Gazdaság és Társadalom, 2014 (6. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)
2014 / 4. szám
56 Gazdaság & Társadalom / Journal of Economy & Society 2014. 4. szám 1449 in the 6 sampled settlements by KSH (2013), and 3 % of these businesses were planned to be included in the sample, therefore 43 such enterprises were selected. Then the planned number of other businesses was to be one third of this number, i.e. 12. As the key tourism attraction in the destinations is the spa, we planned to involve all spas (6) in the sample (ultimately 5 remained, as one spa was unable to participate in the research). As the municipalities are important generators of TDM cooperation, naturally the municipalities of the 6 selected destinations were also involved in the survey (ultimately, Lenti was not able to participate, so we questioned only 5 municipalities). Representatives of TDM organisations, and Tourinform organisations were also included (1 or 2 participants, in each settlement). This left us with a sample of 75 respondents. The sample was complemented by 25 local inhabitants - they are not key actors of the TDM organisation, but their opinions and attitudes towards tourists are important factors in the image and appeal of the destination. Finally we decided to divide the sample into 6 groups, by the destinations: 20 questionnaires were taken to the more popular destinations in Zala: Hévíz, Kehidakustány, Zalakaros, and 10 to the least popular Lenti. The remaining 30 questionnaires were divided between Marcali (20) and Siklós (10) to keep the proportions of counties Somogy and Baranya in the sample. The survey was made in September and October 2013. The data were processed by the MS-EXCEL 2010 package, and by the OpenStat statistics package (Miller, 2013). The analysis included simple descriptive statistics, frequencies, analysis of variance, correlations, and crosstabulation and contingency analysis with Chi2-test, and Cramér s V.. Graphical representation of data and results was made by the graphics module of OpenStat and by MS-EXCEL 2010. The significance tests were done at 5% error probability. Table 3: The statistical data of the surveyed towns and villages Population (person) Population per 100 houses and second homes used permanently Total places in commercial and noncommercial accommodations Food service providers Commercial accommodation places per 1000 inhabitants Other accommodation places per 1000 inhabitants Guest nights per inhabitants in all accommodations Hévíz 4 715 224 9 181 151 1310 636.90 228.00 Kehidakustány 1 189 265 1 952 22 650 991.59 41.74 Lenti 7 940 247 1 297 71 99 63.85 4.14 Zalakaros 1 756 245 7 596 84 2 312 2013.67 259.58 Marcali 11 736 242 180 445 10.22 0.30 Siklós 9 574 251 187 636 13.47 0.23 Source: KSH, 2013