Invitational rhetoric : alternative rhetorical strategy for transformation of perception and use of energy in the residential built environment from the Keweenaw to Kerala

This dissertation explores the viability of invitational rhetoric as a mode of advocacy for sustainable energy use in the residential built environment. The theoretical foundations for this study join ecofeminist concepts and commitments with the conditions and resources of invitational rhetoric, developing in particular the rhetorical potency of the concepts of re-sourcement and enfoldment. The methodological approach is autoethnography using narrative reflection and journaling, both adapted to and developed within the autoethnographic project. Through narrative reflection, the author explores her lived experiences in advocating for energy-responsible residential construction in the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan. The analysis reveals the opportunities for cooperative, collaborative advocacy and the struggle against traditional conventions of persuasive advocacy, particularly the centrality of the rhetor. The author also conducted two field trips to India, primarily the state of Kerala. Drawing on autoethnographic journaling, the analysis highlights the importance of sensory relations in lived advocacy and the resonance of everyday Indian culture to invitational principles. Based on field research, the dissertation proposes autoethnography as a critical development in encouraging invitational rhetoric as an alternative mode of effecting change. The invitational force of autoethnography is evidenced in portraying the material advocacy of the built environment itself, specifically the sensual experience of material arrangements and ambience, as well as revealing the corporeality of advocacy, that is, the body as the site of invitational engagement, emotional encounter, and sensory experience. This study concludes that vulnerability of self in autoethnographic work and the vulnerability of rhetoric as invitational constitute the basis for transformation. The dissertation confirms the potential of an ecofeminist invitational advocacy conveyed autoethnographically for transforming perceptions and use of energy in a smaller-scale residential environment appropriate for culture, climate, and ultimately part of the challenge of sustaining life on this planet.

Decentralized or centralized production : impacts to the environment, industry, and the economy

Since product take-back is mandated in Europe, and has effects for producers worldwide including the U.S., designing efficient forward and reverse supply chain networks is becoming essential for business viability. Centralizing production facilities may reduce costs but perhaps not environmental impacts. Decentralizing a supply chain may reduce transportation environmental impacts but increase capital costs. Facility location strategies of centralization or decentralization are tested for companies with supply chains that both take back and manufacture products. Decentralized and centralized production systems have different effects on the environment, industry and the economy. Decentralized production systems cluster suppliers within the geographical market region that the system serves. Centralized production systems have many suppliers spread out that meet all market demand. The point of this research is to help further the understanding of company decision-makers about impacts to the environment and costs when choosing a decentralized or centralized supply chain organizational strategy. This research explores; what degree of centralization for a supply chain makes the most financial and environmental sense for siting facilities; and which factories are in the best location to handle the financial and environmental impacts of particular processing steps needed for product manufacture. This research considered two examples of facility location for supply chains when products are taken back; the theoretical case involved shoe resoling and a real world case study considered the location of operations for a company that reclaims multiple products for use as material inputs. For the theoretical example a centralized strategy to facility location was optimal: whereas for the case study a decentralized strategy to facility location was best. In conclusion, it is not possible to say that a centralized or decentralized strategy to facility location is in general best for a company that takes back products. Each company’s specific concerns, needs, and supply chain details will determine which degree of centralization creates the optimal strategy for siting their facilities.