kps032(000533 0051)

IB Mathematics

Finding the correlation between a country’s GDP

and their meat consumption
 kps032(000533 0051)

Plan of Investigation

As a person who comes from a vegetarian family, and was vegetarian for most of her life, I have a
very keen interest in studying consumption trends. I see it all around me, all the time. How the
consumption of gas drastically decreased beginning of 2022 or how the price of eggs started to increase
only about 2-3 months ago. Things like this intrigue me because I find it fascinating how an entire nation,
our nation being well over 350 million people, can follow the same trends which lead to the decline or
increase of 1 specific product.

My interest in consumption rates inspired me to use my math Internal Assessment as a platform to

investigate the factors that affect the popularity of meat consumption. In this paper, I will be applying
statistics to examine whether there is a correlation between the meat consumption of a country and a
countries GDP per capita. Through this analysis I hope to gain insight into consumption trends and
possibly use the math presented in this paper in other aspects.

To explore the univariate data, I will be collecting quantitative information about the meat
consumption per capita and GDP per capita. I will categorize countries as developed or developing to
reduce uncertainty and then I will create box plots to illustrate the distribution of the groups of data
together and separately. This will allow me to identify varying data and potential outliers, for which I will
be performing outlier test.

For the bivariate, I will be investigating the relationship between meat consumption and how it
correlated to a county’s GDP per capita. I will be using scatter plots and Pearson’s Product Correlation to
check the strength of these plots. If I find there to be a correlation between the two variables then I will
use the least squares method to create an equation that could estimate meat consumption based on its
GDP. To verify that my equations and investigations have been accurate, I will also perform the test on a
country that was excluded from the data set I will use.

Definitions

Gross Domestic Procedure per capita: Gross Domestic Product(GDP) is the total monetary or market
value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country during a specific time period. GDP
per capita is the annual GDP at a current market divided by the population number.

Developed country and developing country: the terms “developed country” and “developing country” do
not have exact definitions as it is purely at the discretion of the country itself how they would like to be
classified as, according to the United Nations. For the purpose of this paper, any country with a GDP per
capita of less than $12000 per capita will be defined as “developing” and any country with a GDP per
capita of over than $12000 per capita will be defined as a “developed” country.

Meat consumption per capita: Meat consumption per capita is the total sum (kg) of meat consumed by a
nation within a year divided by the nation’s population. “Meat consumption” itself can be defined as the
consumption of meats such as beef, pork, poultry, and sheep, etc.
 kps032(000533 0051)

Obtaining Data:

To do this investigation, I obtained data through a stratified sampling method which means the samples
were divided into subcategories before being randomly chosen. My samples came from a list I consulted
from the United Nations’ of the currently existing 193 countries and then categorized each country into 2
tables based on their GDP, developed and undeveloped, and then inserted each list into a random sample
generator and through that 30 developed countries and 30 undeveloped countries were given. 60 counties
will be used in this paper which is about 31% of the worlds total countries.

Univariate Data:

After developing this sample, I referred to the World Bank’s 2022 database to find the GDP per capita for
all the samples. The World Bank gains its data by obtaining reports from the banks of each country,
therefore proving its validity. I also used the Organization for Economic Development (OECD) to find
information about the consumption of meat per capita. The OECD collects its information by allowing
different development corporations to access and report to a single reporting system which makes it
reliable. For countries whose information I could not find through consulting the OECD, I used
alternative sources such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to give the
information I needed.

Table 1: The GDP per capita (US dollars) and meat of developing countries
No. Developing GDP per capita (US dollars) Meat consumption per capita
Countries (kg/year)
1. Iran 5520 33.1
2. Colombia 6432 48.9
3. Philippines 3485 32.4
4. Palestine 3347 44
5. Kazakhstan 9731 49.1
6. Paraguay 5415 39.5
7. Pakistan 1285 15
8. Cambodia 1643 17.6
9. Egypt 3020 20
10. Vietnam 2715 50.5
11. China 10262 45.7

12. Ukraine 3659 40.1

13. Mexico 9863 54.6
14. South Africa 6001 51.6
15. Argentina 10006 88.3
16. Peru 6978 54.6
17. Thailand 7808 18.9
18. Russia 11585 62.6
19. Ethiopia 858 2.6
 kps032(000533 0051)

20. Bosnia 6073 32.21

21. Nepal 1071 11.5
22. India 2104 3.6
23. Georgia 4769 27.89
24. Turkey 9043 32.9
25. Kenya 1817 15.08
26. Indonesia 4136 11.4
27. Lebanon 7784 0.55
28. Zimbabwe 1464 16
29. Nigeria 2230 5.5
30. Azerbaijan 4794 31.1

Table 2: The GDP per capita (US dollars) and meat consumption per capita consumption per capita of
developed countries
No. Developed GDP per capita (US Meat consumption per capita
Countries dollars) (kg/year)
1. Australia 54907 88.3
2. Poland 15595 61
3. Luxembourg 114705 136.5
4. Canada 46195 70.2
5. Switzerland 81994 51.6
6. Sweden 51610 83.5
7. New Zealand 42084 75.2
8. United States 65281 100.8
9. Portugal 23145 119.1
10. Singapore 65233 34
11. Finland 48686 76.7
12. Uruguay 16190 95
13. Italy 33190 58.7
14. Japan 40247 41.6
15. France 40494 67.6
16. Chile 14987 81.3
17. United Kingdom 42300 61.4
18. Norway 75420 55.9
19. Netherlands 52448 79
20. Austria 50277 90.87
21. Belgium 46117 75.2
22. Israel 43641 90
 kps032(000533 0051)

23. Iceland 66945 95.92

24. Romania 12920 49.4
25. South Korea 31762 62
26. Ireland 78661 42.5
27. Malta 29416 73
28. Spain 29614 94.04
29. United Arab 43103 79
Emirates
30. Kuwait 32032 119

Stage 1:

The first stage of this paper was to find the distributions among the GDP per capita in the sample. To find
these distributions, I used my Texas Instrument 84 CE calculator to find the samples “5 figure summary”
which consists of the quartile values and ranges. The lower quartile (𝑄1), the upper quartile
(𝑄3) and the middle quartile 𝑄2, which represents the middle value of the data sets lower
half and 𝑄3 represents the datas upper half. Other values are the minimum which is the lowest value of the
data set and the maximum which is the highest value. Using the five figure summary, I will show my data
with boxplots. This has relevancy as it will allow me to visually compare the 2 subgroups of developed
countries and undeveloped countries with one another and see the distribution of the GDPs per capita. I will
also conduct an outliers test for each boxplot to identify any variables that could create deviations in the data
distribution.

Table 3: The five figure summaries for GDP per capita (US dollars)
Five-figure Summaries of meat consumption per capita (kg/year)

Developing Countries Developed Countries

Minimum value 858 12920

Quartile 1 value 2230 31762

Median Value 4781.5 43372

Quartile 3 value 7784 54907

Maximum value 11585 114705

 kps032(000533 0051)

Graph 1: Box Plot of Developing Countries GDP per capita ($US)

Range = maximum value - minimum value

= 11585 - 858 = $10727 US

Test for Outliers:

The upper boundary = upper quartile Q3 + 1.5 × IQR = 7784 + 1.5 × 5554

IQR = Q3 - Q1

= 7784 - 2230 = 5554

= 16115
● There are no outliers as no values are higher than the upper boundary

The lower boundary = lower quartile Q1 - 1.5 × IQR = 2230 - 1.5 × 5554

= -6101
● There are no outliers as no values are below the lower boundary
 kps032(000533 0051)

The box plot is shaped positively skewed, which means that there is less variation within the bottom 50%
of the data for developing countries, and more variation within the top 50%. This can also be shown by
the relative proximity of its median value $4781.5 to the minimum value, $858, instead of towards the
maximum value, $11585. The data is distributed along the range of $10727 US dollars and has an
interquartile range of $5554. There are no outliers within this data set, as no extreme values lie below the
lower boundary or above the upper boundary.

Graph 2: Box Plot of Developed Countries GDP per capita ($US)

Range = maximum value - minimum value IQR = Q3 - Q1

= 114705 - 12920 = 54907 - 31762

= $101785 = $23145 US

Test for Outliers:

The upper boundary = upper quartile Q3 + 1.5 × IQR

= 54907 + 1.5 × 23145

= 89624.
● One outlier exceeds the upper boundary with a GDP per capita of $114705

The lower boundary = lower quartile Q1 - 1.5 × IQR

= 31762 - 1.5 × 23145

= -2955.5
● There are no outliers because no values are lower than the lower boundary
 kps032(000533 0051)

The box plot is shaped positively skewed, meaning that there is less variation within the bottom 50% of
the data and more variation within the top 50% of the data. This can also be shown by the relative
proximity of the median value of $4781.5 GDP per capita to the minimum value, $858, instead of towards
the maximum value, $11585. The data is distributed within the range of $101785 US dollars and has an
interquartile range of $23145.

The only outlier is Luxembourg due to its GDP per capita of $114705 US dollars which exceeds the upper
boundary. The reason for Luxembourg’s high GDP has much to do with the large amount of people that
work within the small nation. Being a landlocked country with its neighbors being Germany, France, and
Belgium, many individuals from the bordering countries tend to work within Luxembourg without
actually being citizens of the country, this contributes to its high GDP. Combined with low corporate
taxes, stable workforce, and government incentive to invest, all these reasons add onto Luxembourg’s
high GDP. When the GDP is divided by the amount of people living in the country (500000), the GDP per
capita is very high.

To visually compare the distribution of GDP per capita between developed and developing countries, a
parallel box plot was developed, as shown in Graph 3.

Graph 3: Parallel Box Plot of the GDP per capita (US dollars) of developed and developing countries.

This parallel box plot shows the difference in distributions between the GDP per capita values of
developed countries and developing countries within the sample. As visually shown on the box plot,
developed countries have a greater GDP per capita than developing countries. Additionally, the lowest
GDP per capita for developed countries has a larger value than the highest GDP per capita for developing
countries; this is expected as developed countries by definition are countries with a GDP per capita greater
than $12000 US dollars and developing countries by definition are countries with GDP per capita less
than $12000 US dollars. This difference can also be seen through the median values, as the developing
countries’ GDP per capita has a median value of $4781.5 and the developed countries’ GDP per capita has
a median value of $43372.

Stage 2:
 kps032(000533 0051)

The second statistical stage of the exploration is finding the distributions for meat consumption per capita.
Before finding these distributions, I first made a table for the data’s five-figure summaries. These values
were used in creating box plots that show the distributions of meat consumption per capita for developing
and developed countries. By showing my data in the form of a boxplot, I would be able to visually dictate
the five-figure summaries of the data and explore the contrast between meat consumption per capita
(kg/year) for developed and developing countries.

Table 4: The five figure summaries for meat consumption per capita (kg/year)
Five-figure Summaries of meat consumption per capita (kg/year)

Developing Countries Developed Countries

Minimum value 0.55 34

Quartile 1 value 15.08 61.1

Median Value 32.305 75.95

Quartile 3 value 48.9 90.87

Maximum value 88.3 136.5

Graph 4: Boxplot of meat consumption per capita for developing countries

 kps032(000533 0051)

Range = maximum value - minimum value IQR = Q3 - Q1

= 88.3 - 0.55 = 48.9 - 15.08 =

87.75 kg/year = 33.82 kg/year

Test for Outliers:

The upper boundary = upper quartile Q3 + 1.5 × IQR

= 48.9 + 1.5 × 33.82

= 99.63 kg/year

● There are no outliers as no values are higher than the upper boundary

The lower boundary = lower quartile Q1 - 1.5 × IQR

= 15.08 - 1.5 × 33.82

= -35.65 kg/year

● There are no outliers as no values are lower than the lower boundary

The box plot is shaped positively skewed, meaning that there is less variation within the bottom 50%, and
more variation within the top 50% of the data. This can also be shown by the relative proximity of its
median value 32.305 kg/year to the minimum value, 0.55 kg/year, instead of towards the maximum value,
88.3 kg/year. The data is distributed within a range of 87.75 kg/year and has an interquartile range of
33.82 kg/year. There are no outliers in this data set, as no values surpass the boundaries. The reasoning for
this large range is that the sample includes a large variety of countries correlated to different social factors.
For instance, developing countries such as Ethiopia and Lebanon have relatively low average incomes,
prohibiting many from purchasing meat. The sample also includes India, which has the highest vegetarian
population in the world (WorldAtlas). When said countries are placed in one subcategory with Argentina,
the country that holds the sample’s maximum value due to its extensive cattle plans, it is expected for a
large distribution to occur.

Graph 5: Boxplot of meat consumption per capita for developed countries

 kps032(000533 0051)

Range = maximum value - minimum value IQR = Q3 - Q1

= 136.5 – 34 = 90.87 - 61.1 =

102.5 kg/year = 29.77 kg/year

Test for Outliers:

The upper boundary = upper quartile Q3 + 1.5 × IQR

= 90.87 + 1.5 × 29.77

= 135.525 kg/year

● There is one outlier, Luxembourg, as its value exceeds the upper boundary at a meat consumption per
capita value of 136.5 kg/year.

The lower boundary = lower quartile Q1 - 1.5 × IQR

= 61.1 - 1.5 × 29.77

= 16.445 kg/year

● There are no outliers as no values are lower than the lower boundary

The box plot is shaped positively skewed, meaning that there is less variation within the bottom 50%, and
more variation within the top 50% of meat consumption per capita in the sample. This can also be shown
by the relative proximity of its median value of 75.95 kg/year to the minimum value, 34, instead of
towards the maximum value, 136.5 kg/year. The data is distributed within a range of 102.5 kg/year and
has an interquartile range of 29.77 kg/year; the reason for such a large range is the inclusion of
Luxembourg, an outlier with values above the upper boundary.

Luxembourg's meat consumption per capita data value slightly lies above the upper boundary at 136.5
kg/year. This number is expected as Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita value within the data set.
As more individuals within the nation earn high wages, more people can afford and consume meat,
resulting in a higher meat consumption per capita value.

To visually compare the distribution of meat consumption per capita between developed and developing
countries, a parallel box plot was developed as shown in Graph 6.
 kps032(000533 0051)

Graph 6: Parallel Box Plot of meat consumption per capita of developed and developing countries

This parallel box plot illustrates the contrast in meat consumption per capita between developed and developing
countries within the sample. While there is some overlap in the data, a clear trend emerges: developed countries
generally exhibit higher meat consumption per capita compared to their developing counterparts. This is evident as
the box plot for developed countries is positioned further to the right, indicating higher values. This disparity in
distribution can be attributed to the fact that individuals in developed countries tend to enjoy higher standards of
living, largely due to their elevated GDP per capita. As a result, a greater proportion of people in developed countries
have the financial means to afford meat. This contrast is also reflected in the median values, with developing
countries having a median meat consumption per capita of 75.95 kg/year, while developed countries boast a median
of 32.51 kg/year.

Bivariate Data:
Stage 3:
The third stage of this exploration is to directly compare and investigate the relationship between the GDP
per capita between developed and undeveloped countries. To be able to do this, I decided the best way to
compare would be with a with a scatter plot diagram which would allow us to visualize the strength of the
correlation between a countries GDP per capita and their meat consumption per capita. I will create one
for developing countries and one for developed countries separately and then one that represents both
their data comparably. Then I will use Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient to measure the strength of the
relationships. If there is a moderate to strong relationship then I will be able to create an equation which
could predict the meat consumption per capita based on the GDP per capita.
 kps032(000533 0051)

Graph 7: Developing countries two-variable scatter diagram

The scatter plot diagram suggests that there is a correlation between meat consumption per capita and
GDP per capita for developing countries. To measure the strength of the correlation, Pearson’s correlation
coefficient will be calculated.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient

To measure the strength of correlation for GDP per capita and meat consumption per capita in developing
countries, I will be finding Pearson’s correlation coefficient using the equation:

I created a table to input the values of x, y, xy, 𝑥2, and 𝑦2. To find the r variables, I found the sum of these
values under the row “Σ”. I will let GDP per capita be x and y be meat consumption per capita.

Table 5: r Variables (refer to Raw Data Tables 1 and 2)

GDP per capita (US Meat consumption
No. dollars) per capita (kg/year) xy
x y 𝑥2 𝑦2
1. 5520 33.1 5553.1 30470400 1095.61
 kps032(000533 0051)

2. 6432 48.9 6480.9 41370624 2391.21

3. 3485 32.4 3517.4 12145225 1049.76
4. 3347 44 3391 11202409 1936
5. 9731 49.1 9780.1 94692361 2410.81
6. 5415 39.5 5454.5 29322225 1560.25
7. 1285 15 1300 1651225 225
8. 1643 17.6 1660.6 2699449 309.76
9. 3020 20 3040 9120400 400
10. 2715 50.5 2765.5 7371225 2550.25
11. 10262 45.7 10307.7 105308644 2088.49
12. 3659 40.1 3699.1 13388281 1608.01
13. 9863 54.6 9917.6 97278769 2981.16
14. 6001 51.6 6052.6 36012001 2662.56
15. 10006 88.3 10094.3 100120036 7796.89
16. 6978 54.6 7032.6 48692484 2981.16
17. 7808 18.9 7826.9 60964864 357.21
18. 11585 62.6 11647.6 134212225 3918.76
19. 858 2.6 860.6 736164 6.76
20. 6073 32.21 6105.21 36881329 1037.48
21. 1071 11.5 1082.5 1147041 132.25
22. 2104 3.6 2107.6 4426816 12.96
23. 4769 27.89 4796.89 22743361 777.85
24. 9043 32.9 9075.9 81775849 1082.41
25. 1817 15.08 1832.08 3301489 227.41
26. 4136 11.4 4147.4 17106496 129.96
27. 7784 0.55 7784.55 60590656 0.303
28. 1464 16 1480 2143296 256
29. 2230 5.5 2235.5 4972900 30.25
30. 4794 31.1 4825.1 22982436 967.21
∑ 154898 956.83 6207836.7 1094830680 42983.74

Going back to the formula, I can now use my calculator to find 𝑟p:
 kps032(000533 0051)

To understand the strength of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, I will refer to the guidelines listed in a
math paper published by Laerd Statistics. According to the definitions and guidelines within the paper,
0.66 indicates a weak positive correlation between the GDP per capita and the meat consumption per
capita in developing countries. .
The coefficient of determination r2

𝑟
𝑟

The r2 value indicates the proportion of variance in a data set. In this case, the r 2 value showcases that 44%
of the variation in meat consumption per capita (kg/year) is explained by variation in GDP per capita (US
dollars). This also signifies that 56% of meat consumption per capita in developing countries correlate to
other factors.

Graph 7: Developed countries two-variable scatter diagram

 kps032(000533 0051)

The scatter diagram above suggests that there is a very weak correlation between GDP per capita and meat
consumption per capita for developed countries. The placement of the plots indicate that the correlation is
not linear.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient

To quantitatively dictate a correlation between meat consumption per capita and GDP per capita for
developed countries, I will calculate Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r):

After applying Pearson’s Product Moment formula, I received an r value of 0.09 for developed countries.
This indicates that there is a very week positive correlation between the GDP per capita in USD and meat
consumption per capita in kg/year. The low r value may have been caused by including Luxembourg
which is an outlier. Since Person’s correlation coefficient is only valid for linear relationships which do
not include outliers, I will create another diagram excluding Luxembourg from the data to end up with a
more reliable result.
 kps032(000533 0051)

Graph 8: Developed countries two-variable scatter diagram without outlier

Creating a new graph after removing Luxembourg from the data, it shows that there is still a weak and nonlinear
correlation between developed countries GDP per capita and meat consumption per capita. To find the exact
correlation and r value, I applied Pearson’s Product Moment Method.

The r value within the developed countries sample is -0.2507, which affirms the diagram that there is a
very weak negative correlation between the GDP per capita in USD and meat consumption per capita
measured kg/year. When the r values derived from both sets of data are compared, it is clear that there is
more correlation between GDP per capita and meat consumption per capita in developing countries
compared to counties that are already developed. This could pertain to the access and luxuries of diets
such as veganism, vegetarianism, and pescatarianism which promote diets without meat. The coefficient
of determination r2
r2 = 0.063
The r2 value indicates that 6.3% of the variation in meat consumption per capita is explained by variation
in GDP per capita. This also signifies that 93.7% of meat consumption per capita in developed countries
correlate to other factors.
 kps032(000533 0051)

Stage 4:

The third statistical stage allowed me to conclude a weak positive correlation between meat consumption
per capita and GDP per capita in developing countries and a weak negative non-linear correlation between
the two variables in developed countries. As the correlation between GDP per capita and meat
consumption per capita is weak for both subcategories, a linear equation cannot be developed from the
scatter diagrams as it would not be reliable. In the fourth statistical stage, I plan to examine whether or not
there is a general trend between meat consumption per capita and GDP per capita when developed and
developing country samples are combined. To do so, I merged all data from both categories in a scatter
diagram.

Graph 9: Developing and developed countries two-variable scatter diagram

𝑟p

𝑟p
 kps032(000533 0051)

𝑟p

The r value proves that there is a weak positive correlation between GDP per capita (US dollars) and meat
consumption per capita (kg/year).

The coefficient of determination r2 r2

= 0.384

The r2 value indicates that 38.4% of the variation in meat consumption per capita (kg/year) is explained by
variation in GDP per capita (US dollars). This also signifies that 61.6% of meat consumption per capita in
developing countries correlate to other factors.

Stage 5:

Since I found there to be a weak non linear correlation in the scatter plot diagram, I wanted to figure out if
one of the variables were dependent on another variable with the Chi Squared Test. Through this test, if I
conclude that the 2 variables are independent then that will mean that the meat consumption of a country
does not affect its GDP per capita.

I developed a table to group my data and excluded values for Luxembourg because their data surpassed
the upper boundary when illustrated in the box plot diagrams and there for was considered an outlier.

Chi-squared Test for Independence with 5% significance level

Before conducting the chi-squared test, I stated my null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis: 𝐻0:
GDP per capita (US dollars) and meat consumption per capita (kg/year) are independent

𝐻1: GDP per capita (US dollars) and meat consumption per capita (kg/year) are dependent

Luxembourg’s data would have created unnecessary deviation, resulting in unreliable expected
frequencies with values less than 5.
 kps032(000533 0051)

Table 6: Observed Values for Developing and Developed Countries

Expected Frequencies are found in the following formula, in which T represents total value, TR represents
the total of row values, and TC represents the total of column values:

(𝑇𝑅 × 𝑇𝐶)

𝑇 I put in the expected values into Table 7 Table 7:

One of the values of the expected frequency was less than 5, although it doesn’t seem like much of a difference, this
is 20% of the given values which is a large margin of error, making the chi-squared test unreliable in this situation.
To improve reliability for the test, I will change the data and combine it into less categories, by doing this, no
expected values will be less than 5 and will minimize deviation within the sample which will result in more reliable
and uniform distribution.

The new table with new groupings can be found in Table 8:

Table 8:
 kps032(000533 0051)

The GDP per capita values are represented in the tables columns. Data values for meat consumption per
capita were divided into columns of less than 51.6 (<51.6) and greater than or equal to 51.6 (≥
51.6). I chose the number 51.6 because that is the median value of the entire set of data of mean
consumption per capita. Applying the formula above, I was given the expected frequencies for Table 9

Table 9: Developing and Developed Countries Expected Frequency Table

Next, I must find the degrees of freedom. The formula for degrees of freedom is:

(r-1) (c-1) = degrees of freedom,

in which r is the number of rows and c is the number of columns within the contingency table. Thus, the
degrees of freedom is calculated as:
(2−1) (2−1) = 1
The degrees of freedom 1 indicates that the normal chi-squared test formula cannot be applied to the data
to get reliable results. Thus, I must use Yate’s continuity correction factor.

Yate’s Continuity Correction Factor

Yate’s Continuity Correction Factor is used when the degrees of freedom is 1 to reduce errors and improve
the test’s validity. Yate’s Continuity Factor will allow me to find 𝑋$%&’% using the formula:
 kps032(000533 0051)

Wherein o stands for “observed values” and e stands for “expected values”. I inputted my calculations for
Yate’s Continuity Correction Factor in Table 10:

Table 10: Yate’s Continuity Correction Factor Table

I utilized graphpad.com to compute Yate's Continuity Correction Factor Table, yielding a value of 25.87.
Upon consulting a critical value table, I realized that the critical value for 1 degree of freedom at a 5%
significance level is 3.84. Given that 25.87 exceeds 3.84, we reject the null hypothesis. Subsequently, we
can infer that there is a dependence between meat consumption per capita and GDP per capita.

Furthermore, the website's analysis indicates a p-value of less than 0.0001. Since 0.0001 is smaller than
0.05, we can infer that the relationship between meat consumption per capita and GDP per capita is
statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. In other words, this association exhibits an
extremely high degree of statistical significance.

Stage 6:
 kps032(000533 0051)

As a linear correlation cannot be established, I will use the Spearman’s ranking system to investigate
whether or not the variables co-vary. This means that I will be exploring whether or not an increase in one
variable will result in an increase in the second variable.

Spearman’s rank order correlation equation:

Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient is derived by Pearson’s product-moment correlation and
measures the strength of correlation between two ranked variables through the following equation:

To calculate the data ranks, I used the rank equation mathematical program on Google Sheets. I inputted
the rankings in Table 11:

Table 11: Spearman’s ranking Table

GDP (US Meat consumption per Ranked GDP Ranked meat
dollars) capita (kg/year) per capita consumption per capita
54907 88.3 8 10.5
15595 61 28 25
114705 136.5 1 1
46195 70.2 13 20
81994 51.6 2 30.5
51610 83.5 10 12
42084 75.2 18 17.5
65281 100.8 6 4
23145 119.1 26 2
65233 34 7 42
48686 76.7 12 16
16190 95 27 6
33190 58.7 21 26
40247 41.6 20 39
40494 67.6 19 21
14987 81.3 29 13

42300 61.4 17 24
75420 55.9 4 27
52448 79 9 14.5
 kps032(000533 0051)

50277 90.87 11 8
46117 75.2 14 17.5
43641 90 15 9
66945 95.92 5 5
12920 49.4 30 33
31762 62 23 23
78661 42.5 3 38
29416 73 25 19
29614 94.04 24 7
43103 79 16 14.5
32032 119 22 3
5520 33.1 40 43
6432 48.9 49 35
3485 32.4 50 45
3347 44 35 37
9731 49.1 44 34
5415 39.5 58 41
1285 15 56 54
1643 17.6 51 51
3020 20 52 49
2715 50.5 32 32
10262 45.7 48 36
3659 40.1 34 40
9863 54.6 42 28.5
6001 51.6 33 30.5
10006 88.3 39 10.5
6978 54.6 37 28.5
7808 18.9 31 50
11585 62.6 60 22
858 2.6 41 59
6073 32.21 59 46
1071 11.5 54 55
2104 3.6 46 58
4769 27.89 36 48
 kps032(000533 0051)

9043 32.9 55 44
1817 15.08 47 53
4136 11.4 38 56
7784 0.55 57 60
1464 16 53 52
2230 5.5 45 57
4794 31.1 43 47

Graph 10: Ranked GDP per capita (US dollars) and meat consumption per capita (kg/year) scatter
plot
 kps032(000533 0051)

Ranking key:

X-axis/GDP ranking: The GDP per capita for every country is ranked from highest to lowest. Countries
with a higher GDP are ranked lower and countries with lower GDPs are ranked higher. I.e. Luxembourg
has the highest GDP and therefore is ranked 1 and Ethiopia has the lowest GDP and is therefore ranked
60.

Y-axis/Meat consumption per capita ranking: Meat consumption per capita for every country is ranked
from highest to lowest. i.e. Luxembourg having the highest meat consumption ranks at 1 and Lebenon
having the lowest ranks at 60.

Pearson's r value of 0.68 shows that there is a weak positive correlation between the ranked GDP per capita
(measured in US dollars) and ranked meat consumption per capita (measured in kg/year). However, when examining
the scatter plots on the graph, it becomes evident that there is a somewhat consistent trend in the relationship
between the two variables. In other words, as a country's GDP per capita increases, their meat consumption per
capita also tends to rise.

The 𝑟2 value, amounting to 0.463, indicates that approximately 46.3% of the variability in meat consumption per
capita can be accounted for by the variations in GDP per capita.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems that the GDP per capita per country and meat consumption per capita are
correlated but at a very small extent. As shown in Graph 9, the r value of 0.63 indicates a weak positive
correlation between GDP and meat consumption per capita. This is also explained by the r2 value, 0.384,
which indicates that 38.4% of the variation of meat consumption per capita can be explained by the
variation in GDP per capita and that 61.6% corelates to other factors. Regardless of this, there seems to be
some dependency as suggested by the chi-squared test and Yates correction method with an X2calc value
of 25.87. Since 25.87 is greater than 3.84, which is the critical value at the level of significance of 5%, the
alternative hypothesis that meat consumption and GDP per capita can be accepted. Higher GDP values per
capita means that the average person contributes more to a country’s overall GDP, which is one of the
ways it is calculated in the first place. Countries with higher GDPs also mean that the average family
income is higher than an average compared to the rest of the world, allowing families and individuals the
 kps032(000533 0051)

ability to purchase and consume meat, something that isn’t always viable in developing countries or
countries with a lower GDP

Alternatively, we can recognize that there is a large variance between the data distributions for developing
and developed countries. Developing countries GDP per capita and meat consumption per capita had a
relatively weak positive correlation, which was shown in Graph 7 where we saw the r value to be 0.66 but
already developed countries GDP and meat consumption rates were minimally impacted by each other
and had a very weak negative correlation. This was proven with Graph 8 which had an r value of 0.25.
There are a multitude of reasons as to why this may be but a generally good hypothesis is that developed
countries are more liberally and therefore promote different types of diets such as veganism,
vegetarianism, and pescetarianism, which all affect the uniformness of the distribution of meat
consumption.

There were some flaws and limitations to my study. I was not able to include an equal number of
developed and developing countries because I excluded Luxembourg from my data due to it being an
outlier. This generated a more biased data towards developing countries. I was also only able to account
for 31% of the worlds countries which may or may not have given me an accurate applicable situation to
the rest of the world. If I were to repeat this investigation I would include all 193 countries in the world
and possibly find more recent and reliable sources to supply and support my data and possibly incorporate
logarithms into this study.

Overall, due to the correlation coefficient of 0.62 and my general exploration of this subject, it is fair to
conclude that there is a weak correlation between the GDP per capita of a country and its meat
consumption per capita in kilograms per year.
 kps032(000533 0051)

Works Cited

“Agricultural Output - Meat Consumption - OECD Data.” TheOECD,

data.oecd.org/agroutput/meatconsumption.htm.

“Analyze a 2x2 Contingency Table.” GraphPad, www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency2/.

“GDP per Capita (Current US$).” Data, data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD.

Plecher, Published by H., and Aug 4. “Average Prices for Meat (Beef) Worldwide from 2014 to 2025.”
Statista, 4 Aug. 2020, www.statista.com/statistics/675826/average-prices-meat-beef-worldwide/.

Sawe, Benjamin Elisha. “Countries With The Highest Rates Of Vegetarianism.” WorldAtlas, WorldAtlas,
20 Sept. 2019, www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rates-of-vegetarianism.html.

Sveriges Radio. “Swedes Eating Less Meat for Second Year in a Row - Radio Sweden.” Radio Sweden |
Sveriges Radio, Sveriges Radio, 5 Mar. 2019, sverigesradio.se/artikel/7167904.

Tepper, Rachel. “The Countries That Eat The Most And Least Meat.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 4 May 2012,
www.huffpost.com/entry/world-meat-consumption_n_1475760.

Wunsch, Nils-Gerrit. “Per Capita Meat Consumption 2010-2020 Statistic.” Statista, 24 Oct. 2019,
www.statista.com/statistics/679528/per-capita-meat-consumption-european-union-eu/.