0,016 0,114 0 0,1
9 ,152
*
0,019 0 0,09 0,21
10 ,166
*
0,017 0 0,11 0,22
11 ,126
*
0,016 0 0,07 0,18
12 ,159
*
0,014 0 0,11 0,21
5
1 -0,039 0,014 0,19 -0,08 0,01
2 ,179
*
0,018 0 0,12 0,24
3 ,086
*
0,015 0 0,04 0,13
4 ,175
*
0,015 0 0,13 0,22
6 ,220
*
0,015 0 0,17 0,27
7 ,208
*
0,017 0 0,15 0,26
8 ,224
*
0,016 0 0,17 0,28
9 ,326
*
0,019 0 0,26 0,39
10 ,341
*
0,017 0 0,29 0,4
11 ,300
*
0,016 0 0,25 0,35
12 ,334
*
0,014 0 0,29 0,38
6
1 -,259
*
0,013 0 -0,3 -0,21
2 -0,041 0,017 0,407 -0,1 0,01
3 -,133
*
0,014 0 -0,18 -0,09
4 -0,045 0,015 0,089 -0,09 0
5 -,220
*
0,015 0 -0,27 -0,17
7 -0,011 0,016 1 -0,06 0,04
8 0,004 0,016 1 -0,05 0,06
9 ,107
*
0,019 0 0,05 0,17
10 ,121
*
0,016 0 0,07 0,18
11 ,081
*
0,015 0 0,03 0,13
12 ,114
*
0,014 0 0,07 0,16
7
1 -,247
*
0,016 0 -0,3 -0,2
2 -0,03 0,019 0,917 -0,09 0,03
3 -,122
*
0,016 0 -0,18 -0,07
4 -0,033 0,017 0,68 -0,09 0,02
5 -,208
*
0,017 0 -0,26 -0,15
6 0,011 0,016 1 -0,04 0,06
8 0,015 0,018 0,999 -0,04 0,07
9 ,118
*
0,02 0 0,05 0,18
10 ,133
*
0,018 0 0,07 0,19
11 ,092
*
0,017 0 0,04 0,15
12 ,126
*
0,016 0 0,07 0,18
8
1 -,263
*
0,015 0 -0,31 -0,21
2 -0,045 0,019 0,397 -0,11 0,02
3 -,137
*
0,016 0 -0,19 -0,08
4 -0,049 0,016 0,114 -0,1 0
5 -,224
*
0,016 0 -0,28 -0,17
6 -0,004 0,016 1 -0,06 0,05
7 -0,015 0,018 0,999 -0,07 0,04
9 ,103
*
0,02 0 0,04 0,17
10 ,117
*
0,018 0 0,06 0,18
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 76
11 ,077
*
0,017 0 0,02 0,13
12 ,111
*
0,016 0 0,06 0,16
9
1 -,365
*
0,018 0 -0,43 -0,31
2 -,148
*
0,021 0 -0,22 -0,08
3 -,240
*
0,019 0 -0,3 -0,18
4 -,152
*
0,019 0 -0,21 -0,09
5 -,326
*
0,019 0 -0,39 -0,26
6 -,107
*
0,019 0 -0,17 -0,05
7 -,118
*
0,02 0 -0,18 -0,05
8 -,103
*
0,02 0 -0,17 -0,04
10 0,014 0,021 1 -0,05 0,08
11 -0,026 0,02 0,977 -0,09 0,04
12 0,008 0,019 1 -0,05 0,07
10
1 -,380
*
0,016 0 -0,43 -0,33
2 -,162
*
0,019 0 -0,23 -0,1
3 -,255
*
0,017 0 -0,31 -0,2
4 -,166
*
0,017 0 -0,22 -0,11
5 -,341
*
0,017 0 -0,4 -0,29
6 -,121
*
0,016 0 -0,18 -0,07
7 -,133
*
0,018 0 -0,19 -0,07
8 -,117
*
0,018 0 -0,18 -0,06
9 -0,014 0,021 1 -0,08 0,05
11 -0,041 0,018 0,481 -0,1 0,02
12 -0,007 0,016 1 -0,06 0,05
11
1 -,339
*
0,015 0 -0,39 -0,29
2 -,122
*
0,018 0 -0,18 -0,06
3 -,214
*
0,016 0 -0,27 -0,16
4 -,126
*
0,016 0 -0,18 -0,07
5 -,300
*
0,016 0 -0,35 -0,25
6 -,081
*
0,015 0 -0,13 -0,03
7 -,092
*
0,017 0 -0,15 -0,04
8 -,077
*
0,017 0 -0,13 -0,02
9 0,026 0,02 0,977 -0,04 0,09
10 0,041 0,018 0,481 -0,02 0,1
12 0,034 0,015 0,536 -0,02 0,08
12
1 -,373
*
0,013 0 -0,42 -0,33
2 -,155
*
0,017 0 -0,21 -0,1
3 -,248
*
0,014 0 -0,29 -0,2
4 -,159
*
0,014 0 -0,21 -0,11
5 -,334
*
0,014 0 -0,38 -0,29
6 -,114
*
0,014 0 -0,16 -0,07
7 -,126
*
0,016 0 -0,18 -0,07
8 -,111
*
0,016 0 -0,16 -0,06
9 -0,008 0,019 1 -0,07 0,05
10 0,007 0,016 1 -0,05 0,06
11 -0,034 0,015 0,536 -0,08 0,02
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 77

7.3.6 Technological Devices at Home

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

Post Hoc Tests
As it is shown on Multiple Comparison table below there are significant differences
between regions
Table 7-30 Post Hoc Analysis for Region-Technological Devices at Home
Multiple Comparison
(I) Region (J) Region
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
2 ,711
*
0,079 0 0,45 0,97
3 ,692
*
0,066 0 0,48 0,91
4 ,389
*
0,07 0 0,16 0,62
5 0,077 0,069 0,994 -0,15 0,3
6 1,072
*
0,067 0 0,85 1,29
7 ,992
*
0,079 0 0,74 1,25
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 78
8 ,908
*
0,076 0 0,66 1,16
9 ,996
*
0,091 0 0,7 1,29
10 1,299
*
0,091 0 1 1,6
11 1,507
*
0,085 0 1,23 1,78
12 1,907
*
0,073 0 1,67 2,15
2
1 -,711
*
0,079 0 -0,97 -0,45
3 -0,019 0,081 1 -0,28 0,24
4 -,322
*
0,084 0,007 -0,6 -0,05
5 -,634
*
0,084 0 -0,91 -0,36
6 ,361
*
0,081 0,001 0,09 0,63
7 0,281 0,091 0,088 -0,02 0,58
8 0,197 0,09 0,553 -0,1 0,49
9 0,285 0,102 0,189 -0,05 0,62
10 ,588
*
0,102 0 0,25 0,92
11 ,796
*
0,097 0 0,48 1,11
12 1,196
*
0,087 0 0,91 1,48
3
1 -,692
*
0,066 0 -0,91 -0,48
2 0,019 0,081 1 -0,24 0,28
4 -,304
*
0,072 0,001 -0,54 -0,07
5 -,615
*
0,071 0 -0,85 -0,38
6 ,380
*
0,069 0 0,15 0,6
7 ,300
*
0,081 0,01 0,04 0,56
8 0,216 0,078 0,201 -0,04 0,47
9 ,304
*
0,093 0,049 0 0,61
10 ,607
*
0,092 0 0,3 0,91
11 ,815
*
0,086 0 0,53 1,1
12 1,215
*
0,075 0 0,97 1,46
4
1 -,389
*
0,07 0 -0,62 -0,16
2 ,322
*
0,084 0,007 0,05 0,6
3 ,304
*
0,072 0,001 0,07 0,54
5 -,311
*
0,075 0,002 -0,56 -0,07
6 ,683
*
0,072 0 0,45 0,92
7 ,604
*
0,084 0 0,33 0,88
8 ,519
*
0,081 0 0,25 0,79
9 ,607
*
0,095 0 0,3 0,92
10 ,910
*
0,095 0 0,6 1,22
11 1,118
*
0,089 0 0,83 1,41
12 1,518
*
0,079 0 1,26 1,78
5
1 -0,077 0,069 0,994 -0,3 0,15
2 ,634
*
0,084 0 0,36 0,91
3 ,615
*
0,071 0 0,38 0,85
4 ,311
*
0,075 0,002 0,07 0,56
6 ,995
*
0,072 0 0,76 1,23
7 ,915
*
0,083 0 0,64 1,19
8 ,830
*
0,081 0 0,57 1,1
9 ,919
*
0,095 0 0,61 1,23
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 79
10 1,222
*
0,095 0 0,91 1,53
11 1,430
*
0,089 0 1,14 1,72
12 1,830
*
0,078 0 1,57 2,09
6
1 -1,072
*
0,067 0 -1,29 -0,85
2 -,361
*
0,081 0,001 -0,63 -0,09
3 -,380
*
0,069 0 -0,6 -0,15
4 -,683
*
0,072 0 -0,92 -0,45
5 -,995
*
0,072 0 -1,23 -0,76
7 -0,079 0,081 0,998 -0,34 0,19
8 -0,164 0,079 0,638 -0,42 0,09
9 -0,076 0,093 1 -0,38 0,23
10 0,227 0,093 0,377 -0,08 0,53
11 ,435
*
0,087 0 0,15 0,72
12 ,835
*
0,076 0 0,59 1,08
7
1 -,992
*
0,079 0 -1,25 -0,74
2 -0,281 0,091 0,088 -0,58 0,02
3 -,300
*
0,081 0,01 -0,56 -0,04
4 -,604
*
0,084 0 -0,88 -0,33
5 -,915
*
0,083 0 -1,19 -0,64
6 0,079 0,081 0,998 -0,19 0,34
8 -0,085 0,089 0,999 -0,38 0,21
9 0,003 0,102 1 -0,33 0,34
10 0,307 0,102 0,107 -0,03 0,64
11 ,515
*
0,096 0 0,2 0,83
12 ,915
*
0,087 0 0,63 1,2
8
1 -,908
*
0,076 0 -1,16 -0,66
2 -0,197 0,09 0,553 -0,49 0,1
3 -0,216 0,078 0,201 -0,47 0,04
4 -,519
*
0,081 0 -0,79 -0,25
5 -,830
*
0,081 0 -1,1 -0,57
6 0,164 0,079 0,638 -0,09 0,42
7 0,085 0,089 0,999 -0,21 0,38
9 0,088 0,101 0,999 -0,24 0,42
10 ,391
*
0,1 0,005 0,06 0,72
11 ,599
*
0,095 0 0,29 0,91
12 ,999
*
0,085 0 0,72 1,28
9
1 -,996
*
0,091 0 -1,29 -0,7
2 -0,285 0,102 0,189 -0,62 0,05
3 -,304
*
0,093 0,049 -0,61 0
4 -,607
*
0,095 0 -0,92 -0,3
5 -,919
*
0,095 0 -1,23 -0,61
6 0,076 0,093 1 -0,23 0,38
7 -0,003 0,102 1 -0,34 0,33
8 -0,088 0,101 0,999 -0,42 0,24
10 0,303 0,112 0,221 -0,06 0,67
11 ,511
*
0,107 0 0,16 0,86
12 ,911
*
0,098 0 0,59 1,23
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 80
10
1 -1,299
*
0,091 0 -1,6 -1
2 -,588
*
0,102 0 -0,92 -0,25
3 -,607
*
0,092 0 -0,91 -0,3
4 -,910
*
0,095 0 -1,22 -0,6
5 -1,222
*
0,095 0 -1,53 -0,91
6 -0,227 0,093 0,377 -0,53 0,08
7 -0,307 0,102 0,107 -0,64 0,03
8 -,391
*
0,1 0,005 -0,72 -0,06
9 -0,303 0,112 0,221 -0,67 0,06
11 0,208 0,107 0,727 -0,14 0,56
12 ,608
*
0,098 0 0,29 0,93
11
1 -1,507
*
0,085 0 -1,78 -1,23
2 -,796
*
0,097 0 -1,11 -0,48
3 -,815
*
0,086 0 -1,1 -0,53
4 -1,118
*
0,089 0 -1,41 -0,83
5 -1,430
*
0,089 0 -1,72 -1,14
6 -,435
*
0,087 0 -0,72 -0,15
7 -,515
*
0,096 0 -0,83 -0,2
8 -,599
*
0,095 0 -0,91 -0,29
9 -,511
*
0,107 0 -0,86 -0,16
10 -0,208 0,107 0,727 -0,56 0,14
12 ,400
*
0,092 0,001 0,1 0,7
12
1 -1,907
*
0,073 0 -2,15 -1,67
2 -1,196
*
0,087 0 -1,48 -0,91
3 -1,215
*
0,075 0 -1,46 -0,97
4 -1,518
*
0,079 0 -1,78 -1,26
5 -1,830
*
0,078 0 -2,09 -1,57
6 -,835
*
0,076 0 -1,08 -0,59
7 -,915
*
0,087 0 -1,2 -0,63
8 -,999
*
0,085 0 -1,28 -0,72
9 -,911
*
0,098 0 -1,23 -0,59
10 -,608
*
0,098 0 -0,93 -0,29
11 -,400
*
0,092 0,001 -0,7 -0,1





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.



ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 109
Table 7-43 Descriptive Statistics: Region*Education Level- 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 ,02 ,232 185
2 ,39 1,327 202
3 ,90 1,917 1216
4 3,94 3,077 316
5 2,34 2,921 326
6 4,68 3,518 491
7 4,32 3,461 296
8 5,97 3,512 542
9 6,96 3,191 55
Total 2,08 3,221 4999
2 0 0,00 0,000 539
1 ,05 ,423 111
2 ,06 ,300 65
3 ,39 1,310 710
4 3,19 3,203 120
5 1,77 2,839 106
6 3,78 3,462 142
7 4,39 3,525 153
8 5,30 3,620 169
9 9,50 ,926 8
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 110
Total 1,43 2,819 2123
3 0 0,00 0,000 925
1 ,04 ,564 201
2 ,18 ,844 150
3 ,52 1,526 1223
4 3,97 3,055 241
5 1,44 2,141 215
6 3,90 3,300 305
7 3,97 3,240 229
8 5,43 3,050 376
9 7,58 2,552 24
Total 1,61 2,815 3889
4 0 0,00 0,000 1003
1 ,01 ,161 154
2 ,52 1,345 105
3 ,61 1,612 984
4 4,13 3,074 212
5 1,88 2,648 258
6 4,38 3,551 275
7 3,97 3,361 271
8 6,03 3,286 312
9 8,29 3,099 14
Total 1,76 2,999 3588
5 0 0,00 0,000 1034
1 0,00 0,000 123
2 ,36 1,512 75
3 ,57 1,524 865
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 111
4 3,70 3,267 223
5 2,25 2,820 249
6 4,17 3,519 329
7 4,21 3,537 255
8 5,62 3,422 394
9 6,70 3,196 87
Total 1,97 3,163 3634
6 0 0,00 0,000 1394
1 ,04 ,482 279
2 ,28 1,193 180
3 ,41 1,313 1177
4 3,04 2,986 320
5 1,45 2,496 190
6 3,36 3,193 300
7 3,65 3,475 172
8 5,43 3,575 260
9 7,69 2,811 26
Total 1,17 2,531 4298
7 0 0,00 0,000 862
1 ,01 ,073 190
2 ,09 ,668 89
3 ,48 1,509 681
4 3,15 3,084 192
5 1,65 2,566 124
6 4,04 3,411 173
7 3,70 3,325 136
8 5,86 3,076 156
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 112
9 8,71 1,380 7
Total 1,27 2,621 2610
8 0 0,00 0,000 773
1 0,00 0,000 228
2 ,18 ,868 113
3 ,42 1,328 836
4 2,83 2,951 175
5 2,12 2,689 131
6 3,72 3,408 144
7 3,62 3,063 149
8 5,74 3,394 175
9 8,00 2,793 11
Total 1,21 2,544 2735
9 0 0,00 0,000 504
1 0,00 0,000 136
2 ,06 ,385 67
3 ,39 1,402 421
4 2,97 3,246 88
5 1,64 2,922 105
6 3,16 3,559 135
7 2,65 3,242 72
8 4,80 3,864 92
9 3,00 1
Total 1,03 2,465 1621
10 0 0,00 0,000 1025
1 ,01 ,126 250
2 ,13 ,716 167
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 113
3 ,27 1,023 416
4 1,98 2,358 160
5 1,30 2,245 88
6 2,58 2,614 134
7 3,37 3,118 59
8 5,45 3,310 75
9 6,00 1,732 3
Total ,65 1,817 2377
11 0 0,00 0,000 1200
1 0,00 0,000 354
2 ,18 ,897 193
3 ,35 1,171 435
4 2,24 2,768 251
5 1,55 2,468 127
6 3,66 3,371 221
7 4,06 3,690 83
8 4,75 3,234 120
9 7,83 1,941 6
Total ,91 2,231 2990
12 0 0,00 0,000 1927
1 ,01 ,246 595
2 ,21 ,999 316
3 ,53 1,476 664
4 1,86 2,427 406
5 1,48 2,471 84
6 2,93 2,838 299
7 3,38 3,201 26
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 114
8 4,85 2,821 170
9 4,70 3,093 10
Total ,70 1,854 4497
Total 0 0,00 0,000 12556
1 ,01 ,269 2806
2 ,23 1,020 1722
3 ,53 1,502 9628
4 3,05 3,030 2704
5 1,83 2,659 2003
6 3,83 3,391 2948
7 3,94 3,399 1901
8 5,58 3,372 2841
9 7,16 3,033 252
Total 1,37 2,706 39361

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


ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 122
r: Region
Table 7-50 Dummy Table for Regions.
Region r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 r6 r7 r8 r9 r10 r11
Istanbul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Marmara 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegean 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eastern Marmara 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Western Anatolia 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mediterranean 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central Anatolia 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Western Black Sea 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Eastern Black Sea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Northeast Anatolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Eastern Anatolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Southeast Anatolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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.

Table 7-53 Coefficient Table for Computer Usage Frequency
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity Statistics
B Std.
Error
Beta Tolerance VIF
21 (Constant) ,076 ,005 15,478 ,000
e8 ,671 ,007 ,470 95,775 0,000 ,584 1,713
e6 ,418 ,007 ,297 61,334 0,000 ,597 1,676
e7 ,409 ,008 ,237 51,954 0,000 ,672 1,488
e4 ,267 ,007 ,182 36,535 ,000 ,563 1,776
w1 ,168 ,006 ,205 26,522 ,000 ,235 4,256
e5 ,169 ,008 ,100 22,100 ,000 ,683 1,465
Age -,002 ,000 -,129 -24,759 ,000 ,519 1,928
w2 ,091 ,006 ,119 14,983 ,000 ,221 4,525
r11 -,088 ,006 -,076 -15,346 ,000 ,573 1,744
g ,026 ,003 ,035 8,545 ,000 ,844 1,184
r10 -,088 ,006 -,063 -13,660 ,000 ,664 1,505
r9 -,088 ,007 -,057 -12,747 ,000 ,708 1,413
r5 -,068 ,006 -,057 -11,853 ,000 ,599 1,669
r8 -,083 ,008 -,044 -10,479 ,000 ,782 1,279
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 125
r6 -,065 ,007 -,044 -9,738 ,000 ,699 1,430
r7 -,063 ,007 -,043 -9,507 ,000 ,688 1,453
r1 -,061 ,007 -,037 -8,542 ,000 ,736 1,358
e3 ,019 ,005 ,022 3,728 ,000 ,394 2,535
r2 -,027 ,006 -,022 -4,566 ,000 ,621 1,611
r3 -,026 ,006 -,020 -4,292 ,000 ,638 1,568
r4 -,016 ,006 -,012 -2,662 ,008 ,639 1,564
a. Dependent Variable: 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

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity
Statistics
B Std.
Error
Beta Tolerance VIF
20 (Constant) ,467 ,026 18,172 ,000
e8 4,069 ,031 ,498 131,785 0,000 ,832 1,202
e6 2,394 ,030 ,298 79,497 0,000 ,846 1,183
e7 2,454 ,036 ,249 67,797 0,000 ,882 1,134
e4 1,845 ,033 ,221 55,597 0,000 ,754 1,326
e5 ,794 ,035 ,082 22,697 ,000 ,899 1,112
w1 1,131 ,026 ,241 43,385 0,000 ,384 2,602
Age -,020 ,000 -,194 -40,789 0,000 ,522 1,915
w2 ,830 ,026 ,191 32,447 ,000 ,343 2,919
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 129
g ,251 ,016 ,059 15,906 ,000 ,857 1,167
r11 -,610 ,030 -,092 -20,268 ,000 ,580 1,723
r9 -,523 ,036 -,059 -14,395 ,000 ,711 1,406
r10 -,403 ,034 -,050 -11,964 ,000 ,669 1,494
r5 -,341 ,030 -,050 -11,247 ,000 ,599 1,669
r8 -,412 ,041 -,039 -9,940 ,000 ,782 1,279
r2 -,281 ,031 -,039 -9,035 ,000 ,621 1,610
r7 -,269 ,035 -,032 -7,783 ,000 ,688 1,453
r1 -,278 ,038 -,030 -7,381 ,000 ,737 1,357
r6 -,254 ,035 -,030 -7,237 ,000 ,699 1,430
r3 -,176 ,032 -,024 -5,526 ,000 ,638 1,567
r4 -,065 ,032 -,009 -2,027 ,043 ,640 1,564
a. Dependent Variable: The Number of Activities Performed On Computer


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

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity Statistics
B Std.
Error
Beta Tolerance VIF
21 (Constant) ,077 ,005 15,845 ,000
e8 ,657 ,007 ,463 93,729 0,000 ,584 1,713
e6 ,408 ,007 ,292 59,770 0,000 ,597 1,676
e7 ,402 ,008 ,235 50,969 0,000 ,672 1,488
e4 ,266 ,007 ,183 36,346 ,000 ,563 1,776
w1 ,166 ,006 ,204 26,214 ,000 ,235 4,256
e5 ,162 ,008 ,097 21,258 ,000 ,683 1,465
Age -,002 ,000 -,129 -24,570 ,000 ,519 1,928
w2 ,091 ,006 ,121 15,056 ,000 ,221 4,525
r11 -,093 ,006 -,081 -16,165 ,000 ,573 1,744
g ,027 ,003 ,037 8,982 ,000 ,844 1,184
r10 -,092 ,006 -,066 -14,326 ,000 ,664 1,505
r9 -,090 ,007 -,058 -12,933 ,000 ,708 1,413
r5 -,070 ,006 -,059 -12,093 ,000 ,599 1,669
r8 -,090 ,008 -,048 -11,343 ,000 ,782 1,279
r6 -,072 ,007 -,049 -10,794 ,000 ,699 1,430
r7 -,066 ,007 -,045 -9,995 ,000 ,688 1,453
r1 -,059 ,007 -,036 -8,246 ,000 ,736 1,358
r2 -,030 ,006 -,024 -5,059 ,000 ,621 1,611
r3 -,027 ,006 -,021 -4,401 ,000 ,638 1,568
e3 ,017 ,005 ,020 3,285 ,001 ,394 2,535
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 133
r4 -,019 ,006 -,014 -3,066 ,002 ,639 1,564
a. Dependent Variable: The Internet Usage Frequency

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
a

Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity
Statistics
B Std.
Error
Beta Tolerance VIF
21 (Constant) ,541 ,034 15,976 ,000
e8 4,667 ,041 ,455 113,642 0,000 ,817 1,224
e6 2,998 ,040 ,297 74,688 0,000 ,826 1,210
e7 3,020 ,048 ,244 62,901 0,000 ,870 1,149
e4 2,028 ,044 ,193 45,847 0,000 ,737 1,357
e5 1,074 ,046 ,089 23,137 ,000 ,886 1,129
w1 1,449 ,035 ,246 41,508 0,000 ,372 2,686
Age -,024 ,001 -,183 -36,477 ,000 ,522 1,917
w2 1,030 ,034 ,189 29,887 ,000 ,328 3,050
ANALYZING DIGITAL DIVIDE AMONG REGIONS OF TURKEY - JUNE 18, 2014 136
g ,338 ,021 ,063 16,236 ,000 ,857 1,167
r11 -,670 ,040 -,080 -16,875 ,000 ,580 1,725
r9 -,676 ,048 -,061 -14,129 ,000 ,711 1,407
r10 -,576 ,044 -,057 -12,986 ,000 ,669 1,495
r5 -,455 ,040 -,053 -11,418 ,000 ,599 1,669
r8 -,489 ,055 -,037 -8,940 ,000 ,782 1,279
r7 -,368 ,046 -,035 -8,069 ,000 ,688 1,453
r6 -,331 ,046 -,031 -7,169 ,000 ,699 1,430
r2 -,264 ,041 -,030 -6,433 ,000 ,621 1,611
r1 -,303 ,050 -,026 -6,098 ,000 ,736 1,358
r4 -,146 ,042 -,016 -3,476 ,001 ,639 1,564
r3 -,131 ,042 -,014 -3,130 ,002 ,638 1,568
e2 -,115 ,049 -,009 -2,338 ,019 ,909 1,100
a. Dependent Variable: The Number of Activity Performed On The 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.

You might also like