2011 Erzurum Dünya Üniversitelerarası Kış oyunlarının Erzurum şehrine sosyo-kültürel ve ekonomik etkisi

Bu araştırmada, Jie ve Yan (2010) tarafından geliştirilen Mega organizasyon Etkisi (Mega Event Impact Scale) adlı ölçeğin, 2011 Erzurum Dünya Üniversitelerarası Kış oyunlarının yerel seyircileri üzerinde uygulanarak organizasyonun etkilerine (şehir imajını geliştirme ve sağlamlaştırma, turizm altyapısının gelişimi, ekonomik yararlar, kültürel değişim, çevresel ve kültürel koruma, ekonomik maliyetler, sosyal ve çevresel problemler ve kültürel çatışma) yönelik yerel seyirci görüşleri ve farklılıkları belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Belirlenen evrenin içerisinden basit tesadüfî örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen (%55) 226 erkek, (%45) 186 kadın olmak üzere toplam 412 yerli seyirci seçilmiştir. Mega organizasyonun etkisini belirlemede örneklem grubunun cinsiyet, eğitim durumu, yaş, meslek ve gelir durumu bakımından farklılıklarını belirlemek için, t-testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) kullanılmıştır. 2011 Erzurum Üniversiteler Kış Oyunları’nın yerel seyircilerinin organizasyonla ilgili düşünceleri incelendiğinde erkekler organizasyonun ekonomik katkısının daha fazla olduğuna, kadınlar ise çevresel katkısının daha fazla olduğuna inanmaktadır. Dahası, kadın katılımcılar erkeklere kıyasla organizasyonun olumsuz etkilerinden biri olan problemler ve kültürel çatışmanın varlığından söz etmektedir. Örneklem içerisinde 1501-2250 TL gelir düzeyine sahip olanlar organizasyonun şehir imajını geliştirmeye ve sağlamlaştırmaya pek katkı sağlamadığını, 751-1500 ve 1501-2250 TL arasında gelir düzeyine sahip olanlar ise organizasyonun sosyal ve çevresel sorunlar yarattığını düşünmektedir.

Socio-cultural and economic impact of Erzurum Winter Universiade 2011 on Erzurum city

This study aims at determining the difference among the opinions of local audiences attending Erzurum Winter Universiade 2011 organization regarding the impacts of this organization (city image enhancement and consolidation, tourism infrastructure, economics benefits, cultural exchange, environmental and culture preservation, economics costs, social and environmental problems, cultural conflicts). In order to obtain data, “Mega Event Impact Scale” developed by Jie ve Yan (2010) was administered to a total of 412 local audience; 226 male (55%) and 186 female (45%) determined among the population through random sampling method. In order to determine the overall impact of this organization, t-test and one-way ANOVA analysis were applied to the data obtained about gender, educational background, age, occupation and income level of the study subjects. When the opinions of the local spectators of Erzurum 2011 Winter Universiade as to the organization are analyzed, men turn out to believe that the organization has contributed economically whereas women seem to think the contribution has become environmental. What’s more; compared to male ones, female participants mention about the existence of the cultural conflicts and problems, which are some of the negative aspects of the organization. Within the sample, the ones that have incomes ranging from 1501 to 2250 TRY believe that the organization has not been much help to develop and consolidate the image of the city and on the other side the ones that have incomes ranging from 751 to 1500 and from 1501 to 2250 TRY think that the organization has posed social and environmental problems.

PDF

___

1. Allen LR, Hafer HR., Long R, and Perdue RR. Rural residents’ attitudes toward recreation and tourism development, Journal of Travel Research, 1993; 31(4): 27-33.
2. Barney R. Wenn S, and Martyn S. Selling the five rings: The International Olympic Committee and the rise of Olympic commercialism. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Pres, 2002.
3. Biçer T. Spor Yönetimi Organizasyonu, Ekonomik Birim Olarak Spor isletmeleri Ve Uygulamadan Bir Örnek. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yönetim ve Organizasyon Anabilin Dalı Doktora Tezi. İstanbul, 1994.
4. Bowdin G, McDonnell I, Allen, J, and O’Toole, W. Events management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002.
5. Burgan, B, and Mules T. Economic impact of sporting events. Annals of Tourism Research, 1992; 19(4): 700–710.
6. Can Y, Soyer F, ve Güven H. Spor Hizmetlerinde Verimliliği Etkileyen Faktörlerin Degerlendirilmesi. Bildiriler. Cilt II. Sporda Psiko-Sosyal Alanlar, Spor Yönetim Bilimleri 1. Gazi Beden Egitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Kongresi 26-27 Mayıs. Ankara. 2000.
7. Chalip L, Grenn C, and Hill B. Effects of sport event media on destination image and intention to visit. Journal of Sport Management, 2003; 17(3): 214–234.
8. Chalip L. Towards social leverage of sport events”. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 2007; 11(2): 1-19.
9. Crompton JL. The economic impact of 30 sports tournaments, festivals, and spectator events in seven U.S cities, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2000; 18(2): 107-126.
10. Deccio C, and Baloglu S. Nonhost community resident reactions to the 2002 Winter Olympics: the spillover impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 2002; 41(1): 46-56.
11. Dyer P, Gursoy D, Sharma B and Carter J. Structural modelling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management, 2007; 28(2): 409-422.
12. Etchner, C, and Ritchie J. The measurement of destination image: an empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 1993; 31(4): 3-13.
13. Fredline E, and Faulkner B. Host community reactions: a cluster analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 2000; (27): 763-784.
14. Gelan A. Local economic impacts:The British Open. Annals of Tourism Research, 2003; 30(2): 406–425.
15. Getz D. Event management and event tourism. New York: Cognizant Communication, 1997.
16. Gibson, H. Sport tourism:A critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review, 1998; 1(1): 45–76.
17. Goeldner CR, and Long, PT. The role and impact of megaevents and attractions on tourism development in North America. Proceedings of the 37th Congress of AIEST, 1987; (28): 119-131.
18. Gürsoy D, and Kendall KW. Hosting mega events: modelling locals’ support, Annals of Tourism Research, 2006; 33(3): 603-623.
19. Gündoğdu, C, Devecioğlu. S. Spor Hizmetlerinin Genel Ekonomi Çerçevesinde Görünümü" Fırat Üniversitesi. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları Dergisi (DAUM) Cilt: 6, Sayı:2, s.117-124, Şubat, Elazığ, 2008.
20. Gürsoy D, and Rutherford DG. Host attitudes toward tourism: an improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 2004; 31(3): 495-516.
21. Jago LK, and Shaw RN. Special events: a conceptual and definitional framework. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 1998); 5(1): 21-32.
22. Jeong GH. Residents' perceptions toward the tourism impacts of the '93 EXPO development on the city of Taejon. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1998; (18): l53-173.
23. Jeong GH, and Faulkner B. Resident perceptions of mega-event impacts: the Taejon international exposition case. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 1996; 4 (1): 3-11.
24. Jones C. Mega-events and host-region impacts: determining the true worth of the 1999 Rugby world cup. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2001; (3): 241-151.
25. Jie Y, Yan W, Developing a Mega Event Impact Scale”, International Conference on Education Technology and Computer (ICETC), 2010: 305-307.
26. Kim SS, and Petrick JF. Residents' perceptions on impacts of the FIFA2002 World Cup: the case of Seoul as a host city. Tourism Management, 2005; (26):.25-38.
27. Kim H, Gursoy D, and Lee SB. The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea: comparisons of pre- and post-games. Tourism Management, 2006, (27): 86-96.
28. Kang YS, and Perdue R. Long-term impact of a mega-event on international tourism to the host country: a conceptual model and the case of the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1994; 6(34): 205-226.
29. Karasar, N, Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, s.25, Nobel Yayınları. Ankara, 2005.
30. Kendall, K. W, and Var T. The perceived impact of tourism: The state of the art. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University, 1984.
31. Long PT, Perdue RR., and Allen L. Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 1990; 28(3): 3-9.
32. Mihalik BJ, and Cummings P. Host perceptions of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics: support, attendance, benefits and liabilities. Travel and tourism research association 26th annual proceedings. 1995; 397-400.
33. Özmen A, Uygulamalı araştırmalarda örnekleme yöntemleri. s.40, Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, Eskişehir, 2000.
34. Prasad D. Environment. In: Cashman, R. and Hughes, A. (eds.), Staging the Olympics: the Event and Its Impact. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1999; 83-92
35. Ritchie J. Assessing the impact of hallmark events: conceptual and research issues." Journal of Travel Research, 1984; (22): 2-11.
36. Ritchie JRB, and Aitken CE. Olympulse II: evolving resident attitudes toward the 1988 Olympic Winter Games, Journal of Travel Research, 1985; 23(1): 28-33.
37. Ritchie JRB, and Lyons M. Olympulse III/Olympulse IV: a mid-term report on resident attitudes concerning the XV Olympic Winter Games. Journal of Travel Research, 1987; 25(1): 18-26.
38. Searle G, Uncertain Legacy: Sydney’s Olympic Stadiums. European Planning Studies, 2002; 10(7); 845- 86.
39. Talimciler, A, Futbolun Metalaşması. Toplum Bilim Futbol Özel Sayısı, sayı 16, Ekim 2002.
40. Tosun C. Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study”, Annals of Tourism Research, 2002; 29(1): 231-245.
41. Witt SF. Mega-events and mega-attractions. Tourism Management, 1988; 9(1): 76-77.