Al Ain University of Science and Technology

College of Business Administration

Second Semester 2018-2019

case study

Course Title
Instructor’s Name

Student Name
Student ID
Discussion Questions

1. Explain what the t-test results in Figures C12.4 and C12.5 mean, stating an

appropriate hypothesis and null hypothesis for each.

Rebecca wishes to understand if there is a total mean distance food travels between the two

systems and then to know if there is a significant difference between the total mean carbon

footprint between the two systems. Her first speculation is, therefore:

H0: There is no tremendous difference between the total suggest mean meals travels between the

two systems.

H1: There is a extensive difference between the total mean distance food travels between the two

systems.

The hypothesized mean distinction underneath the null hypothesis (H0) is consequently zero. This

can be considered in the pop-out field in Figure C12.4. If the p-value below this take a look at is

less than 0.05, then at 5% significance, we can reject the null hypothesis.

As Figure C12.4 shows, the p-value is very small and so we can reject the null speculation and

conclude that there is a sizeable distinction between the total imply distance meals travels between

the two systems.

Since the pattern suggest distance for the Variable 1 (farm shops) is 53.5 and the pattern mean

distance for the Variable 2 (supermarkets) is 105.1786, Rebecca can safely say that the mean

distance that meals travels in the farm store device is statistically extensively less than the imply

distance that meals travels in the grocery store system.

To see if there is a great difference between the total mean carbon footprint between the two

systems, Rebecca’s 2d hypothesis is:

H0: There is no widespread distinction between the total mean carbon footprint between the two

systems.

H1: There is a substantial distinction between the total mean carbon footprint between the two

systems.

Again, the hypothesized mean difference underneath the null speculation (H0) is, therefore, zero

and once more if the p-value beneath the t-test take a look at is less than 0.05, then at 5%

significance, we can reject the null hypothesis. As Figure C12.5 shows, the p-value is also very

small and so we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a vast distinction between

the total mean carbon footprint between the two systems. Since the pattern mean carbon footprint

for the Variable 1 (farm shops) is 35.4985 and the pattern imply carbon footprint for the Variable 2

(supermarkets) is 11.42185, Rebecca can safely say that the imply carbon footprint from the farm

save gadget is statistically considerably increased than the mean carbon footprint from the grocery

store system.
2. With regard to Rebecca's research question, what would you conclude from these results

about the importance of distance traveled as opposed to the type of vehicle used?

The suggest distance food travels in the farm store scenario is statistically extensively less than the

mean distance meals travels in the supermarket scenario, however the carbon footprint of the farm

store journeys is statistically significantly higher. This occurs because each kilometer traveled

underneath the farm keep gadget is less efficient in phrases of how an awful lot produce is moved

and also because the carbon emissions of motors do no longer increase in line with the quantity

they can carry.

For example, in addition statistics from Defra (Table C12.1) suggests that the average carbon

emissions from a 33-tonne articulated lorry are 1.18355 kg CO2-e per vehicle km, whereas these

from a 3.5–7.5-tonne lorry are 0.68105 kg CO2-e per vehicle km. However, the data additionally

suggests that the average load that a 33-tonne articulated lorry includes is 11.31 tonnes but the

average load that a 3.5–7.5-tonne lorry includes is only 0.86 tonnes. This is due to the fact lorries

spend a lot of the time running about either empty or with solely partial loads. This is especially

genuine in small scale operations the place there is only small consumer demand (like a farm

shop). As a result, even though emissions from the 33-tonne lorry are about twice as lots due to the

fact on common they lift about thirteen instances as much, the carbon footprint for each tonne or

kg of produce is about six or seven times much less than the 3.5–7.5-tonne lorry. With cars, the

trouble is even worse. For every kilometer, a auto emits about one-sixth of the carbon that a 33-

tonne lorry does, however think how a good deal much less it can carry.
The conclusion of Rebecca’s analysis is that it matters much much less how a ways meals travels

(i.e. the ‘food miles’) however in which type of vehicle those journeys are taken. The greater the

lorry, the greater environmentally pleasant the experience would possibly be! It is really worth

thinking about this in relation to air freight as research with the aid of Williams (2007) shows how

it is extra carbon efficient to import flowers from Kenya to the UK than from Holland, due to the

fact in Holland, the flowers want extra heating electricity to grow than in Kenya (where they

develop naturally outside) and the total carbon emissions of the growing and the transport of the

flora from Kenya are lower.

3 Comment on Rebecca’s analysis and the assumptions she has made. What are the

implications of this for the validity and reliability of her findings?

Rebecca makes key assumptions; That each one farm store clients have traveled via an average

vehicle or That every one grocery store shoppers alternate known as via vehicle and that turned

into also an average car. The omissions of automobiles, according to the carbon emission facts

from Defra (010) varies from zero.17474 km CO-e in line with automobile km for a small diesel

automobile to zero.35396 kg CO2-in keeping with car km for a huge petrol vehicle. If all the

surveys taken with the aid of the fat consumers have been in a small diesel vehicle and all trips

taken by using supermarket store s had been in a big petrol vehicle, then the respective carbon

footprints might2e pretty one of a kind and will contest the validity of the outcomes.

How ver. there is no more purpose to suspect such an contrary use of motors and it's also more

likely that supermarket shoppers were capable of use public delivery than some distance

consumers due to where the stores are possibly to be city versus rural
although we do take the worst case scenario and expect all of the trips taken by means of the farm

buyers have been in a small diesel vehicle and all journeys taken via grocery store shoppers have

been in a huge petrol automobile, we can use the carbon emission statistics above to recalculate

and re-take a look at Rebecca's 2nd speculation.

4. What data would Rebecca need and what sort of analysis could Rebecca do in order to

take her research further as her project tutor suggests such as seeing how different aspects of

the supply chain affect total carbon emissions for different products within that supply

chain?

Given that married woman has found that, in keeping with her sample, the carbon emissions

related to the big scale (supermarket) distribution system ar lower, her supervisor is suggesting she

appearance at however totally different aspects of the availability chain have an effect on total

carbon emissions for various merchandise inside that offer chain. the total carbon emissions {for

totally different|for various} food merchandise vary quite significantly because of their different

production systems, {different|totally totally different|totally different} process systems and

different necessities for packaging or presentation and then on, right along the availability chain.

whether or not these totally different activities statistically considerably have an effect on the total

carbon footprint of the merchandise would need a multivariate analysis. married woman would

wish to gather information about the total carbon footprint of various merchandise (either from

scientifically reported sources or on the packs of various products) and for every product

additionally get information on the variables at the various stages of the availability chain that she

thinks would possibly influence total carbon footprint. The multivariate analysis, wherever the

total carbon footprint information would be the variable and also the variables from different
components of the availability chain would be the freelance (or ‘explanatory') variables, would tell

her that variables were necessary in explaining the variation within the carbon footprint of the

merchandise. The variables married woman enclosed would depend upon what she thought was

necessary in explaining variation within the carbon footprint of various merchandise. However, for

instance, married woman might collect information on, say 3 straightforward variables:

•The quantity of chemical employed in stuff production (kg)

•The energy employed in primary process (megawatts)

•The quantity of plastic employed in packaging (kg).

If we tend to denote the carbon footprint of merchandise as C, chemical use as F, energy in process

as E and plastic use as P, the equation married woman would be estimating would be:

C =α + β 1F + β 2E + β 3P +ε

If Rebecca might gather information on all of those variables for a variety of merchandise, she

might estimate this equation and also the extent the total carbon footprint for merchandise varied

because of these factors. By mistreatment the t -statistics, and p-values created by the analysis, she

might take a look at whether or not every variable had a statistically vital relationship with C. One

thing to note, however, is that these three variables are all continuous variables, in that they can be

measured on a continuous and fractional scale.