4.6 Article

A methodology for developing evidence-based optimization models in humanitarian logistics

Journal

ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-04762-9

Keywords

Humanitarian logistics; Mixed methods; Research design; Field research; Optimization; Case study

Funding

  1. Hanken School of Economics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a systematic mixed methods research design for humanitarian logistics problems in disaster response. The methodology includes eight steps that take into account the specifics of humanitarian disasters, and is illustrated by applying it to the case of the 2015 Nepal earthquake response, resulting in two evidence-based humanitarian logistics optimization models.
The growing need for humanitarian assistance has inspired an increasing amount of academic publications in the field of humanitarian logistics. Over the past two decades, the humanitarian logistics literature has developed a powerful toolbox of standardized problem formulations to address problems ranging from distribution to scheduling or locations planning. At the same time, the humanitarian field is quickly evolving, and problem formulations heavily rely on the context, leading to calls for more evidence-based research. While mixed methods research designs provide a promising avenue to embed research in the reality of the field, there is a lack of rigorous mixed methods research designs tailored to translating field findings into relevant HL optimization models. In this paper, we set out to address this gap by providing a systematic mixed methods research design for HL problem in disasters response. The methodology includes eight steps taking into account specifics of humanitarian disasters. We illustrate our methodology by applying it to the 2015 Nepal earthquake response, resulting in two evidence-based HL optimization models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available