Design and Built Environment Research Methods
Design and Built Environment Research Methods
Assessment 2: Research methods Framework (20%)
Student Name: Please add your complete name here
Student number: Here goes your student numberCourse enrolled:
Year:
Tutor/s:
Unit coordinator
Knowledge gap
(From ass1) (100 words) Food misfortune, major loss and waste as a significant worldwide test that has serious natural, social, and financial outcomes.
Research question
(max 30 words) How can the social and environmental effects of food loss and waste be quantified and compared across various food systems and regions?
Methodological approach
(300 words) Objectives Research methods Selected Research Tool
(200 words)
For the purpose of addressing the research question of how to quantify and compare the social and environmental effects of food loss and waste across various food systems and regions, the following methodological approach is provided:
Conduct a thorough investigation: Conduct a comprehensive literature review on the effects of food loss and waste on society and the environment. This can remember reads up for the natural effect of food creation, the social ramifications of food squander, and the monetary results of food misfortune.
Identify warning signs: Measure the social and environmental effects of food loss and waste by identifying key indicators like greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and social inequality.
Establish a framework: Create a framework that allows you to compare the social and environmental effects of food loss and waste in various food systems and regions. A method for collecting data, a set of standardized indicators, and a procedure for analyzing and interpreting the data are all examples of this.
Analyze and collect data: Utilizing the established framework, collect data on the social and environmental effects of food loss and waste in various food systems and regions. Find patterns and trends in the effects of food loss and waste by analyzing the data.
Contrast the two: Utilizing the established framework, compare and contrast the social and environmental effects of food loss and waste in various food systems and regions. Policy and decision-making regarding the reduction of food loss and waste can benefit from this information, which can shed light on the similarities and differences in the effects of food loss and waste. Tools
(20 words) Data (type. Textual, numerical, graphical, etc) (max 20 words) Benefit
(100 words) Limitation
(100 words) To recognize the primary drivers of food misfortune and waste in a particular district. Literature review, food supply chain stakeholders' interviews, and data on food loss and waste analysis Quantitative and textual data on the extent and causes of food loss and waste, in addition to qualitative data on stakeholder perspectives. The information that policymakers and practitioners require to develop specific interventions to reduce food loss and waste can be obtained by determining the primary causes of food loss and waste in a specific region. For instance, if the study reveals that post-harvest handling results in the loss of a significant amount of food, policymakers may decide to invest in infrastructure and training to enhance storage and handling practices. Alternately, policymakers may decide to launch a public awareness campaign to encourage behavior change if the study reveals that consumers are largely to blame for food waste. By creating designated mediations that address the particular reasons for food misfortune and waste in a specific district, policymakers and professionals can expand the effect of their endeavors and diminish food misfortune and waste all the more really. This can not just assistance to lessen the natural effect of food frameworks yet additionally increment food security by guaranteeing that more food arrives at the people who need it. The limitation of this study is that the accuracy and availability of data on food loss and waste in the region may be constrained. For instance, some of the data may be outdated or incomplete, which could lead to inaccuracies in the study's findings. Additionally, certain stakeholders in the food supply chain may be hesitant to provide information that may reflect poorly on their practices, which could introduce bias into the study's results. Furthermore, stakeholder perspectives can be influenced by various factors such as personal experiences, culture, and economic interests. These biases could influence the study's conclusions, potentially leading to less effective interventions being developed to reduce food loss and waste. It is important for researchers to acknowledge and address these limitations, for example, by using multiple sources of data, verifying data quality and triangulating data from different stakeholders. By doing so, the study's findings can be strengthened, and the interventions developed based on those findings can be more effective in reducing food loss and waste.
Reviews and surveys: These tools are used to gather information from stakeholders at various points along the food supply chain about the causes, scope, and potential solutions to food loss and waste. Surveys and questionnaires can be used in person, over the phone, or online to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.
Focus groups and interviews: These apparatuses include gathering top to bottom data from partners through inquiries without a right or wrong answer and conversations. Stakeholders' perspectives and experiences can be gained by conducting interviews and focus groups, which can also assist in the identification of potential solutions to reduce food loss and waste.
Input-output analysis, life cycle assessment, stakeholder interviews, and environmental impact assessment Quantitative and textual data on environmental impacts, root causes and stakeholder perspectives Using a variety of tools and data sources, it is possible to acquire a more complete comprehension of the environmental impacts of various stages of the food supply chain.
This includes quantitative and textual data on environmental impacts, primary causes, and the perspectives of stakeholders.
This can assist in determining the primary causes of these effects and guiding the creation of specific interventions to mitigate them. Depending on the region and the stage of the food supply chain, the accuracy and availability of data on environmental impacts may vary. Also, the complexity of input-output analysis or the possibility of bias in stakeholder interviews may be limitations of different tools. It is vital to recognize and address these restrictions to guarantee the legitimacy and unwavering quality of the review's discoveries. To compare and pinpoint the primary causes of the various food supply chain impacts on the environment. Meetings, Focus Groups and Center Gatherings
Excel spreadsheets, data collection forms, and semi-structured interviews Qualitative data on the perspectives, experiences, and potential interventions to reduce food loss and waste from focus groups and transcribed interviews. This study has the potential to provide in-depth insights into the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders, which can assist in identifying more likely to be accepted and effective potential interventions to reduce food loss and waste.
By gaining a deeper understanding of the different perspectives and experiences of stakeholders, the study has the potential to identify interventions or solutions to the problem of food loss and waste that are more likely to be accepted and effective.
For example, if the study finds that consumers are more likely to reduce food waste if they receive education on portion control and meal planning, rather than being told to simply "waste less food," this information could inform the development of a more effective intervention to reduce food waste at the household level.
The review might be restricted by the potential for scientist inclination, as well as the time and assets expected to direct meetings and center gatherings. Additionally, it may not be possible to apply the findings to other contexts.
There is a possibility of researcher bias when conducting qualitative research through focus groups and interviews, which can have an effect on the study's findings. Based on their own assumptions or beliefs, researchers may unintentionally alter participant responses. Additionally, conducting focus groups and interviews can take a lot of time and resources, which may limit the number of people who can participate in the study. This, in turn, may limit the findings' applicability to other contexts. There is a possibility of researcher bias when conducting qualitative research through focus groups and interviews, which can have an effect on the study's findings. Based on their own assumptions or beliefs, researchers may unintentionally alter participant responses. Additionally, conducting focus groups and interviews can take a lot of time and resources, which may limit the number of people who can participate in the study. This, in turn, may limit the findings' applicability to other contexts.
End-to-end assessment, environmental impact assessment, input-output reviews Quantitative and textual data on environmental impacts, primary causes, and stakeholders' perspectives, as well as spatial and temporal data on land use change, deforestation, and water pollution. By integrating remote sensing and GIS analysis with other tools, researchers can obtain a more accurate and detailed understanding of the environmental impacts of the food supply chain.
This can assist in determining the primary causes of these effects, guiding the design of specific interventions to lessen them, and monitoring their long-term efficacy. Technical and financial constraints may limit the accuracy and availability of GIS and remote sensing data, which may not be available for all food supply chain stages or regions. Additionally, issues with data accuracy or interpretation may arise due to the complexity of these tools, which may necessitate specialized knowledge and training for efficient use. By triangulating results, utilizing multiple data sources, and being transparent about their methods, researchers must address these limitations. To determine whether a specific intervention works to cut down on food loss and waste in a particular setting. Guides for interviews and focus groups, digital voice recorders, and tools for taking notes. Spatial data on the location and extent of food loss and waste hotspots. In other words, by understanding the various factors that contribute to food loss and waste from different perspectives, the study has the potential to inform the development of more targeted, effective, and acceptable interventions to address this important issue Indeed, biases can enter the research at any stage and skew the results accordingly. I concur with you anything in view of predisposition isn't precise. Fundamentally there are three basic stage while exploring any region, a theory to figure out its legitimacy we gather information by performing reviews or meetings (Morgan, C.J., 2018). This provides us with a sample population for the research, and their responses to the stimulus help us understand the study's facts (Nickerson, 1998). It is very likely that biases unintentionally divert our perception from the actual findings at each of these stages. Understood Predisposition is a kind of generalization, restriction in discernment or predisposition that creps in the navigation, decisions as well as conduct consequently. Most people don't say what they really feel and tend to think in the same way they did in the past, which is a well-known fact. For instance, a person might say to other people that smoking is a bad habit, but he might smoke a pack of cigarettes when no one is looking. He lied before others may in light of the fact that he is humiliated to concede.
Experimental design, control groups, surveys, and questionnaires Data on food loss and waste before and after the intervention, as well as qualitative data on stakeholder perspectives The effectiveness of a particular intervention can be precisely measured through the use of experimental design and control groups.
Stakeholder perspectives on the intervention's success and areas for improvement can be further gleaned from surveys and questionnaires. The study does not control for confounding variables that influence the intervention's effectiveness.
Personal experiences or cultural factors may also have an impact on stakeholder perspectives outside of the intervention itself. It is critical to recognize and address these constraints through cautious review plan and information investigation to guarantee the legitimacy and dependability of the review's discoveries.
References
Morgan, C.J. (2018). Reducing bias using propensity score matching. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 25, 404406 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1012-y
Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review Of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Rajsic, J., Wilson, D., & Pratt, J. (2015). Confirmation bias in visual search. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 41(5), 1353-1364. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000090
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 36(11), 1202-1205. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.120
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
