By: Andrew Leaper, Cory Dean, Demi-Jenna Aodan, and Lindsay Griffiths
In this Blog it is our goal to use the Dashboard tool to develop insights into Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) that are outlined in a list of 5 specific KPI’s. The data source used consisted of over 200,000 records and millions of combinations. Using a Business Intelligence modeling solution from MicroStrategy called Analytics Express we are able to drill down into the data to deliver the core information to identify the KPI’s through a simple graphical representation of the raw data. An environmental nonprofit organization may be interested in this data and insights in order to recognize where in the world and which specific countries they should be focusing their efforts. The following are our Questions or KPI’s.
In this Blog it is our goal to use the Dashboard tool to develop insights into Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) that are outlined in a list of 5 specific KPI’s. The data source used consisted of over 200,000 records and millions of combinations. Using a Business Intelligence modeling solution from MicroStrategy called Analytics Express we are able to drill down into the data to deliver the core information to identify the KPI’s through a simple graphical representation of the raw data. An environmental nonprofit organization may be interested in this data and insights in order to recognize where in the world and which specific countries they should be focusing their efforts. The following are our Questions or KPI’s.
1)What
region in 1990 began with the highest carbon footprint? Which region had the
lowest carbon footprint in 1990?
Looking
at the data in a graphical format, it is easy to see that Asia & Oceania
had the overall highest carbon footprint across the seven regions in 1990.
Using the same graph we can see that the Middle East had the lowest carbon foot
print in 1990.
A bar graph was used for this question
because it shows a significant difference between the regions and separates the
carbon footprint contributions into years. The metrics needed were from coal,
petroleum, natural gas, and total carbon footprint. The attributes used were
years, and region.
An environmental organization would be interested in this data and visual because it would reveal to them which regions around the world are in most need of their aid.
An environmental organization would be interested in this data and visual because it would reveal to them which regions around the world are in most need of their aid.
2)Does the population growth rate of the
regions match the growth rate of their carbon footprint?
It would appear that there is a direct correlation
between population growth and the carbon footprint growth. On the highest end
of the scale, we can certainly see strong population growth in Asia &
Oceania and a strong paralleling growth curve in carbon footprint. Even when we
see population growth in Eurasia drop over the data period, we also see a drop
in carbon footprint.
While
population growth is a key factor to overall carbon footprint, we can see that
it is not the only factor. We can see that Asia and Oceania are the world’s
biggest users of Coal and Petroleum that generate a larger proportion of carbon,
compared to regions like North America that are the largest consumers of cleaner
fuels that produce a smaller carbon footprint like Natural Gas.
To answer this question we chose to use a
line graphs because they clearly shows an increase in both population and
carbon footprint over the 20 year time period. The Metrics used in these graphs
were population, from coal, from petroleum, from natural gas, which all made up
total carbon footprint. The Attributes used in the graph are the years from
1990-2010 and the regions.
An environmental organization would need to see these graphs and data because it would tell them if a regions's carbon footprint was growing naturally with their population or because of another threat.
An environmental organization would need to see these graphs and data because it would tell them if a regions's carbon footprint was growing naturally with their population or because of another threat.
3)In 2010 which region contributed the most coal, natural gas, and petroleum?
Which region was the biggest overall contributor?
In 2010 the region with
the largest overall footprint was Asia & Oceania by a large margin. This
can easily been seen in pie chart below. It also shows that Asia & Oceania
have the largest carbon footprint of any of the regions. It accounts for 44.44%
of the total carbon footprint of all regions.
Examining the 2010 data
we can observe carbon footprint contributions by type of fosil fuel and which
region has the largest overall carbon footprint. The breakdown shows which
region is the largets contributor by fuel type. Our findings revealed:
·
Coal: Asia& Oceania with 67.78% of the total
of all regions
·
Petroleum:
Asia & Oceania with 30.28% of the total of all regions
·
Natural
Gas: North America with 24.44% of the total of all regions
Natural
Gas: North America with 24.44% of the total of all regions 
To answer this
question we thought a pie graph would illustrate the data best. Each pie graph
shows the total amount of pollution from each fuel and what percentage was
contributed from each region. The metrics used in this graph were from coal,
from petroleum, from natural gas, and total carbon footprint. The Attributes
used were the year 2010, and each region.
An environmental organization would find this data useful because it would inform them of which region currently needs their help the most. Furthermore, when compared to the graph for question number one, the organization would be able to recognize possible patterns.
An environmental organization would find this data useful because it would inform them of which region currently needs their help the most. Furthermore, when compared to the graph for question number one, the organization would be able to recognize possible patterns.
4) Why is Eurasia the only region to have a decreasing carbon footprint?
One
of the contributing factors to a country’s carbon footprint size is its
population. Eurasia was the only country that saw its overall population
decrease during the period of 1990 to 2010. We also see that the carbon
footprint per capita went down in Eurasia at the same time as the overall
population decreased in that region.
It
is also clear that between 1990 and 1998 there was a dramatic decrease in the
total carbon foot print in that region. When we look at the use of carbon
emitting resources, it is clear that Eurasia moves away from the consumption of
Coal over the studied period. At the same time we can see an increase in usage
of Natural Gas and Petroleum which lowers it overall carbon footprint.
In
the case of Eurasia the two contributing factors to why they are the only
region with a decreasing carbon footprint is because their population is
decreasing and they are using more efficient resources like Natural gas and
Petroleum. Furthermore, they are moving away from Coal which is a heavy contributor
to carbon footprint size.
To analyze the
data that was relevant to this question we thought that a line graph would be
fitting. Since we were analyzing data over a 20-year period and looking for
increases and decreases the line graph showed this well. The metrics used in
the graph were from coal, from petroleum, from natural gas, and population. The
attributes needed in these graphs were years, and region.
This information would be useful to a nonprofit environmental organization because part of their purpose is to reduce carbon footprints, and to do this they must understand how other country's and regions are doing it successfully.
This information would be useful to a nonprofit environmental organization because part of their purpose is to reduce carbon footprints, and to do this they must understand how other country's and regions are doing it successfully.
5)
Why does Africa have a steep increasing carbon footprint?
Africa
has one of the fastest growing carbon footprints of the regions. When we review
the two main factors that contribute to carbon footprint, population and per
capita carbon footprint, we notice that the per capita carbon foot print
remains almost flat during the 20 years reported in the data. This means that
that the amount of carbon footprint per person in Africa remains consistent. What
we see is a dramatic increase in population in Africa during the period. Therefore
it is clear that there is a massive increase in population and the carbon foot
print per person is constant. More people producing approximately the same
carbon footprint generated a massive increase in overall carbon footprint
within Africa.
The Metrics used
in this graph are the per capita total, from coal, from petroleum, from natural
gas, used to make a metric of total carbon footprint. The attributes needed are
region, and years. A line graph was used because it illustrates a steady and
continuous relationship between these metrics.
This data would be useful to an environmental organization because just as they need to understand how countries are successfully reducing their carbon footprint, they need to understand why some countries have a sharply increasing carbon footprint size. When an organization understands these two issues they will be able to more efficiently complete their missions.
This data would be useful to an environmental organization because just as they need to understand how countries are successfully reducing their carbon footprint, they need to understand why some countries have a sharply increasing carbon footprint size. When an organization understands these two issues they will be able to more efficiently complete their missions.
