On the appropriate objective function for post-disaster humanitarian logistics models

被引:395
作者
Holguin-Veras, Jose [1 ,2 ]
Perez, Noel [3 ]
Jaller, Miguel [3 ]
Van Wassenhove, Luk N. [4 ]
Aros-Vera, Felipe [3 ]
机构
[1] Rensselaer Polytech Inst, Troy, NY USA
[2] Rensselaer Polytech Inst, Ctr Infrastruct Transportat & Environm, Troy, NY USA
[3] Rensselaer Polytech Inst, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Troy, NY USA
[4] INSEAD, Humanitarian Res Grp, F-77305 Fontainebleau, France
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Humanitarian logistics; Deprivation cost; Human suffering; Optimization; RESOURCE-ALLOCATION; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; OPTIMIZATION; HYSTERESIS; NUMBERS; ISSUES; VALUES; RULE; LIFE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jom.2013.06.002
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
The paper argues that welfare economic principles must be incorporated in post-disaster humanitarian logistic models to ensure delivery strategies that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The paper's analyses suggest the use of social costs the summation of logistic and deprivation costs as the preferred objective function for post-disaster humanitarian logistic models. The paper defines deprivation cost as the economic valuation of the human suffering associated with a lack of access to a good or service. The use of deprivation costs is evaluated with a review of the philosophy and the economic literature to identify proper foundations for their estimation; a comparison of different proxy approaches to consider human suffering (e.g., minimization of penalties or weight factors, penalties for late deliveries, equity constraints, unmet demands) and their implications; and an analysis of the impacts of errors in estimation. In its final sections, the paper conducts numerical experiments to illustrate the comparative impacts of using the proxy approaches suggested in the literature, and concludes with a discussion of key findings. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:262 / 280
页数:19
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Malnutrition: Etiology, consequences, and assessment of a patient at risk [J].
Alberda, Cathy ;
Graf, Andrea ;
McCargar, Linda .
BEST PRACTICE & RESEARCH CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 20 (03) :419-439
[3]  
[Anonymous], J OPERATIONS RES SOC
[4]  
[Anonymous], INT T OPERATIONAL RE
[5]  
[Anonymous], ANNUAL MEETING OF TH
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2010, New York Times.
[7]  
[Anonymous], J EC DYNAMICS CONTRO
[8]  
[Anonymous], NEWSWEEK
[9]  
[Anonymous], DISASTER STUDY
[10]  
[Anonymous], THE ANALYSIS OF QUAL