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.

UNDERSTANDING FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND THE EFFECTS OF SHEA TREE Vitellaria paradoxa DISTRIBUTION IN AGROFORESTRY PARKLANDS OF THE UPPER WEST REGION, GHANA

Agroforestry parklands represent a vast majority of the agricultural landscape under subsistent-oriented farming in semi-arid West Africa. Parklands are characterized by the growth of well- maintained trees (e.g., shea) on cultivated fields as a result of both environmental and human influences. Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) provides a cultural and economic benefit to the local people of Ghana, especially women. Periods between traditional fallow rotation systems have reduced recently due to agricultural development and a demand for higher production. As a result, shea trees, which regenerate during fallow periods, has decreased over the landscape. The aim of this study was to determine beneficial spatial distributions of V. paradoxa to maintain high yields of staple crops, and how management of V. paradoxa will differ between male and female farmers as a result of farmer based needs and use of shea. Vegetation growth and grain yield of maize (Zea mays) associated with individual trees, clumped trees, and open fields were measured. Soil moisture and light availability were also measured to determine how V. paradoxa affected resource availability of maize in either clumped or scattered distributions of V. paradoxa. As expected, light availability increased as measurement locations moved farther away from all trees. However, soil moisture was actually greater under trees in clumps than under individual trees. Maize stalk height and cob length showed no difference between clumped and single trees at each measurement location. Grain yield per plot and per cob increased as measurement locations moved farther from single trees, but was actually greater near clumped trees that in the open field subplots. Cob length and maize stalk height increased with greater light availability, but grain yield per cob or per plot showed no relationship with light, but were not affected by soil moisture. Conversely, grain yield increased with increasing soil moisture, but had no relationship with light availability. Initial farming capital is the largest constraint to female farmers; therefore the collection of shea can help provide women with added income that could meet their specific farming needs. Our data indicate that overall effects of maintaining clumped distributions of V. paradoxa provided beneficial microclimates for staple crops when compared to single trees. It is recommended that male and female farmers allow shea to grow in clumped spatial distributions rather than maintaining scattered, individual trees.