ECON1193 Business Statistics 1 Team Assignment Report - 3A Submiting

Team Assignment Report_3A
First name Student ID Parts contributed Contribution % Signature

Quyen S3868477 Part 1+2+7 100% Quyen
Thuy S3870273 Part 5+6+7 100% Thuy
Tung S3803531 Part 5+6+7 100% Tung
Trang S3749503 Part 3+4+7 100% Trang
Long S3789095 Part 3+4+7 100% David
BUSINESS STATISTICS – ECON1193B

Page count: 11 (Excluding tables, figure, cover page, references and appendix)
 ECON1193B-Business Statistics 1
Table of Contents
Team Assignment Report_3A............................................................0
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................2
Part 1: Data collection...................................................................................................................2
Part 2: Descriptive Statistics.........................................................................................................2
2.1 – Measurements of Central Tendency...................................................................................2
2.2 – Measurements of variation..................................................................................................3
3. Multiple Regression (From your collected data)....................................................................3
3.1. Backward elimination............................................................................................................3
3.2. High Income Regression Model.............................................................................................4
3.3. Low-Income Group................................................................................................................5
3.4. Upper-Middle Income Group................................................................................................5
3.5. Lower-Middle Income Group................................................................................................6
4. Team Regression conclusion.....................................................................................................8
5. Times Series................................................................................................................................9
5.1. GERMANY.............................................................................................................................9
5.2. BELARUS.............................................................................................................................11
5.3. CAMBODIA..........................................................................................................................13
5.4. ETHIOPIA............................................................................................................................16
6. Time Series Conclusion:......................................................................................................19
7. Overall Team Conclusion:...................................................................................................20
8. Appendix:..............................................................................................................................21
8.1. High-Income Group..........................................................................................................21
8.2. Low-Income Group..........................................................................................................23
8.3. Upper-Middle Income group...........................................................................................24
8.4. Lower-Middle Income Group..........................................................................................26
9. References list:......................................................................................................................28
1
1. Introduction
The following report is focused on Substantial Development Goal 9 (SDG 9), established by
the U.S (United States). (2015). We placed in some calculations to provide a more detailed
conclusion with a strong comparison between a few aspects of CO2 emissions around the world.
Our analysis will highlight principal factors, evaluate the risks as well as forecast the upcoming
CO2 emissions. In some results, this will benefit SDG9.
Part 1: Data collection
Variables Units
CO2 emissions metric ton per capita
GNI per capita, Atlas method US$
Renewable electricity output % of the total electricity output
Air transport, freight million ton-km
Air transport, passengers carried. people
Part 2: Descriptive Statistics
Income level Acronym GNI per capita

Low-Income countries LI Less than $1,000 per capita
Lower-Middle Income LMI Between $1,000 and $4,000 per
countries capita
Upper-Middle Income UMI Between $4,001 and $12,250
countries per capita
High-Income countries HI Greater than $12,250 per
capita
2.1 – Measurements of Central Tendency

Low-Income Lower-Middle Upper-Middle High-Income
countries (LI) Income countries Income countries countries (HI)
(LMI) (UMI)
Mean 0.18 1.16 3.83 9.03
Median 0.2 1.05 2.7 7.7
Mode 0.3 0.6 2.6 5.8
FIGURE 1: MEASURE OF CENTRAL TENDENCY
countries (LI) Income countries Income countries countries (HI)
(LMI) (UMI)
2

Q1 0.1 0.6 2.5 5.8
Q3 0.3 1.73 5.3 9.43
Q1 –1.5*IQR -0.2 -1.09 -1.7 0.36
Q3 +1.5*IQR 0.6 3.41 9.5 14.86
Minimum 0 0.5 1.2 4.1
Maximum 0.3 2.4 8.3 24
outliers 0.6 3.4 9.5 0.36
FIGURE 2: TABLE SHOWING THE OUTLIERS IN LOW-, LOWER-MIDDLE, UPPER-MIDDLE- AND HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES.
2.2 – Measurements of variation

countries (LI) Income Income countries countries (HI)
countries (LMI (UMI)

Range 0.3 1.9 7.1 19.9
Interquartile 0.2 1.13 2.8 3.63
Range (IQR)

Variance 0.02 0.4 4.37 24.6
Standard 0.13 0.63 2.09 4.96
Deviation (SD)

Coefficient of 72 54 54 55
variation (CV)

FIGURE 3: TABLE SHOWING THE MEASUREMENT OF VARIATION.
3. Multiple Regression (From your collected data)

3.1. Backward elimination
In order to create a regression model to estimate the CO2 emission numbers for four groups
of nations, where all independent variables are significant at a 5 percent significance level,
we had to take the backward elimination procedures to get to the final model. The former
variable, however, can only be correctly estimated if it has a statistically significant
relationship with the latter variables, implying that there is a correlation between the
dependent variable shifts and the independent variables changes. In this case, backward
elimination will therefore be applied to find the final model where all independent variables
3
are relevant. Our degree of significance is 5 percent, meaning alpha is 0.05. Thus, the final
model is generated as below after eliminating non-significant predictors.
4
3.2. High Income Regression Model

Unfortunately for this income group, there were no model that had a p-value of lower
than 0.05. Through backward propagation, starting with the independent variable with the
highest p-value, the last model included only Renewable electric output, but was still not
able to be a significant predictor of CO2:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.265175886
R Square 0.070318251
Adjusted R Square 0.023834163
Standard Error 4.90105666
Observations 22
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 36.33650859 36.33651 1.512738113 0.232993904
Residual 20 480.4071278 24.02036
Total 21 516.7436364
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 10.29458239 1.467492487 7.015084 8.33424E-07 7.233446702 13.35571808 7.233446702 13.35571808
renewable electirc output -0.046811304 0.038060007 -1.22993 0.232993904 -0.126203087 0.032580479 -0.126203087 0.032580479
Model equation: CO2=10.3-0.04681*renewable electric output
The coefficient of determination was rather low, 0.07, suggesting that about 7% of the
independent variable is predicted by the dependent variable.
CO2 esmission vs. Renewable electric output: HI group

30
25
20
CO2 Emissions
15
10
f(x) = − 0.05 x + 10.29
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Renewable electric Output
5
The scatterplot is inconclusive since renewable electric output is not a significant

predictor of CO2 emissions.
3.3. Low-Income Group

Once again, with this group there was no model with an independent variable as a
significant predictor of CO2. All p-values were above 0.05, and p-value was still above
0.05 even after backward propagation.
The model with the lowest p-value of 0.23:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.430638566
Observations 5
ANOVA
Regression 1 0.029283422 0.029283422 2.269060773 0.229067503
Residual 3 0.038716578 0.012905526
Total 4 0.068
Intercept -0.409625668 0.394712544 -1.037782241 0.375672611 -1.665777146 0.846525809 -1.665777146 0.846525809
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 0.000989305 0.000656761 1.506340192 0.229067503 -0.0011008 0.00307941 -0.0011008 0.00307941
Model equation: CO2=-0.41+0.00099*GNI per capita

The r-square of 0.43 can be interpreted that about 43% of the dependent variables can be
predicted by the dependent variable. However, this should not be considered as a
significant insight considering how sparse the model was. There were very few data
points, and the p-value showed that the model was not a significant predictor of CO2.
CO2 emissions vs. GNI per capita: LI group

0.35
0.30
f(x) = 0 x − 0.41
0.25
CO2 Emissions
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
400.00 450.00 500.00 550.00 600.00 650.00 700.00 750.00
GNI per capita
6
The scatterplot is inconclusive since GNI is not a significant predictor of CO2 emissions,
and the data points were too sparse.
3.4. Upper-Middle Income Group
For this group, the final model included renewable electric output. The p-value of lower
than 0.05 suggested that this variable is indeed a significant predictor of CO2 emissions.
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.308318901
Observations 19
ANOVA
Regression 1 24.24133015 24.24133015 7.577800398 0.013588557
Residual 17 54.38288037 3.198992963
Total 18 78.62421053
Intercept 5.193827574 0.641380221 8.097891715 3.09169E-07 3.840633594 6.547021555 3.840633594 6.547021555
renewable electirc output -0.037821217 0.013739278 -2.752780485 0.013588557 -0.066808561 -0.008833874 -0.066808561 -0.008833874
Model equation: 5.19-0.038*Renewable electric output=CO2
CO2 esmission vs. renewable electric output: UMI group

9
8
7
6
CO2 Emissions
5
f(x) = − 0.04 x + 5.19
4
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Renewable Electric Output
The negative coefficient suggested that if renewable electric output increases by one unit,
CO2 emissions would go down by -0.0378 unit.
The r square suggested that about 30.8% of the dependent variables can be predicted by
the independent variables.
7
3.5. Lower-Middle Income Group

For this income group, GNI per capita and Air transport (freight) were two significant
predictors of CO2 emissions.
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.614849208
Observations 14
ANOVA
Regression 2 3.218296428 1.609148214 8.780121243 0.005259802
Residual 11 2.015989286 0.183271753
Total 13 5.234285714
Intercept 0.091643458 0.324555589 0.282365983 0.78290508 -0.622698576 0.805985492 -0.622698576 0.805985492
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 0.000385489 0.000125291 3.076741595 0.010532389 0.000109725 0.000661253 0.000109725 0.000661253
Air transport, freight 0.000692063 0.000231905 2.984248172 0.012424793 0.000181643 0.001202484 0.000181643 0.001202484
Model Equation: CO2=0.092+0.000385*GNI per capita+0.000692*Air transport (freight)

This model achieved a relatively high r-square of 0.61: about 61% of the dependent
variables can be predicted by the independent variables.
The coefficients for both independent variables are positive. The coefficients suggest that
as GNI and air transport increase, CO2 increases.
CO2 emission vs. GNI per capita: LMI Group

3
2.5
2
CO2 Emissions
1.5
0.5
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
GNI per capita
8
CO2 emission vs. Air transport, freight: LMI Group

3
2.5
2
CO2 Emissions
1.5
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Air transport, freight
4. Team Regression conclusion

To compare the final regressions in the categories of each nation, the models for four groups of
countries have different significant independent variables at 5 percent significance from the
effects of backward elimination. In High-Income group regression, renewable energy output is
not being able to be a significant predictor of CO2. Similarity, Low-Income group data shows
that there was no statistically significant relationship with the CO2 emission and GNI per capita.
These findings suggest that in case of Upper-Middle Income Group, there is only “renewable
electric output” variable which is statistically significant with the p-value lower than 0.05, only
this variable have an impact on the predictor of CO2 emissions. Regarding the Lower-Middle
Income Group, it shows that GNI per capita and air transport (freight) are 100 percent likely to
have a statistically significant relationship with the CO2 emission predictor, which means these
two variables have the higher effect of on CO2 emissions.
To sum up by non-technical writing, the groups with financial opportunities used to prevent and
handle environmental issues will impact changes in economic development and welfare. It is
important to know, in this finding, whether economic growth and CO2 emissions will coincide or
not. A small portion of the excess income is usually allocated to environmental problems at the
early stage of economic growth and, thus, the industrialization process is likely to be followed by
environmental problems at this stage. The amount of air pollution usually decreases as the
standard of living increases and reaches a certain threshold.
9
5. Times Series
5.1. GERMANY

Regression from 1990 - 2015
FIGURE 4: LINEAR REGRESSION OF GERMANY FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is negative meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the number of
Germany’s CO2 emission is predicted to decrease by 0.112% every year.

FIGURE 5: QUADRATIC REGRESSION OF GERMANY FROM 1990 – 2015.

The coefficient x is negative and the coefficient on x^2 is positive meaning that time (x) has
a negative effect on CO2 emission in this country (y) until it reaches a turning point in time.
10
FIGURE 6: EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION OF GERMANY FROM 1990 – 2015.

The coefficient x is negative meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the CO2
emission in Germany is predicted to decrease by antilog (-0.0044) = 0.999% every year.

Regression Output

To pick out the best trend model in Germany, a hypothesis testing was conducted.

Hypothesis testing for Linear Trend
H0: b1 = 0 (There is no linear trend)
H1: b1 ≠ 0 (There is linear trend)
As P - value of b1 (2.0833E-13) < α (0.05) => H0 is rejected.
With 95% level of confidence, there is a linear trend.

Hypothesis testing for Quadratic Trend
H0: b2 = 0 (There is no quadratic trend)
H1: b2 ≠ 0 (There is quadratic trend)
As P - value of b2 (0.014) < α (0.05) => H0 is rejected.
With 95% level of confidence, there is a quadratic trend.

Hypothesis testing for Exponential Trend
H0: b1 = 0 (There is no exponential trend)
H1: b1 ≠ 0 (There is an exponential trend)
11
 With 95% level of confidence, there is an exponential trend.
Based on the result above, all three trend models are applicable. By comparing the R squares, our
team will be able to pick out the best trend model to predict the CO2 emissions in Germany. The
most suitable trend model to forecast the CO2 emission in Germany is the quadratic model
because its R square is higher than exponential and linear (0.92 > 0.91 > 0.9).

Germany. The most suitable trend model to forecast the CO2 emission in Germany is the
quadratic model because its R square is higher than exponential and linear (0.92 > 0.91 > 0.9).
5.2. BELARUS


FIGURE 7: LINEAR REGRESSION OF BELARUS FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is negative meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the number of
Belarus’ CO2 emission is predicted to decrease by 0.056% every year.
12

FIGURE 8: QUADRATIC REGRESSION OF BELARUS FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is negative and the coefficient on x^2 is positive meaning that time (x) has a
negative effect on CO2 emission in this country (y) until it reaches a turning point in time.

FIGURE 9: EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION OF BELARUS FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is negative meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the CO2 emission
in Belarus is predicted to decrease by antilog (-0.0027) = 0.994% every year.

Regression Output
13

To pick out the best trend model in Belarus, a hypothesis testing was conducted.

As P - value of b1 (0.065) > α (0.05) => H0 is accepted.
With 95% level of confidence, there is no linear trend.


As P - value of b1 (0.12) > α (0.05) => H0 is accepted.
With 95% level of confidence, there is no exponential trend.

Based on the result above, only one of the three trend models are applicable. Thus, the most
suitable trend model to forecast the CO2 emission in Belarus is the quadratic model.
5.3. CAMBODIA


14

FIGURE 9: LINEAR REGRESSION OF CAMBODIA FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is positive meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the number of
Cambodia’s CO2 emission is predicted to increase by 0.013% every year.

FIGURE 10: QUADRATIC REGRESSION OF CAMBODIA FROM 1990 – 2015.
15

FIGURE 11: EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION OF CAMBODIA FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is positive, meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the CO2 emission
in Cambodia is predicted to increase by antilog (0.0226) = 1.05% every year.

Regression Output

To pick out the best trend model in Cambodia, a hypothesis testing was conducted.



16

With 95% level of confidence, there is an exponential trend.

Based on the result above, all of the three trend models are applicable. By comparing the R
squares, our team will be able to pick out the best trend model to predict the CO2 emissions in
Cambodia. The most suitable trend model to forecast the CO2 emission in Cambodia is the
quadratic model because its R square is higher than exponential and linear (0.96 > 0.9 > 0.8).
5.4. ETHIOPIA


FIGURE 12: LINEAR REGRESSION OF ETHIOPIA FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is positive meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the number of
Germany’s CO2 emission is predicted to increase by 0.0023% every year.
17

FIGURE 13: QUADRATIC REGRESSION OF ETHIOPIA FROM 1990 – 2015.

FIGURE 14: EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION OF ETHIOPIA FROM 1990 – 2015.
The coefficient x is positive, meaning that as the number of years’ increases, the CO2 emission
in Ethiopia is predicted to increase by antilog (0.0136) = 1.032% every year.

Regression Output
18

To pick out the best trend model in Ethiopia, a hypothesis testing was conducted.


With 95% level of confidence, there is an exponential trend.

Based on the result above, all of the three trend models are applicable. By comparing the R
squares, our team will be able to pick out the best trend model to predict the CO2 emissions in
Ethiopia. The most suitable trend model to forecast the CO2 emission in Ethiopia is the quadratic
model because its R square is higher than exponential and linear (0.89 > 0.69 > 0.66).
Predicting the CO2 emissions.
19
FIGURE 15: PREDICTIONS FOR FOUR COUNTRIES IN 2018, 2019, 2020
6. Time Series Conclusion:
FIGURE 16: LINE GRAPH OF THE CO2 EMISSIONS IN 4 COUNTRIES IN 25-YEAR PERIOD (1990-2015).
20
Given the line graph demonstrates the alteration in the amount of CO2 Emissions in four nations
namely, Germany, Belarus, Cambodia and Ethiopia for 25 years (1990 to 2015). It is explicitly
observed that there is a wide gap between the CO2 Emissions trends in 4 countries while
Cambodia and Ethiopia leveled out through these years. Looking at the graph more closely, the
amount of carbon dioxide in Germany stood at 13,314 PPM by the year 1990 then dipped
notably to 11,579 PPM 5 years later. Although, the amount of C02 Emissions in Germany went
up moderately afterwards (1996), but with the effort German government in order to decrease the
greenhouse gases so that these amounts of emissions were decreased significantly by nearly 2
MPC (Federal Ministry for the Environment, 2017).
Started at above 10 PPM at the beginning of the period, nevertheless, this number nearly halved
to 5,75 PPM due to a deliration in production and improvement of energy which changes fuel
fossil product as well as the adoption of new law on energy saving or renewable energy (USAid,
2019). Thereby, the tendency of emissions in Belarus was stable in the eighteen years, though
there were some slight shifts.
In contrast, Cambodia was nearly relatively flat, however, an upward trend was seen in 2014
onwards. A similar pattern was seen in Ethiopia while the CO2 Emissions curve of this low-
income country remained constant from a negligible 0,1 PPM.
 Therefore, mentioned from part 5 clearly depicted that 4 nations follow a trend model
which is regarded as a Quadratic trend. Finding the best trend model for the sake of CO2
emissions in the world, a calculation was utilized to improve that the coefficient of
determination is higher than the exponential and linear trend model. Indeed, the R
multiplier explains how well the regression model is suitable with observed figures and
tends to be a reliable predictor of foresee changes.
7. Overall Team Conclusion:

The world can be categorized into different income categories: high, upper middle, lower
middle- and low-income countries. With different GNI, each income category behaves in
different ways, resulting in being affected by different problems. According to Part 3, Multiple
Regression, there was some trouble trying to find a reliable model that affects the CO2 emission
levels in high income countries as there is no model that had a p-value lower than 0.05. Same
goes for low-income groups which doesn’t provide any significant predictor of CO2. However,
in upper-middle income countries, renewable electric output showed that it affected CO2
emissions with the p-value of under 0.05. As renewable electric output increases, the CO2
emissions decrease. Renewable energy sources have proven to reduce CO2 emissions and
increase energy output worldwide. (United Nations, 2018) For the last income group, there are
two factors that predict CO2 emissions which are GNI per capita and air transport. This model
has an r-square of 0.61 meaning that 61% of CO2 emissions can be predicted with these two
factors. Positive coefficients show that as these two factors increase, CO2 emissions increase as
21
well. As an online news article writes, in recent years, airlines’ CO2 emissions are rising up to
70% faster than predicted, contributing further to the bad environment. (Gwyn Topman, 2019)
As concluded in Part 6, the best time series model to calculate CO2 emissions is the quadratic
model. Thus, using the equation for each country, we can come up with the CO2 levels for the
four countries as such.
 Germany: ŷ = 11188.75 - 11.05(2030) + 0.003(2030^2) = 1119.95 metric ton per capita

 Belarus: ŷ = 61764.51 - 61.62(2030) + 0.015(2030^2) = -1510.59 metric ton per capita
 Cambodia: ŷ = 3401.27 - 3.41(2030) + 0.001(2030^2) = 599.87 metric ton per capita
 Ethiopia: ŷ = 808.9 - 81(2030) + 0.0002(2030^2) = -162796.92 metric ton per capita
The results above show a variation in CO2 emissions in 2030 in these four countries from four
different income category groups.
Throughout the report, we have discussed what impacts CO2 but never mentioned how much
CO2 is emitted. By dividing countries into income groups, it can be seen that high and upper-
middle income countries contribute to 86% of global CO2 emissions as compared to lower-
middle- and low-income country’s 14%. (Hannah Ritchie, 2018) As discussed in Part 3, to be
able to reduce the level of emissions, three factors must be taken into account: renewable
electric output, GNI and air transport.
Renewable energy are sources that don't deplete or become extinct like wind or solar energy. Out
of all the renewable energy sources, wind power is the cheapest but also the noisiest. Solar
energy is expensive but very successful to implement in neighborhoods. (E. H. Lysen et al.,
1989)
One problem with low-income countries is the lack of sexual education, leading to a big human
population growth. A big population is tied to a higher CO2 emission level. This problem is
visibly seen in India, where the air quality is heavily populated. Even in high income countries
like the United States, the richer the country the better the technology. With most American
households owning at least one car. (Biological Diversity)
As more people are able to afford flights, commercial airlines are a booming business. By
calculating aviation’s carbon footprint, it is calculated that every hour of flight results in ¼ ton of
carbon dioxide. (Carbon Independent)
These are the three factors that should be focused on to reduce CO2 worldwide. By
implementing more renewable energy outputs, fund more for education or public transportation,
and divert people to other types of transportation that reduce CO2 emissions.
22
8. Appendix:
8.1. High-Income Group
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.220077797
Observations 22
ANOVA
Regression 4 113.723801 28.43095 1.199261456 0.347070632
Residual 17 403.0198353 23.70705
Total 21 516.7436364
Intercept 7.404992713 2.694898306 2.747782 0.013731693 1.719254288 13.0907311 1.719254288 13.0907311
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 0.000118162 8.68768E-05 1.360108 0.191560639 -6.51322E-05 0.00030146 -6.51322E-05 0.00030146
Air transport, freight -0.0004769 0.000435195 -1.09582 0.288438728 -0.001395076 0.00044128 -0.001395076 0.00044128
Air transport, passengers carried 1.40E-08 3.61625E-08 0.386307 0.704061772 -6.23264E-08 9.0266E-08 -6.23264E-08 9.0266E-08
FIGURE. HIGH INCOME GROUP: FULL MODEL WITH ALL VARIABLES REGRESSION MODELS.
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.070318251
Observations 22
ANOVA
Regression 1 36.33650859 36.33651 1.512738113 0.232993904
Residual 20 480.4071278 24.02036
Total 21 516.7436364
Intercept 10.29458239 1.467492487 7.015084 8.33424E-07 7.233446702 13.35571808 7.233446702 13.35571808
FIGURE. HIGH INCOME GROUP: AIR TRANSPORT, PASSENGERS CARRIED REMOVED REGRESSION
MODELS.
23
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Multiple R 1
R Square 1
Adjusted R Square 65535
Standard Error 0
Observations 5
ANOVA
Regression 4 0.068 0.017 #NUM! #NUM!
Residual 0 0 65535
Total 4 0.068
Intercept 0.901098805 0 65535 #NUM! 0.901098805 0.901098805 0.901098805 0.901098805
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) -0.000970702 0 65535 #NUM! -0.000970702 -0.000970702 -0.000970702 -0.000970702
renewable electirc output -0.005859936 0 65535 #NUM! -0.005859936 -0.005859936 -0.005859936 -0.005859936
Air transport, freight -0.001276687 0 65535 #NUM! -0.001276687 -0.001276687 -0.001276687 -0.001276687
Air transport, passengers carried 2.73652E-07 0 65535 #NUM! 2.73652E-07 2.73652E-07 2.73652E-07 2.73652E-07
FIGURE. FULL MODEL: LOW INCOME GROUP REGRESSION ANALYSIS.
Note: after some investigations, it seemed like the GNI caused the full model to get invalid
results for some key statistics, therefore GNI was taken out and evaluated separately
1. GNI removed
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.939866562
Observations 5
ANOVA
Regression 3 0.063910926 0.021303642 5.209894229 0.309067286
Residual 1 0.004089074 0.004089074
Total 4 0.068
Intercept 0.256815379 0.047646306 5.390037574 0.11678263 -0.348588338 0.862219095 -0.348588338 0.862219095
Air transport, freight -0.000962 0.000310001 -3.103215045 0.198459457 -0.004900936 0.002976937 -0.004900936 0.002976937
FIGURE. GNI REMOVED REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HIGH-INCOME GROUP .
8.2. Low-Income Group

1. Air transport, freight removed:
24
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.36078494
Adjusted R Square -0.27843012
Observations 5
ANOVA
Regression 2 0.024533376 0.012266688 0.564418711 0.63921506
Residual 2 0.043466624 0.021733312
Total 4 0.068
Intercept 0.27198247 0.1092654 2.489191186 0.130528498 -0.198148601 0.742113541 -0.198148601 0.742113541
FIGURE. AIR TRANSPORT, FREIGHT REMOVED REGRESSION MODEL FOR LOW-

INCOME GROUP.
1. Air transport, passengers carried removed:

SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.350018734
Observations 5
ANOVA
Regression 1 0.023801274 0.023801274 1.615517645 0.293322152
Residual 3 0.044198726 0.014732909
Total 4 0.068
Intercept 0.271019376 0.089859201 3.016044799 0.056937599 -0.014952706 0.556991458 -0.014952706 0.556991458
1. Model with only GNI:

SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.430638566
Observations 5
ANOVA
Regression 1 0.029283422 0.029283422 2.269060773 0.229067503
Residual 3 0.038716578 0.012905526
Total 4 0.068
Intercept -0.409625668 0.394712544 -1.037782241 0.375672611 -1.665777146 0.846525809 -1.665777146 0.846525809
FIGURE: REGRESSION MODEL WITH ONLY GNI FOR LOW-INCOME GROUP
25
8.3. Upper-Middle Income group

SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.496965307
Observations 19
ANOVA
Regression 4 39.07350491 9.768376228 3.457770603 0.036504221
Residual 14 39.55070561 2.825050401
Total 18 78.62421053
Intercept 3.379495485 1.399031249 2.415596854 0.0299598 0.378871885 6.380119084 0.378871885 6.380119084
Air transport, freight 0.000128842 0.000590757 0.21809621 0.830501116 -0.001138205 0.001395889 -0.001138205 0.001395889
FIGURE: FULL MODEL FOR UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.
1. Air transport, passengers carried removed:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.496959639
Observations 19
ANOVA
Regression 3 39.07305925 13.02435308 4.939560291 0.013961618
Residual 15 39.55115127 2.636743418
Total 18 78.62421053
Intercept 3.374256781 1.290135566 2.615428076 0.019490748 0.624397916 6.124115647 0.624397916 6.124115647
Air transport, freight 0.000136174 8.74526E-05 1.557117319 0.140286973 -5.02269E-05 0.000322575 -5.02269E-05 0.000322575
FIGURE: AIR TRANSPORT, PASSENGERS CARRIED REMOVED REGRESSION

ANALYSIS FOR UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.
2. GNI removed:
26
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.434610872
Observations 19
ANOVA
Regression 2 34.17093668 17.08546834 6.149546924 0.010441902
Residual 16 44.45327384 2.778329615
Total 18 78.62421053
Intercept 4.933289896 0.613406169 8.042452364 5.1771E-07 3.632926907 6.233652884 3.632926907 6.233652884
Air transport, freight 0.00016476 8.71522E-05 1.890488917 0.076944969 -1.99941E-05 0.000349515 -1.99941E-05 0.000349515
FIGURE: GNI REMOVED REGRESSION MODEL FOR UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME

GROUP.
1. Final Model:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.308318901
Observations 19
ANOVA
Regression 1 24.24133015 24.24133015 7.577800398 0.013588557
Residual 17 54.38288037 3.198992963
Total 18 78.62421053
Intercept 5.193827574 0.641380221 8.097891715 3.09169E-07 3.840633594 6.547021555 3.840633594 6.547021555
FIGURE. FINAL MODEL FOR UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.
8.4. Lower-Middle Income Group

1. Full model:
27
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.625399552
Observations 14
ANOVA
Regression 4 3.27351994 0.818379985 3.75639965 0.045969728
Residual 9 1.960765774 0.217862864
Total 13 5.234285714
Intercept 0.122878843 0.372911495 0.329512082 0.749308033 -0.720705566 0.966463252 -0.720705566 0.966463252
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 0.000418067 0.000153051 2.731550245 0.023165691 7.18412E-05 0.000764293 7.18412E-05 0.000764293
Air transport, freight 0.000804003 0.000686104 1.171838396 0.271348086 -0.000748072 0.002356079 -0.000748072 0.002356079
Air transport, passengers carried -2.65003E-09 1.06897E-08 -0.247904705 0.809771613 -2.68318E-08 2.15318E-08 -2.68318E-08 2.15318E-08
FIGURE. FULL MODEL FOR LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.
2. Air transport, passenger carried removed:
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.622841583
Observations 14
ANOVA
Regression 3 3.260130798 1.086710266 5.504685865 0.017094897
Residual 10 1.974154916 0.197415492
Total 13 5.234285714
Intercept 0.136878526 0.350886791 0.390093128 0.704647621 -0.644945965 0.918703017 -0.644945965 0.918703017
Air transport, freight 0.000647875 0.000259124 2.500252747 0.03143323 7.05111E-05 0.001225238 7.05111E-05 0.001225238
FIGURE. AIR TRANSPORT, PASSENGER CARRIED REMOVED MODEL FOR LOWER-

MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.
1. Final Model:
28
SUMMARY OUTPUT
R Square 0.614849208
Observations 14
ANOVA
Regression 2 3.218296428 1.609148214 8.780121243 0.005259802
Residual 11 2.015989286 0.183271753
Total 13 5.234285714
Intercept 0.091643458 0.324555589 0.282365983 0.78290508 -0.622698576 0.805985492 -0.622698576 0.805985492
Air transport, freight 0.000692063 0.000231905 2.984248172 0.012424793 0.000181643 0.001202484 0.000181643 0.001202484
FIGURE. FINAL MODEL FOR LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.
29
30
9. References list:
1. 'Carbon Footprint of Aviation', Carbon Independent,
<https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html>.
2. 'Human population growth and climate change', Biological Diversity,

<https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/
>.
3. Lysen, ES 1989, 'The Potential of Renewable Energy to Reduce CO2

Emissions', Climate and Energy: The Feasibility of Controlling CO2 Emissions, pp.
78-79, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0485-9_6 database.
4. Ritchie, H 2018, 'Human population growth and climate change', Our World in Data,
<https://ourworldindata.org/co2-by-income-region>.
5. 2018, 'Renewable Energy Sources Cut Carbon Emissions, Efficiently Increase

Electricity Output Worldwide, Delegates Say in Second Committee', United Nation,
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/gaef3501.doc.ht>.
6. Topham, G 2019, 'Airlines' CO2 emissions rising up to 70% faster than predicted', The
Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/19/airlines-co2-
emissions-rising-up-to-70-faster-than-predicted>.
7. Federal Ministry for the Environment 2017, 'Germany‘s Third Biennial

Report', Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and
Nuclear Safety (BMUB), 6 December, viewed 10 January 2021,
<https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/BR%20Germany-br3-1-
171220_3__biennial_report_to_unfccc.pdf>.
8. USAID 2019, 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Belarus', United States Agency -

International Development, January, viewed 13 January 2021,
<https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiUpt3VxZ3uAhViNKYK
HdmOBj0QFjACegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatelinks.org%2Ffile
%2F5447%2Fdownload%3Ftoken
%3D9tNLPFUF&usg=AOvVaw0JzObv0pcG5d8cjeB4DtFn>.
9. Sdgs.un.org. 2021. Goal 9 | Department Of Economic And Social Affairs. [online]

Available at: <https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal9> [Accessed 17 January 2021].
31
10. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons Per Capita) | Data. [online]
Available at: <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?
end=2016&most_recent_year_desc=true&start=2015> [Accessed 17 January 2021].
11. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. GNI Per Capita, Atlas Method (Current US$) | Data.
[online] Available at: <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD>
[Accessed 17 January 2021].
12. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. Renewable Electricity Output (% Of Total Electricity

Output) | Data. [online] Available at:
<https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.RNEW.ZS> [Accessed 17 January
2021].
13. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. Air Transport, Freight (Million Ton-Km) | Data. [online]

Available at: <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.GOOD.MT.K1> [Accessed
17 January 2021].
14. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. Air Transport, Passengers Carried | Data. [online]

Available at: <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR> [Accessed 17
January 2021].
15. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons Per Capita) - High Income,
Upper Middle Income, Lower Middle Income, Low Income | Data. [online] Available
at: <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=XD-XT-XN-
XM> [Accessed 17 January 2021].
32
33

ECON1193 Business Statistics 1 Team Assignment Report - 3A Submiting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECON1193 Business Statistics 1 Team Assignment Report - 3A Submiting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Assignment Report_3A

First name Student ID Parts contributed Contribution % Signature

BUSINESS STATISTICS – ECON1193B

Part 1: Data collection

Part 2: Descriptive Statistics

Income level Acronym GNI per capita

2.1 – Measurements of Central Tendency

2.2 – Measurements of variation

3. Multiple Regression (From your collected data)

3.2. High Income Regression Model

Model equation: CO2=10.3-0.04681*renewable electric output

CO2 esmission vs. Renewable electric output: HI group

The scatterplot is inconclusive since renewable electric output is not a significant

3.3. Low-Income Group

Model equation: CO2=-0.41+0.00099*GNI per capita

CO2 emissions vs. GNI per capita: LI group

3.4. Upper-Middle Income Group

Model equation: 5.19-0.038*Renewable electric output=CO2

CO2 esmission vs. renewable electric output: UMI group

3.5. Lower-Middle Income Group

Model Equation: CO2=0.092+0.000385*GNI per capita+0.000692*Air transport (freight)

CO2 emission vs. GNI per capita: LMI Group

CO2 emission vs. Air transport, freight: LMI Group

4. Team Regression conclusion

FIGURE 4: LINEAR REGRESSION OF GERMANY FROM 1990 – 2015.

FIGURE 5: QUADRATIC REGRESSION OF GERMANY FROM 1990 – 2015.

FIGURE 6: EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION OF GERMANY FROM 1990 – 2015.

 With 95% level of confidence, there is an exponential trend.

As P - value of b1 (1.7886E-13) < α (0.05) => H0 is rejected.

FIGURE 15: PREDICTIONS FOR FOUR COUNTRIES IN 2018, 2019, 2020

7. Overall Team Conclusion:

 Germany: ŷ = 11188.75 - 11.05(2030) + 0.003(2030^2) = 1119.95 metric ton per capita

FIGURE. FULL MODEL: LOW INCOME GROUP REGRESSION ANALYSIS.

FIGURE. GNI REMOVED REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HIGH-INCOME GROUP .

8.2. Low-Income Group

FIGURE. AIR TRANSPORT, FREIGHT REMOVED REGRESSION MODEL FOR LOW-

1. Air transport, passengers carried removed:

1. Model with only GNI:

FIGURE: REGRESSION MODEL WITH ONLY GNI FOR LOW-INCOME GROUP

8.3. Upper-Middle Income group

FIGURE: FULL MODEL FOR UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.

1. Air transport, passengers carried removed:

FIGURE: AIR TRANSPORT, PASSENGERS CARRIED REMOVED REGRESSION

FIGURE: GNI REMOVED REGRESSION MODEL FOR UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME

FIGURE. FINAL MODEL FOR UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.

8.4. Lower-Middle Income Group

FIGURE. FULL MODEL FOR LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.

2. Air transport, passenger carried removed:

FIGURE. AIR TRANSPORT, PASSENGER CARRIED REMOVED MODEL FOR LOWER-

FIGURE. FINAL MODEL FOR LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME GROUP.

2. 'Human population growth and climate change', Biological Diversity,

3. Lysen, ES 1989, 'The Potential of Renewable Energy to Reduce CO2

5. 2018, 'Renewable Energy Sources Cut Carbon Emissions, Efficiently Increase

7. Federal Ministry for the Environment 2017, 'Germany‘s Third Biennial

8. USAID 2019, 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Belarus', United States Agency -

9. Sdgs.un.org. 2021. Goal 9 | Department Of Economic And Social Affairs. [online]

12. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. Renewable Electricity Output (% Of Total Electricity

13. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. Air Transport, Freight (Million Ton-Km) | Data. [online]

14. Data.worldbank.org. 2021. Air Transport, Passengers Carried | Data. [online]

You might also like

Model Equation: CO2=0.092+0.000385GNI per capita+0.000692Air transport (freight)