Vol. 25, No. 5, May 2016, pp. 791811 DOI 10.1111/poms.

12533
ISSN 1059-1478|EISSN 1937-5956|16|2505|0791 2015 Production and Operations Management Society

An Integrated Logistic Model for Predictable Disasters

Manoj Vanajakumari
College of Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3367 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843, USA, manojuv@tamu.edu

Subodha Kumar
Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, Wehner 301F - 4217 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843, USA, skumar@mays.tamu.edu

Sushil Gupta
College of Business Administration, Florida International University, RB 250, 11200 S.W. 8th St, Miami, Florida 33199, USA,
guptask@fiu.edu

n the aftermath of a disaster, the relief items are transported from temporary warehouses (Staging Areas, SAs) to the
I Points of Distribution (PODs). Reducing the response time to provide relief items to disaster victims and cost mini-
mization are two important objectives of this study. We propose an integrated optimization model for simultaneously
determining (1) locations of staging areas, (2) inventory assignments to these SAs, (3) selecting sizes and numbers of
trucks, and (4) routing of trucks from SAs to PODs. We also introduce another variable, a value function, which forces
the model to reduce the logistics response time. We study the interactions among these variables through extensive sen-
sitivity analysis. The time horizon for supply of relief items to disaster areas is usually limited to six days after the dis-
aster occurs. Therefore, we use the proposed optimization model in a rolling-horizon manner, one day at a time. This
reduces daily demand uncertainty. We analyze three disaster scenarios: (1) a low impact disaster, (2) a medium impact
disaster, and (3) a high impact disaster. We conduct 720 experiments with different parameter values, and provide
answers to the following questions that are useful for the logistic managers: (i) What are the right sizes (in terms of
storage capacities) of SAs closer to the PODs? (ii) How should the budget be allocated in a disaster scenario? (iii) What
mix of different types (in terms of sizes) of trucks should be selected in a given scenario? The most important manage-
rial insights include: (i) operational budget beyond a limit does not improve the operational efficiency, (ii) when the
budget is very low, it is essential to select smaller SAs close to the PODs in order to carry out operations in a feasible
manner, (iii) when the impact of disaster is high, it is always beneficial to select larger SAs close to the PODs (as long
as the budget is not very low), (iv) when the budget is high and the impact of disaster is not very high, the emergency
management administrators need to select SAs prudently based on the tradeoff between the operational cost and the
humanitarian value, and (v) the cost of operations is higher when all the trucks are of the same type compared to the
case when there is a mix of different types of trucks. Also, we find that the optimal selection of SAs is not impacted
by different combinations of the types of trucks. The focus of this study is on disasters that can be forecasted in
advance and provide some lead time for preparations, for example, hurricanes. In order to understand the disaster
management process of such disasters and develop our model, we (i) interviewed several emergency management
administrators, and (ii) studied the disaster management processes available in documents released by various govern-
ment agencies.

Key words: disaster; logistic operations; integer programming; last mile distribution; value function
History: Received: November 2014; Accepted: October 2015 by Martin Starr, after 3 revisions.

rapidly (Ukkusuri and Yushimito 2008). For exam-

1. Introduction
An efficient response to a disaster involves getting
the right relief supplies at the right time and loca-
tion. The logistics play an important role in meet-
ing this objective. Hence, improving the efficiency
of logistic operations in disaster management has
been the focus of several studies in the last few
years (Kov
acs and Spens 2009). The interest in this
area is further stimulated by the fact that both the
number of disasters and the costs of logistic opera-
tions incurred to manage disasters are increasing
791
ple, the total Hydrometeorological, Geological, and
Biological disasters have increased by 43% in the
last two decades (Coppola 2006). Further, the
annual spending worldwide on logistic operations
for disasters has reached $15 billion (Christopher
and Tatham 2011). Also, the logistics account for
6080% of the total costs involved in disaster
management (Perry 2005, Van Wassenhove 2006).
The focus of this study is to present an integra-
ted model for logistic operations in disaster man-
agement that would help logisticians in not only
 Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
792 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society

meeting the disaster management objectives, but next subsection, we begin with the description of dis-
also reducing the cost. tribution facilities.

1.1. Classification of Disasters 1.2.1. Distribution Facilities. Federal Emergency

Apte (2009) identifies three distinct phases to disaster Management Agency has a hierarchical structure of
management operations: (i) Preparednessopera- distribution facilities. On the top of the structure is (a)
tions before a disaster strikes, (ii) Responseinstantly Major Distribution Centers (MDC), followed by (b) Pre-
after a disaster, and (iii) Reconstructionaftermath of Staging Areas (also referred to as Logistical Staging
a disaster. The pre-positioned inventory from the first Areas), (c) County Staging Areas (also referred to as
phase is made available for the disaster victims in the Staging Areas), and (d) Points of Distribution (PODs)
second phase, and infrastructure rebuilding is the pri- (Afshar and Haghani 2012). Now we discuss these
mary focus of the third phase. The focus of this facilities in detail.
research is on the Response phase, where the logistic
(a) Major Distribution Centers: The MDCs are per-
decisions need to be taken regarding the delivery of
manent distribution centers that are strategically
relief items to the disaster victims.
located throughout the world/country. The aid
The degree of difficulty in providing the logistical
agencies pre-position critical inventories at dif-
response varies on the predictability of the disaster
ferent MDCs. For example, World Vision Inter-
(Apte 2009). In case of predictable disasters (e.g., hur-
national has pre-positioned inventory at three
ricanes, tornadoes, wild fire, and flu), it is possible to
locations in the world: Colorado (USA), Brindisi
plan for a response in advance. Hence, in such disas-
(Italy), and Hanover (Germany) (Beamon and
ters, the aid agencies can properly mobilize the
Kotleba 2006). Similarly, FEMA has nine Distri-
response mechanism on time to cater to the needs of
bution Centers to support the continental US
the situation. The focus of this research is on respond-
and its territories: six in the continental US
ing to such disasters that are predictable in nature.
(Atlanta, GA; Ft. Worth, TX; Frederick, MD;
The various planning activities that the aid agencies
Cumberland, MD; Winchester, VA; and San
perform before a disaster strikes to effectively
Jose, CA), and three in the US territories (Guam,
respond to an incident include (i) identifying the tem-
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) (Homeland 2009).
porary distribution centers (called the Pre-Staging
These distribution centers contain, among other
Areas), (ii) pre-positioning inventory, and (iii) identi-
items, millions of liters of water and millions of
fying the local resources that can be utilized when the
Meals-Ready-to-Eat packets (Smith 2011).
disaster strikes.
(b) Pre-Staging Areas: The inventory is transported
In order to understand the disaster management
from the MDCs to a temporary pre-staging
process and develop the model, we interviewed
area in anticipation of a disaster. The purpose
several Federal Emergency Management Agency
of the pre-staging area is to enhance the abil-
(FEMA) and state emergency management adminis-
ity of aid agencies to quickly move needed
trators (J. Hall, Texas Division of Emergency
supplies. For example, in March 2011, FEMA
Management; C. Frazier and M. Martinez, Brazos
proactively established a pre-staging area in
County Emergency Management; S. Moffett, FEMA
Minnesota in anticipation of potential flooding
Region 6 External Affairs). Our interactions with the
across the Upper Midwest (Smith 2011). When
practitioners proved very helpful in bringing the
Hurricane Earl hit Houston area, FEMA used
real world aspects into the model and experiments.
the Reliant Stadium for pre-staging (Frazier
Additionally, we studied the related documents
and Weintraub 2013). Similarly, Ford Arena in
released by FEMA and various state agencies (e.g.,
Houston is a designated pre-staging area for
Florida Logistics Technical Bulletin; Oregon SAI
hurricanes (Hall 2013).
Mass Commodities). Thus, through our model and
(c) Staging Areas (SAs): Similar to the pre-staging
experiments, we provide valuable insights that can
areas, the SAs are also temporary locations. A
be used by the managers of logistic operations dur-
set of SAs is pre-identified by federal, state, or
ing disasters.
county governments before the disaster. Once
the disaster strikes, based on the exact location
1.2. Planning and Response Activities for of the disaster, the pre-staging areas are
Disasters selected and established from the set of pre-
We now discuss various activities involved in planning identified locations (Frazier and Weintraub
and response stages of disaster management cycle, 2013, Hall 2013, Kapucu et al. 2007). Then,
specifically those of the government agencies (federal, inventories are moved from the pre-staging
state, and county level) and other aid agencies. In the area to the SAs. Shipping vital supplies from
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
these SAs to the affected sites helps to reduce
the lead time and the cost of distribution. In
case of FEMA, an audit of the pre-identified
SAs is conducted in the second quarter of
each year to assess its worthiness to be used
as a SA. At least three potential SAs are iden-
tified for each county in the US (Hall 2013).
Note that some of the pre-identified SAs may
not be available due to the damages suffered
from the disaster. For example, one of the pre-
identified SAs in the south Jefferson County
could not be used when Hurricane Rita struck
Houston (Hall 2013).
(d) Points of Distribution (PODs): Finally, the aid
is distributed to the affected people at the
PODs. Similar to the SAs, the PODs are pre-
identified before the disaster but selected after
the disaster. Usually, these sites are selected
close to the SAs for fast access. However, if
need arises, these can be as far as 600 miles
from the SAs (Moffett 2013). Further, PODs
should have easy ingress and egress for the
delivery trucks and private vehicles (Frazier
and Weintraub 2013). Any area with a large
concrete surface where temporary tents can
be erected may serve as PODs. Parking lots in
front of malls, stadiums, and grocery stores
are typical candidate locations.
Based on the above discussion, a schematic represen-
tation of a relief supply chain is provided in Figure 1.
In the context of response phase, the last mile distribu-
tion involves all logistics efforts required for facilitat-
ing the movement of relief items from the SAs to the
PODs. These include routing, scheduling, and load-
ing/unloading of trucks. Next, we discuss the details
of operations involved in the last mile distribution.
Figure 1
Major Distribution Pre-Staging Area
Centers
793
1.2.2. Last Mile Distribution. In the aftermath of
a disaster, the field logisticians make assessment of
the affected areas and select the SAs and the PODs
from the pre-identified sets (Homeland 2009).
Depending on the impact of the disaster and the
capacities of available SAs (and PODs), more than
one SA (and POD) may be selected. In principle,
FEMA delivers the materials from the pre-staging
area to selected SAs, whereas the last mile distribu-
tion is the responsibility of state and/or county.
The initial demand for the relief items are estimated
in the planning phase of the operations. FEMA uses
software as HAZUS-MH for estimating the potential
losses in a disaster (FEMA 2012, Lin et al. 2011). After
the disaster strikes, the supplies are delivered to the
SAs (from Pre-Staging Areas) usually within
24 hours, and deliveries to PODs from the SAs are
made usually within the next 96 hours (Florida 2005).
The first shipment to PODs from SAs are made based
on the estimation of the demand by the field logisti-
cians. Next, the aid agencies perform the needs
assessment for the subsequent days based on the cur-
rent burn rate (i.e., consumption rate of relief items) at
PODs and the estimated demand. For example, in
Texas, Texas A&M Forest Service performs the needs
assessment for disasters such as hurricanes and wild-
fire (Hall 2013). The demand information obtained
from the needs assessment is passed to the SAs. Note
that the needs assessment may result in the revision
of previously estimated demands. Based on this infor-
mation, the SAs deliver supply items to the PODs to
meet the demand. For details on needs assessment,
the readers can refer to de la Torre et al. (2012). At
PODs, the supplies are distributed to the disaster vic-
tims for typically 12 hours a day. During this period,
the key focus of relief personnel is to provide assis-
tance to the disaster victims. Hence, in the after-hours,
Representation of a Relief Supply Chain
Points of Distribution
POD 1
Staging Areas
POD 2
POD 3
 Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
794 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society

the supplies received during the day are prepared for
delivery on the next day (Hall 2013, Oregon 2013).
Based on the above discussion, the timeline of a dis-
aster management is illustrated in Figure 2. In this fig-
ure, the disaster strikes on Day 0, and the relief
operations last for H days (from Day 1 to Day H).
Note that our research concentrates only on the logis-
tic activities involved in the last mile distribution
(from the identification of SAs to the distribution of
relief supplies to the disaster victims). More specifi-
cally, the logistic activities inside the shaded box in
Figure 2 are the focus of our research. In order to opti-
mize these logistic activities, we develop a mathemat-
ical model based on our discussions with the
administrators of FEMA and state emergency man-
agement agency (Frazier and Weintraub 2013, Hall
2013, Moffett 2013), as well as the documents released
by different agencies (Broward 2009, Florida 2005,
Oregon 2013).
1.3. Literature Review
In this subsection, we discuss the related studies. We
mainly focus on the following streams of literature
that are close to our study: (i) integrated/coordinated
decision models, (ii) last mile distribution problem,
(iii) facility location problem, and (iv) vehicle man-
agement problem.
1.3.1. Integrated/Coordinated Decision Models. The
literature that motivates the integrated/coordinated
decision problems is rich in a commercial supply
chain environment (e.g., Dawande et al. 2010,
Rajapakshe , et al. 2013, 2014). However, because of
the inherent differences between the supply chains in
commercial environment and those in disaster
response environment, these models are not directly
applicable in our setting. Altay and Pal (2014) show
the value of information in a humanitarian setting.
They also show that the quality of information is criti-
cal for effective resource utilization. Further, as indi-
cated by Haghani and Afshar (2009), there is a need of
integrated models in disaster response environments.
Hence, in this study, we propose and study an inte-
grated model for facility location and routing with
specific attention to quality of demand information in
a disaster response environment.
1.3.2. Last Mile Distribution Problem. The last
mile distribution problem in emergency logistics
includes routing and scheduling of delivery vehicles,
and transshipment of inventories to the PODs. In this
direction, Oh and Haghani (1997) develop heuristics
to solve a multi-transportation mode, multi-commod-
ity disaster relief operation problem. Their objective is
to minimize the operational costs that include trans-
portation cost and material cost. The stochastic
version (uncertainties in route capacities and
demand/supply) of this model is analyzed by Bar-
barosoglu and Arda (2004). Yi and Ozdamar (2007)
provide a routing model for moving relief supplies
from SAs. Their objective is to minimize the delay in
providing emergency supplies, and they use integer
program and fuzzy logic techniques to find optimal
solutions. In the similar direction, Yi and Kumar
(2007) develop a two-phase optimization model
(routing and vehicle assignment) for dispatching

Figure 2 Timeline of Disaster Response

(i) Initial Assessment of the

Impact Area is Conducted
(ii) SAs and PODs are Selected
from the List
(iii) Inventory is Moved from
Pre-Staging Areas to SAs
Disaster Strikes PODs and SAs
Planning Begins in Day 0 Relief Items are Moved are Closed
from SAs to P ODs
Anticipation of a Day 1 Day H+1
Disaster
A List of Possible SAs (i) Relief Items are
and PODs are Made Moved from SAs
Recovery
to PODs,
Begins
(ii) Disaster Victims
(i) Expected Damage is Forecasted, Receive Aid at PODs
(ii) Relief Supplies are Pre-Staged Day 2, ., Day H

Planning Before Disaster Response

Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
commodities to affected areas. In their two-phase
model, the optimal solution from one phase feeds to
the second phase. Balcik et al. (2008) also solve the last
mile distribution problem in two phases. In the first
phase, a list of candidate routes from the SAs to the
PODs are found, and, in the second phase, delivery
routes of each vehicle and the amount of supplies sent
on each vehicle to PODs are optimized. While cost is a
constraint, optimization decisions made solely on the
cost considerations should not be the prime objective
of humanitarian supply chains. We address this issue
by proposing a value function that aids in treating the
problem differently from a commercial supply chain.
Also, by integrating the facility location with the last
mile distribution, our proposed model improves the
efficiency of the response operations.
1.3.3. Facility Location Problem. Some of the past
studies also analyze the facility location problems in
an emergency context. For example, Ukkusuri and
Yushimito (2008) solve a facility location problem for
inventory pre-positioning. Other location decision
models studied in the humanitarian context are:
transfer point location problem (Berman et al. 2007),
casualty collection points (Barbaroso glu et al. 2002),
and facility location for medical services (Jia et al.
2007). Note that, none of these studies integrate differ-
ent components in the response phase of the relief
work. We fill this gap by proposing an integrated
model for solving location, stocking, and distribution
problem, with an emphasis on obtaining a balance
between humanitarian and cost objectives.
1.3.4. Vehicle Management Problem. Another
stream of literature that is related to our study is
the vehicle management problem in a disaster envi-
ronment. In this direction, Eftekhar et al. (2014)
study the fleet management problem for Interna-
tional Committee for Red Cross. Next, Sodhi and
Tang (2014) propose the use of buttressed supply
chain for distribution of essential goods for flood
disasters. Transportation of commodities using heli-
copters are studied by Angelis et al. (2007) and Bar-
barosoglu et al. (2002). Further, Ozdamar et al.
(2004) determine the pickup and delivery schedules
as well as the quantities to be loaded in each vehi-
cle. Again, none of these studies analyze an inte-
grated model that is the focus of our study. The
readers can refer to Caunhye et al. (2012) and
Ozdamar and Ertem (2015) for a detailed study on
the different optimization models in humanitarian
and emergency logistics.
Research studies described above identify the need
for an integrated approach in designing the logistics
systems. Using a two-stage stochastic optimization
795
model, Salmer
on and Apte (2010) minimize the
expected number of casualties. Their first-stage repre-
sents the expansion of resources such as warehouses,
medical facilities with personnel, ramp spaces, and
shelters, whereas the second-stage decisions include
the logistics of the problem where allocated resources
and contracted transportation assets are deployed to
rescue critical population and deliver required com-
modities to the people who stay-back (e.g., those
people who remain within the affected areas). They
provide guidance on how budget allocation needs to
be done. We differ from them in proposing an inte-
grated model where the objective is to minimize the
sum of logistics and social costs. Also, the objective
function includes a utility component which ensures
that the inventory is first allocated to those SAs where
the marginal utility obtained from a unit of inventory
is the highest. The logistics costs considered in the
model include costs of routing and scheduling of
trucks. Also, there is a penalty for not satisfying the
demand on time. Overall, our model satisfies the
demand for the relief supplies while ensuring that the
operational costs are at the minimum level and within
budget.
1.4. Our Contributions
All of the emergency management administrators that
we interviewed suggested that a flexible and realistic
optimization model for the logistic operations would
help to alleviate the difficulties they face in the last
mile distribution. In this study, we respond to this
need by developing a Mixed Integer Programming
(MIP) formulation for optimizing the decisions in the
last mile distribution. This model is flexible, because
it solves the problem in a rolling-horizon manner with
the revised state of the system. Also, in the model, we
consider both humanitarian and cost minimization
objectives. To resemble the reality, we consider that:
(i) some of the pre-identified SAs may not be available
for operations after the disaster strikes, (ii) there will
be uncertainty in demand for the relief items, (iii) dif-
ferent types of vehicles are available for distribution
of items, and (iv) the travel time may increase due to
the damaged conditions of roads, bridges, and other
infrastructure facilities.
As discussed in the previous subsection, in the con-
text of disaster management, the problems related to
vehicle routing (aid and emergency), facility location,
and inventory allocation have been analyzed in isola-
tion in different studies. These studies provide solu-
tions to the subsystems examined. However, since all
of these logistic activities are interconnected, optimal
solution for one activity may not be efficient for the
whole logistic system. Therefore, the focus of this
study is to present an integrated model. Our model

796 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
helps in providing efficient and flexible solutions to
the following problems encountered in the last mile
distribution:
Selecting the staging areas: Once the PODs are
identified by the emergency management
personnel, the SAs need to be selected while
considering the humanitarian and pecuniary
measures. The proposed model finds the opti-
mal location of SAs from the pre-determined
list. The optimal locations help in getting the
relief supplies to the victims on time.
Allocation of inventory: Along with the selec-
tion of the SAs, the logisticians need to allocate
inventory of supply items to the opened SAs
from the pre-staging areas. The proposed
model provides the optimal allocation of
inventory to each selected SA on each day. In
disaster management, the humanitarian objec-
tive is to meet demand in a timely manner. If
more inventories are stored at SAs closer to
PODs, the demand may be satisfied in a more
timely manner because of lower transportation
time. Hence, we use a value function in our
model that favors storing more inventories clo-
ser to PODs. However, the closer locations
may have higher operational costs. Our model
also balances this trade-off between the
humanitarian objectives and the operational
costs.
Routing of trucks: The solution of our model
also provides the optimal routing of trucks
while delivering supply items from the SAs to
the PODs. The efficient routing of trucks helps
in not only meeting the demand in a timely
manner, but also in reducing the overall cost
of transportation.
Demand uncertainty: One of the main chal-
lenges in the last mile distribution problem is
the inability to predict the demand much in
advance. We address this issue by modeling
the problem in a rolling-horizon manner. The
demand is updated on a daily basis and the
problem is resolved based on the updated
demand. This way, we limit the uncertainty in
demand to one day.
Based on the solution of the integrated model dis-
cussed above, we also provide answers to the follow-
ing questions that are useful for the logistic managers:
What is the minimum budget required for
effective response operations? To answer this
question, we run the experiments with differ-
ent budget values by holding the other param-
eters constant. The resulting insights would
help the planners to find the minimum budget
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
required for carrying out the response opera-
tions.
What are the right sizes (in terms of storage
capacities) of SAs closer to the PODs? For this
study, we compare different configurations of
SAs that are defined based on the sizes and
the distances from the PODs. This analysis
would help planners in selecting the right
choices of facilities at the right locations.
How should the budget be allocated in a disas-
ter scenario? In order to answer this question,
we conduct extensive sensitivity analysis on
budget for multiple settings. This question has
significance in a humanitarian environment,
because a logistician needs to know the mar-
ginal improvement in the humanitarian value
with each additional increase in the logistic
budget.
What mix of different types (in terms of sizes)
of trucks should be selected in a given scenar-
io? By performing sensitivity analysis on truck
sizes, we obtain the best combinations of
trucks that can reduce the operational cost in a
given scenario.
The rest of this study is organized as follows. The
next section provides a detailed description of pre-
paredness and response phase of the disaster man-
agement. An integrated MIP formulation and solution
methodology are provided in section 3. The experi-
mental setup is detailed in section 4. Based on the
results of our model, we present several useful man-
agerial insights in section 5. Finally, section 6 con-
cludes the study and provides directions for future
research.
2. Problem Description
The decisions taken in the response phase of disaster
management are impacted by the logistic activities
involved in the preparedness phase. Hence, although
the focus of this study is on the response phase, it is
important to understand the activities of the pre-
paredness phase. Therefore, before presenting the
model, we briefly discuss both of these phases.
2.1. Preparedness Phase
In this section, we discuss the decisions taken by
humanitarian organizations during the preparedness
phase.
2.1.1. Supply Items. The types of supply items
include both the infrastructure items (such as tents,
tarps, blankets, and temporary shelters) and the
commodities with limited shelf life (such as food,
medicine, and hygiene kits). The humanitarian orga-
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
nizations usually pack all of the items of one type in a
kit (Apte 2009, McCall 2006). For example, one kit
may contain all infrastructure items, whereas another
kit may contain all commodities with limited shelf
life. Therefore, the types of supply items are defined
at the kit-level. We denote the set of the types of items
(or the kits) by K. Since different types of items
require different storage requirements, they are usu-
ally stored separately in SAs and PODs (Hall 2013).
Also, because of the same reason, only one type of
item is usually transported in a truck at any time.
2.1.2. Pre-Identification of SAs and PODs. As
discussed earlier, sets of potential SAs and PODs are
pre-identified in the preparedness phase. Let L0 and S0
be these sets of potential SAs and PODs, respectively.
Next, we denote the distance between SA (or POD) i
and SA (or POD) j as e0ij . Depending on the distances
e0ij and the routing schedule, the trucks may be able to
make multiple trips in a day. In order to facilitate this,
we divide a day into multiple travel intervals denoted
as p, p = 1, 2, . . ., P. The travel and loading/unload-
ing time between SA (or POD) i and SA (or POD) j is
defined in terms of these travel intervals as d0ij .
Further, for SA i, the fixed cost is denoted by Fi , and
the handling cost per unit of item type k is denoted by
Vik . The fixed cost represents the cost of operationaliz-
ing the SA, and the handling cost includes the costs
associated with holding and processing items. Finally,
Uik denotes the capacity of SA (or POD) i for item type k.
2.1.3. Trucks and Distribution Scheme. Usually
the PODs are accessible from the SAs through road,
and therefore trucks are considered as the mode of
transportation. The trucks transport inventory either
(i) between two SAs or between two PODs (transship-
ments), or (ii) from a SA to a POD (direct shipments),
or (iii) from a POD to a SA (returns). The transship-
Figure 3 An Example of the Distribution Scheme
2
POD 2
POD 1
9
5
6
8
1
POD 3
3
4 N
7
POD 4
Transshipments / Returns
Direct shipments
Staging Areas
797
ments help in improving the efficiency of routing sup-
plies to the PODs. For illustration, an example of
distribution scheme is shown in Figure 3. In this fig-
ure, direct shipments are shown as bold arrows, and
transshipments and returns are shown as dotted
arrows. The circles in the figure represent the SAs.
Different types of trucks, with different capacities,
are usually available. We denote the set of the types
of trucks by N. In the preparedness phase, the human-
itarian organizations plan for a number of trucks of
different types based on availability. In order to keep
our model general, the costs of operating different
types of trucks are considered to be different. For
truck type n, let the fixed cost be Cn , the capacity be
cn , the total number available be hn , and the cost of
travel between SA (or POD) i and SA (or POD) j be
B0ijn . In addition, we define Ong 1 if the truck g is of
type n; otherwise it is 0. All the parameters estimated
in the preparedness phase are summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Response Phase
After the disaster strikes, an assessment needs to be
done in order to investigate whether a pre-identified
SA can be used for the last mile distribution. Hence,
following a disaster, the field logisticians from
humanitarian organizations conduct a rapid environ-
mental impact assessment. In the case of International
Federation of Red Cross (IFRC), the Field Assessment
Coordination Team (FACT) is responsible for the
assessment of needs and availabilities of resources
following a disaster (Samii et al. 2002). This assess-
ment helps them in identifying the status of roads,
bridges, buildings, and other infrastructure facilities,
and the demand for various essential items (IFRC
2000, Kelly 2003).
Some of the SAs and PODs, identified in the pre-
paredness phase, might become unusable due to
damages caused by the disaster. Therefore, a list of
Table 1 Parameters Estimated in Preparedness Phase
K Set of the types of items
L0 Set of potential SAs identified in the preparedness phase
S0 Set of potential PODs identified in the preparedness phase
eij0 Distance between SA (or POD) i and SA (or POD) j
P Number of travel intervals in a day
dij0 Travel and loading/unloading time (in terms of travel
intervals) between SA (or POD) i and SA (or POD) j
Fi Fixed cost of SA i
Vik Handling cost per unit of item type k at SA i
Uik Capacity of SA or POD i for item type k
Set of the types of trucks
Cn Fixed cost of truck type n
0
Bijn Cost of travel for truck type n between SA (or POD) i
and SA (or POD) j
hn Total number of vehicles available of type n
cn Capacity of truck type n
Ong =1, if truck g is of type n; otherwise 0

798 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
available and usable SAs and PODs is prepared that
can meet the last mile distribution requirements. The
inventory from distribution centers and/or pre-sta-
ging facilities are moved to these selected SAs. The
supply items are then delivered to the available PODs
from these SAs (see Figures 1 and 2). For IFRC, the
Emergency Response Units (ERUs) act on the needs
assessment from the FACT and distribute goods to
the needy (Samii et al. 2002). The unavailability of
some of the roads after disaster may also change the
distances, the travel times, and the costs of travel
between some of the SAs and the PODs. In Table 2,
we summarize the list of parameters that need to be
revised in the response phase.
2.2.1. Penalty and Value Function. The PODs
communicate the daily demand of the items to the
SAs, and the demand is expected to be met before the
end of the specified day. If the total supplies from the
SAs do not meet the demand for an item in a given
day, that portion of the demand is considered as
unsatisfied, but not lost. The unsatisfied demand of
each day must be satisfied as much as possible in the
coming days (we also present a modified model for
situations where demand cannot be satisfied in a later
period). We consider a penalty cost for not satisfying
each unit of demand that depends on (i) the type of
item, (ii) the day in which the demand is not satisfied,
and (iii) the POD at which the demand is not satisfied.
Let
skt denote the penalty (normalized in $) for each
unit of unsatisfied demand for item type k on day t at
POD s.
The priority of the disaster manager must be to
meet the demand on time, otherwise human suffering
will increase. Hence, the on-time delivery must be
given priority over the cost. If not careful, the optimal
solution will minimize the cost by choosing SAs that
are far away from PODs because they usually have
the lower operating cost. One of the ways to meet
demand on time is by carrying enough inventory at
SAs closer to the PODs even when their operational
costs are higher. In order to achieve this, we introduce
a value function in our objective. This value function
is defined as a function of the operating cost and the
time required traveling from an SA to the PODs. More
specifically, it is comparatively higher for the SAs clo-
Table 2 Parameters Revised in Response Phase
L Set of available SAs, L  L0
S Set of available PODs, S  S 0
eij Distance between SA (or POD) i and SA (or POD) j, eij  eij0
dij Travel and loading/unloading time
(in terms of travel intervals) between SA
(or POD) i and SA (or POD) j, dij  dij0
Bijn Cost of travel for truck type n between SA
0
(or POD) i and SA (or POD) j, Bijn  Bijn
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
ser to the PODs. One component of our objective is to
maximize this value function, which favors the alloca-
tion of more inventory at the SAs closer to the PODs.
The addition of this value function in the objective is
consistent with the earlier discussion that the objec-
tives in a humanitarian supply chain must be differ-
ent from those in a traditional supply chain in order
to obtain desired results (Carroll and Neu 2009,
Holgu
-Veras et al. 2012).
Capturing risk and equity in a non-humanitarian
context has been studied mostly from the perspective
of a strategic decision maker. For example, Fishburn
(1984), Keeney (1980), Keeney and Winkler (1985),
and Sarin (1985) study distribution of public risks
caused by private or government projects. However,
the findings in the above research are not directly
applicable to the logistical problem that we study in
this research. From a humanitarian perspective,
Holgu
-Veras et al. 2012) discuss the various social
objective functions studied in the humanitarian litera-
ture. They also derive an exponential deprivation cost
function based on the past data. On the similar line,
we propose a value function that decreases exponen-
tially with the distance from the POD and the han-
dling cost. More specifically, the value obtained from
storing a unit of inventory at SA i for POD s and item
type k is


 1
uisk  1  e aVik beis : 1
Recall that Vik is the handling cost of holding and
processing one unit of item k at an SA i, and eis is the
distance from an SA i to POD s. Further, a is the
weight factor for handling cost, b is the weight factor
for distance, and e is the multiplier. Note that a, b,
e > 0. The a, b, and e values are dependent on the
severity of the impending crisis. Therefore, these
parameters are usually estimated based on the deci-
sions of managers regarding the selection of an SA i
(given its cost and distance, that is, Vik and eis , respec-
tively) in a similar crisis in the past. However, since
each crisis is unique, the past data is used in conjunc-
tion with additional data regarding the impending
crisis. This additional data is obtained by talking to
logistic managers who have knowledge on the geog-
raphy of the area and the probable damage from the
impending disaster. The past data and the newly
gathered data can be used for estimating a,b, and e.
For example, Holgu
-Veras et al. (2012) present an
exponential model to estimate the parameters for a
deprivation cost function.
The behavior of the value function is explained
using an example in Table 3. In this example, we con-
sider one type of item (say, k), one POD (say, s), and
set a = .004, b = .03, and e = 1. Using these values,
Table 3 presents the values of uisk for different combi-
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society 799

Table 3 Illustration of the Behavior of Value Function Table 5 Variables Used in the Model
0
Handling cost (Vik ) Distance (eis ) Value function (uisk ) Dskt Total demand for item type k on Day t of response at POD s.
It is the sum of the current days demand and any unsatisfied
0.25 59 0.43
demand from previous days
1.00 69 0.38
Dsktp Demand of item k served at POD s on Day t and travel interval p
5.00 116 0.25
Xi =1, if the ith SA is open; 0 otherwise
5.00 162 0.19
Iiktp Inventory of item type k at SA i at the end of travel interval
1.00 218 0.14
p on Day t
0.25 279 0.11
Isktp Inventory of item type k at POD s at the end of travel interval
1.00 400 0.08
p on Day t
5.00 565 0.06
Rnijtp Number of trucks of type n traveling from SA (or POD) i to SA
0.25 729 0.04
(or POD) j in the beginning of travel interval p on Day t
Qnitp Number of trucks of type n available at SA (or POD) i on
Day t at the end of travel interval p
nations of Vik and eis . It is easy to observe that the Pgijktp Amount of item type k carried in truck g that is starting from
SA (or POD) i to SA (or POD) j at the beginning of travel
higher value is obtained in those cost-distance combi-
interval p on Day t
nations where the distance is lower. Wskt Unsatisfied demand for item type k at POD s on Day t
sijktp Shipment quantity for item type k from i to j at the beginning
2.2.2. Other Parameters Estimated in the of travel interval p on Day t
Response Phase. Let Dskt be the demand of item type ygijtp = 1, if truck g starts traveling from i to j at the
beginning of travel interval p on Day t; 0 otherwise
k on Day t at the POD s. Let H be the number of days
Ugitp = 1, if truck g is available at SA i at the end of travel interval
the response operations last. Finally, the humanitar- p on Day t; 0 otherwise
ian organization needs to allocate the budget based qgijktp =1, if item k is carried in truck g that is starting from SA
on the impact of disaster. We denote this operating (or POD) i to SA (or POD) j in the beginning of travel
budget as in our model. The new parameters esti- interval p on Day t; 0 otherwise
mated in response phase are summarized in Table 4.

Table 6 Illustration of the Nomenclature, H = 6

3. Formulation and Solution
Run Decision point Estimated demand Movement Distribution
Methodology r Day Days Day Day
In a disaster environment, the demand for the relief 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 1 2
supplies are uncertain. Therefore, to reduce the 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3
demand uncertainty, the optimization needs to be 3 2 3 4 5 6 3 4
4 3 4 5 6 4 5
done frequently (say, once per day) with newly esti-
5 4 5 6 5 6
mated demands. Furthermore, distributing supplies
on time to the beneficiaries is one of the biggest chal-
lenges in disaster management.
(i.e., the value function). The variables used in the for-
We now present the MIP formulation to optimally
mulation are summarized in Table 5.
determine the following: (a) selection of usable SAs,
As discussed earlier, the optimization is run in a
(b) assignment of inventory to the SAs, (c) selection
rolling-horizon manner. On each day, we solve the
and assignment of different types of trucks to those
optimization problem for the remaining days in the
facilities, (d) transshipments between two SAs or
problem horizon based on the current inventory sta-
between two PODs, (e) shipments to the PODs, and
tus and the updated demand. We then implement the
(f) returns of trucks and items from the PODs to the
solution for the current day and repeat the process for
SAs. The objective is to minimize the sum of the logis-
the next day. Below, we introduce the nomenclature
tics costs, the penalty costs (for not meeting the
associated with the optimization. Table 6 illustrates
demand on time), and the negative of the value
this nomenclature for H = 6 days.

derived from allocating inventory closer to the PODs
Run (r): In each run, we solve the problem for
the remaining days in the planning horizon.
Table 4 New Parameters Estimated in Response Phase Thus, there are H  1 runs for the entire plan-
ning horizon. Recall that the facilities are estab-
Dskt Demand of item type k on Day t at POD s
H Planning horizon (number of days for which the
lished on Day 0, the items are transported
response operations last) from Day 1 onwards, and the demand is satis-

skt Penalty for each unit of unsatisfied demand for fied from Day 2 onwards (see Figure 2).

uisk
item type k on Day t at POD s
Value function of SA i for POD s and item type k
Decision Point: Decision point refers to the end
of the day on which the demand estimation is
Allocated operating budget
done for the remaining days in the planning
 Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
800 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society

horizon. Hence, as shown in Table 6, there are X H X

X
H  1 decision points. IikaP  Dskt  Mh  1 8k 2 K
Movement: It refers to the day on which the i2L[S
X
ta1 s2S
H X
X
movement of goods from the SAs to PODs
happens for an optimization run. The move- IikaP  Dskt  Mh 8k 2 K
i2L[S ta1 s2S
ment happens the day after the decision point. !
Hence, as shown in Table 6, the item move- X H X
X X
ment happens on Day 1,2, . . ., 5 for a problem fika  Dskt  IikaP 1  h 8k 2 K
i2L ta1 s2S i2L[S
with H = 6. With the estimated demands in !
the first run (r = 1), the SAs are located on Day X X X
H X
fika  Dskt  IikaP  Mh 8k 2 K
0 and items are moved to PODs on Day 1. i2L i2L[S ta1 s2S
From the second run onwards, the Decision
Iika10 IikaP fika 8i 2 L; 8k 2 K
Points are on Day a (=r  1), and items move
on Day a, where a = 1, 2, . . ., H  1. Iikt0 Iikt1P 8i 2 L [ S;
Distribution: As discussed earlier, in the after- t a 2; a 3; . . .; H; 8k 2 K
hours, the supplies received during a day are
fika  0 8i 2 L; 8k 2 K
prepared for delivery on the next day (Hall
2013, Oregon 2013). Hence, as shown in Next, constraint set (A.3) is replaced by the follow-
Table 6, the items are distributed to disaster ing set of constraints:
victims at PODs on Day 2, 3, . . ., 6 for a prob-
lem with H = 6. D0ska1 Dska1 8s 2 S; 8k 2 K
The formulation for Day 0 (i.e., Run 1) is presented
in Appendix S1. In this formulation, a = 0. The objec- For constraint sets (A.4)(A.7), the constraint
tive of the MIP is to simultaneously minimize the remains the same, but the range of t needs to be
operational cost and the penalty cost due to unsatis- modified as follows: For constraint set (A.4), the
fied demand, and maximize the value obtained from new range of t is a + 1, a + 2, . . ., H  1, and for
keeping inventory at the SAs closer to PODs. The total constraint sets (A.5)(A.7), the new range of t is
operational cost is the sum of the cost of operationaliz- a + 1, a + 2, . . ., H. Further, constraint set (A.8)
ing SAs, the handling cost of inventory in all SAs, needs to be modified as:
the costs of transshipments, direct shipments, and the Iika10  Uik Xi 8i 2 L; 8k 2 K
returns of trucks from the PODs to the SAs, and
the fixed cost of the selected trucks. The detailed Constraint sets (A.9)(A.12), (A.14)(A.15), (A.18)
discussion of the constraint sets is provided in (A.30), and (A.33) remain unchanged, whereas
Appendix S1. (A.13) and (A.32) need to be removed. Constraint sets
(A.16), (A.17), and (A.31) are replaced by Equations
3.1. Optimization Problem for Day a; (2)(6) as explained below. The truck g may be at one
a = 1, . . ., H  2 of the SAs or PODs at the end of Day a. Let Y
As discussed earlier, the previous formulation is only f1; 2; . . .; Rn2N hn g denote the set of all trucks, and
for Day 0. At the end of each day, we estimate the A fg : UgiaP 18i 2 L [ Sg denote the set of assi-
demand for the remaining days in the planning hori- gned trucks until Day a. Let F nia  0 denote the
zon. The newly estimated demand for a day may be number of new trucks of type n need to be assigned to
different from the earlier estimate. Hence, extra an SA i.
inventory may need to be assigned to the SAs. There-
X X
fore, we run the optimization model at the end of each F nia  hn  QniaP 8n 2 N 2
day for optimally allocating any extra inventory i2L i2L[S
needed at the SAs, and for routing trucks. The follow- X
ing constraint sets calculate the extra inventory F nia UgiaP Ong 8i 2 L; 8n 2 N 3
needed. These constraints replace constraint sets (A.2) g2YA
and (A.11) of the earlier formulation. For Day a, let
h = 1 if Ri2L[S IikaP  RH
ta1 Rs2S Dskt ; 0 otherwise. Also,
Qnia10 QniaP F nia 8i 2 L; 8n 2 N 4
let fika  0 denote excess inventory (if any) needed
at an SA i for item type k. Since IikaP is the inventory Qnit0 Qnit1P 8n 2 N;
5
at the end of Day a from the previous optimization 8i 2 L [ S; t a 2; a 3; . . .; H
run, it is a parameter for the optimization problem of
Day a. F nia  0 8i 2 L; 8n 2 N 6
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society 801

Now, we revise the budget constraint (A.1) as
follows. The budget utilized before the problem
is solved on Day 1 is: x1 Ri2L Fi Xi Ri2L
Rk2K Vik Iik0P Rn2N Ri2L[S Rj2L[S RPp1 Bijn Rnij1p Rn2N
j6i
Cn Ri2L Qni0P . The SAs selected on Day 0 remain
the same for the rest of the planning horizon.
Hence, Xi s become parameters for the succeeding
runs. Therefore, the budget utilized before the
problem is solved on Day a (a = 2, . . ., H  2) can
be recursively written as:
xa xa1 Ri2L Rk2K Vik fika1
Rn2N Ri2L[S Rj2L[S RPp1 Bijn Rnijap
j6i
travel intervals. The PODs typically operate only for
the first 37 days of an event (Florida 2009). Hence,
we consider H = 6 in our experiments. The first opti-
mization is run with estimated demands from Day 2
to Day 6. For the subsequent runs (on each day), the
demand estimate is revised for remaining days, and
the proposed optimization model is solved by updat-
ing the parameter values based on the revised
demand estimate for remaining days and the actual
demand realization until the time of optimization.
Hence, as shown in Table 6, we have a total of five
optimizations runs for each problem class.
The number of PODs usually vary based on the nat-
ure of the disaster. However, for many predictable

Rn2N Cn Ri2L F nia1 : disasters in Texas, the number of PODs is typically 2

to 3 (Hall 2013). Hence, in our experiments, |S| = 2.
Hence, the budget constraint (A.1) is rewritten as: Similar to Balcik and Beamon (2008), we broadly clas-
XX XX X X H X P sify the supply items into two types: Type 1 and Type
Vik fika Bijn Rnijtp 2. Type 1 items include the infrastructure items such
i2L k2K n2N i2L[S j2L[S ta1 p1 as tents, tarps, blankets, and temporary shelters that
! j6i
help in setting-up the PODs. On the other hand, Type
X X
Cn F nia  n  xa 2 items include commodities with limited shelf life
n2N i2L such as food, medicine, and hygiene kits.
The demand for the items at PODs are higher in the
Finally, the revised objective function is:
first few days after a disaster, and it decreases as the

2 3
!
6X X XX X X
H X
P X X XX X
H XXX 7
min6
4 V ik f ika B ijn R nijtp C n F nia
skt W skt  uisk fika 7
5
i2L k2K n2N i2L[S j2L[S ta1 p1 n2N i2L s2S k2K ta1 k2K i2L s2S
j6i

The formulation above assumes that if the demand
is not satisfied on a day, it needs to be satisfied on a
future day in the planning horizon. However, if vic-
tims do not return to the PODs on a future day the
unfulfilled demand remains unsatisfied. We have dis-
cussed such a scenario in section 6.
4. Experimental Setup
The goal of this section is to present our experimental
setup. Here, we discuss how the dataset is generated
in order to obtain meaningful insights from the exper-
iments. We begin with the discussion of demand for
different types of items.
4.1. Demand
The total time for delivery of supplies (including tra-
vel and load/unload time) from the SAs to the PODs
is typically around 4 hours or more (Moffett 2013).
Further, at PODs, the supplies are distributed to the
disaster victims for usually 12 hours a day (Hall 2013,
Oregon 2013). Hence, we divide a day into P = 3
days progress (Frazier and Weintraub 2013). We cap-
ture this behavior in the initial estimates of demand at
POD 1 that are presented in Table 7. In this table, the
demand at POD 2 is estimated as follows: the demand
for Item 1 is 90% of its demand at POD 1, and the
demand for Item 2 is 110% of its demand at POD 1.
The estimates presented in Table 7 are the initial esti-
mates, and therefore these are used only for the first
optimization run (on Day 0). The demand for subse-
quent optimization runs are estimated as follows. Let
and t denote the day on which the optimization is
run and the day for which the demand is forecasted,
respectively; = 1, 2, . . ., 4; t = + 1, + 2,
. . ., 6. The forecasted demand for the items at POD 1
are generated randomly from a uniform distribution:
D1t UD11t  e1t D11t ; D11t e1t D11t . Since
it is more difficult to forecast farther into the future,
the variance of this distribution should increase with
(t  ). Therefore, based on our discussions with
emergency management administrators, we set
e1t 0:04t  1. Also, the realized demand is con-
sidered to be 10% of the forecasted demand. Hence,
 Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
802 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society

Table 7 Demand Estimates for the First Optimization Run (on Day0)

Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6

Items POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2
1 5000 4500 5000 4500 4300 3870 3200 2880 2500 2250
2 3500 3850 3000 3300 2800 3080 2000 2200 1000 1100

Table 8 Penalty for Each Type of Items on Each Day

Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6

Items POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2 POD 1 POD 2
1 1500 1500 1500 1500 1200 1200 1000 1000 500 500
2 1000 1000 800 800 500 500 400 400 300 300

for each period, we consider five demand realizations Table 9 Parameter Values for Staging Areas
based on random draws from a uniform distribution Distance Travel and Handling cost (Vik )
in this range (i.e., 10% of the forecasted demand). loading/
Next, in Table 8, we present the values of penalty Staging unloading Fixed

skt for each k and t at s = 1, 2. This penalty represents Area (i) (ei1 ) (ei2 ) time (dis ) cost (Fi ) Type-1 item Type-2 item
a surrogate cost incurred by the organization for not 1 59 53 1 10,000 5.0 5.0
satisfying the demand in a timely manner. Since the 2 69 73 1 9452 4.5 4.5
3 218 223 2 2634 2.5 2.5
initial days after a disaster are critical (Hodge 2010), 4 273 275 2 2556 2.0 2.0
we consider higher penalty for not satisfying the 5 472 465 3 1933 0.40 0.40
demand in the initial days compared to those for the 6 512 511 3 1675 0.35 0.35
later days. As we discuss later in section 5, penalty
values given in Table 8 do not affect the managerial
insights of the study. Hence, we need not worry about 8 hours of travel and loading/unloading time from
the actual values used for the experiments. the PODs. In our example, the cities in zone 2 are Lit-
tle Rock, AR, and Richardson, TX. Finally, for zone 3
4.2. Staging Areas and Points of Distribution locations, travel and loading/unloading times are 8
As discussed earlier, we have |S| = 2 in our experi- 12 hours. In Figure B1, the cities in zone 3 are Monroe,
ments. For the illustration of SAs, let us consider the LA, and Cleveland, WI.
midwestern region of the United States. In Figure B1 In our experiments, we consider three sizes for the
(in Appendix S2), there are two PODs in Joplin, MO SAs: Small, Medium, and Large. For deriving mean-
(in the center of the figure). The travel and loading/ ingful insights, we further group all SAs of similar
unloading times from the SAs to the PODs are sizes in a zone. Hence, we obtain six configurations of
divided into three zones. We consider two possible warehouses for the experiments: SML, SLM, MLS,
SAs each in zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3 (total six loca- MSL, LMS, and LSM. Here, SML denotes that the
tions). Therefore, |L| = 6 in our experiments. The dis- small size SAs are in zone 1, medium size SAs are in
tances of potential SAs from the PODs are obtained zone 2, and large size SAs are in zone 3. The other
from Microsoft MapPoint. In our experiments, the far- configurations are defined similarly. Further, as dis-
thest SA is at approximately 512 miles from the cussed earlier, the SAs closer to the disaster locations
PODs, and the nearest SA is at around 53 miles. These have higher fixed and handling costs.
distances are consistent with our earlier discussion
that the PODs are selected close to the SAs, but can be 4.3. Trucks
opened as far as 600 miles (Moffett 2013). The truck types represent the capacities of trucks. In
The fixed and the handling costs of operating SAs, practice, the trucks are available in certain standard
as well as distances and travel times, are given in capacities (Robinson 2012). Hence, for our experi-
Table 9. Since each travel interval has 4 hours, all ments, we categorize the trucks in three types accord-
locations are within one, two, or three travel intervals ing to their capacities: large, medium, and small size.
from PODs. Zone 1 includes all SAs within 4 hours of Here, the 53 feet trailer, with a capacity of 4000 cubic
travel and loading/unloading time. In Figure B1, the feet, is an example of a large size truck. The medium
SAs in zone 1 are Springfield, MO, and Kansas City, size truck is typically a 45 feet trailer, and the small
KS. Similarly, zone 2 includes possible SAs at 4 size truck is a 20 feet trailer. The capacities of medium
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
Table 10 Parameter Values for Trucks
Total number
Type of truck (n) Capacity (cn ) available (hn )
Type 1 (Large) 4000 3 40
Type 2 (Medium) 3000 4 30
Type 3 (Small) 2000 5 20
and small size trucks are usually 3000 and 2000 cubic
feet, respectively (Robinson 2012). The details regard-
ing truck capacities, transportation costs, and avail-
abilities are provided in Table 10.
5. Discussion and Managerial Insights
The goal of this section is to present useful guidelines
for managers using the optimal solution obtained
from the MIP formulation presented in section 3. As
discussed earlier, the optimization model is run 5
times in a rolling-horizon manner for each problem
set. Before each run, we record the available budget
and the status of inventory and trucks. For brevity,
we confine our discussions to SML and LMS configu-
rations, because the insights obtained from these con-
figurations hold for other configurations as well. For
each problem set, we run three problem classes
named Problem 1, Problem 2, and Problem 3.
Problem 1: It depicts a situation in which the impact
of the disaster is low and the time to reach
the PODs from the staging areas are as discussed
in the previous section. The value function
parameters for Problem 1 are a = 0.3, b = 0.04, and
e = 7.
Problem 2: It represents medium impact disasters.
The time to reach the PODs increase as a result of
the destruction level. In order to account for this
increase, we consider two SAs in zone 1 (similar to
that in the previous problem), one SA in zone 2 (in
place of two SAs in the previous problem), and
three SAs in zone 3 (in place of two SAs in the pre-
vious problem). The value function parameters for
Problem 2 are a = 0.03, b = 0.004, and e = 8.
Problem 3: The high impact disasters are represented
using Problem 3. The time to reach the PODs are
the highest as a result of the destruction level. In
order to account for this increase, the SA distribu-
tion over zones 1, 2, and 3 are considered one,
one, and four, respectively. The value function
parameters for Problem 3 are a = 0.003, b = 0.0004,
and e = 10.
We solve these problems, using CPLEX Concert
Technology on a Lenovo laptop computer with Win-
dows 8.1, Intel i7 processor, and 8 GB of installed
RAM. When the value function is high (i.e., Problem
3), the computation time is less compared to those for
803
Problem 1 and Problem 2. Specifically, the average CPU
Fixed
times for Problem 1, Problem 2, and Problem 3 are: 6324,
cost (Cn ) 1886, and 1519 seconds for the LMS configuration;
and 6046, 3300, and 793 seconds for the SML configu-
ration, respectively.
5.1. Sensitivity to Budget Allocation
We begin by analyzing the impact of operational bud-
get on the solution. In our experiments, initially we
increment the budget level in small arbitrarily chosen
intervals in the range of $35,000$40,000 (i.e., $35,000,
$36,000, $39,000, and $40,000) to study how the opera-
tional cost and the value function change with bud-
get. Then, we consider two higher budget levels (i.e.,
$55,000 and $75,000) that seem reasonable to examine
whether the pattern and insights are valid at higher
budget levels. For each problem class (Problem 1, Prob-
lem 2, and Problem 3) and a budget level, we consider
five demand realizations (as discussed in section 1).
For each budget level, there are four runs (as
explained in sections 3 and 4) and six problem config-
urations (LMS, LSM, MSL, MLS, SML, SLM). How-
ever, as discussed earlier, we report the results for
only two configurations (SML and LMS). Hence, in
summary, we report the results for 6 9 3 9
5 9 4 9 2 = 720 problem instances. For each parame-
ter setting, we present the average of the five demand
realizations.
5.1.1. Minimum Budget Required. One of the
challenges faced by the emergency management
administrators is to find the minimum budget
required to sustain operations for the entire duration
of the relief operations. The solution of our model
will help them in finding this amount, which may
be used by the administrators to request funding
from appropriate authorities. For example, the
behavior of operational cost is shown in Figure 4. In
this figure, the budget is plotted on the x-axis and
the total operational cost on the y-axis. All problem
classes have different budget levels at which the
solution to the problem becomes feasible. In our
experiments, that level is between $32,734 and
$34,980. The minimum budget level required for fea-
sible operations is also presented in Table 11.
Clearly, these budget values represent the minimum
budget to obtain feasible solutions for the respective
problems. Therefore, based on the estimates before
the disaster strikes, the emergency management
administrators may use the solution of the proposed
model to determine and convincingly present the
minimum budget requirement. This is an important
result for the emergency management administra-
tors, because it is usually difficult to credibly present
the minimum budget requirement for carrying out
the operations.

804 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
Figure 4
(a)
Table 11 Minimum Budget Level for Feasibility
Problem 1 Problem 2
SML $32,734.00 $33,126.60
LMS $33,116.00 $34,263.00
For the rest of the discussion, we assume that the
budget is sufficient to carry out the relief operations.
5.1.2. How the Operational Cost and the Value
Function Change with Budget?. Figures 4 and 5
show that both LMS and SML configurations behave
in a similar manner for all the disaster impact levels:
As the budget value increases, both the operational
cost and the value function first increase and then
remain steady. These results can be explained as fol-
lows. After the feasibility point of the budget, more
budget is used to store items at SAs closer to the
PODs for improving the value function. Hence, both
the operational cost and the value function initially
increase with the budget level. However, there exists
a saturation level after which more budget cannot
improve the value function. Hence, after the satura-
tion level, both the operational cost and the value
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Impact of Budget on Operational Cost
(b)
(c)
function attain a steady state. Figure 4 also shows that
Problem 3 the difference between the operational costs of LMS
$34,061.50 configuration and SML configuration depends on
$34,980.00 both the impact level of disaster and the budget level.
Specifically, for higher impact disasters (i.e., Problem
3), both configurations have almost the same opera-
tional cost (at any level of budget). However, for low
and medium impact disasters (i.e., Problem 1 and
Problem 2), the LMS configuration has higher opera-
tional cost at the higher level of budget. At the lower
level of budget, both configurations have almost the
same operational cost (for any impact of disaster).
Further, as shown in Figure 5, the LMS configuration
has higher value function than that for the SML con-
figuration. Hence, choosing the right configuration of
SAs is critical for the effectiveness of the last mile
distribution. Other considerations in choosing the
configuration should be based on the criticality of
delivering items on time, which depends on the nat-
ure and impact of the disaster.
These results provide several useful managerial
insights: (i) In both configurations, there exists a mini-
mum budget level for the feasibility of logistics opera-
tions below which the demand is not satisfied. If the
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
Figure 5
(a)
budget is more than this minimum budget level, the
model strikes a balance between the operational cost
and the value function. (ii) In the feasible region, both
configurations satisfy demand equally at each level of
disaster. However, as evident from the value func-
tions, the LMS configuration provides higher humani-
tarian value. In order to do so, the LMS configuration
usually incurs more operational cost. But, interest-
ingly, in some cases (e.g., when the impact of disaster
is high or the budget level is low), the LMS configura-
tion is able to improve the value function even by uti-
lizing almost the same operational cost as the SML
configuration. Also, as expected, more budget is
utilized in the higher impact disasters (for both con-
figurations). (iii) The organizations need to make a
trade-off between the operational budget and the effi-
ciency of logistics operations for the last mile distribu-
tion. (iv) Having more budget than the sufficient level
results in an opportunity cost. In other words, using
more budget than the sufficient level does not
improve the efficiency of operations, and therefore
the additional budget (beyond the sufficient level)
may be used for some other activities, such as those in
the reconstruction phase.
805
Impact of Budget on Value Function
(b)
(c)
5.1.3. Behavior of the Components of the
Operational Cost. We now analyze each component
of the operational cost (i.e., fixed cost of the selected
SAs, handling cost of storage at these SAs, fixed cost
of the selected trucks, and transportation cost). The
results are presented in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9. In these
figures, all individual costs are plotted on the y-axis.
Interestingly, in Figures 69, it is easy to observe
that the individual components of the operational cost
do not vary significantly across the two configura-
tions when the budget is low. As discussed earlier, at
low budget, the main goal is to satisfy as much
demand as possible because of the high penalty, and
therefore all of the operational budget is used to meet
the demand. Even though the operational cost is
almost the same for the two configurations at low
budget, the LMS configuration is at a disadvantage
because of the following reason. In the LMS configu-
ration, larger SAs are available closer to the PODs.
Since the handling cost is higher for the sites closers
to PODs, the LMS configuration incurs more cost.
Therefore, as shown in Figure 4, for certain budget
levels (e.g., when the budget level is between $32,734
and $33,116 in Problem 1), the SML configuration is

806 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
Figure 6 Impact of Budget on Fixed Cost of Staging Areas
(a)
(c)
feasible but the LMS configuration is infeasible.
Hence, at very low budget levels, there may be unsat-
isfied demand in the LMS configuration but not in the
SML configuration. Therefore, we can conclude that,
in the event of a very low operational budget, the dis-
aster response organizations should find smaller SAs
closer to the PODs in order to carry out the operations
in a feasible manner.
Figure 9 presents several interesting and (some-
what counter-intuitive) results. As discussed earlier,
as the budget increases, the items are stored closer to
the PODs in order to increase the value function.
Hence, intuitively, the transportation cost should
decrease with an increase in budget. However, as
shown in Figure 9, this is not always the case. For
example, in the LMS configuration, at mid level of
budget, the transportation cost increases with an
increase in budget. This result can be explained as fol-
lows. As the budget increases, the aid organization
prefers to select more SAs closer to the PODs. Since
larger SAs are available closer to the PODs in this con-
figuration, the cost of opening and operating these
SAs is high. Hence, in order to balance the total cost
of opening and operating SAs, the aid organization
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
(b)
may also select some smaller SAs farther from the
PODs. These two decisions have opposing impacts on
the transportation cost. Hence, in certain situations,
the transportation cost may increase with an increase
in budget. The increase in transportation cost with an
increase in budget for the SML configuration at low
level of budget can be explained in a similar manner.
These results indicate that, in the optimal solution,
there is a strong interplay among the budgets allo-
cated to different activities. Hence, the aid organiza-
tions need to be prudent in choosing the
configuration setting when either of the following
resources has limited availability: (i) potential SA
locations, (ii) inventory, (iii) trucks, or (iv) possible
routes.
As an overall effect, Figures 4 and 5 show that the
operational cost is sometimes higher in the LMS con-
figuration compared to that in the SML configuration
(especially when the budget level is high and the
impact of disaster is not very high). However, the
value function is always higher in the LMS configura-
tion compared to that in that in the SML configura-
tion. This is because of the fact that, in the LMS
configuration, it is possible to store more in the larger
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
Figure 7 Impact of Budget on Handling Cost of Staging Areas
(a)
(c)
SAs closer to the PODs. Therefore, from the perspec-
tive of value function, it is beneficial to have larger
SAs closer to the PODs (even when the budget is high
and the impact of disaster is not very high). However,
if the aid organization is concerned about the opera-
tional cost, it is sometimes beneficial to have larger
SAs farther from the PODs at the high level of opera-
tional budget. This benefit diminishes when the
impact of disaster is high. Hence, for the high impact
disasters, it is always beneficial to have larger SAs clo-
ser to the PODs. On the other hand, it is sometimes
essential to have larger SAs farther from the PODs in
order to carry out the operations in a feasible manner
(when the budget level is very low).
Finally, we can conclude that the optimal budget al-
location should be determined by considering all the
different factors together, such as the configuration of
SAs (SML, LMS, etc.), and the perceived humanitar-
ian value. Hence, it is critical to find the right SAs in
the preparedness phase.
5.2. How Do the Types of Trucks Affect Cost?
We may have all trucks of the same type (e.g., all
trucks of large size or all trucks of small size) or
some mix of the different types of trucks. Hence, we
807
(b)
consider following truck combinations to represent
different scenarios regarding the availability of the
number of trucks of each type: (12, 0, 0), (0, 12, 0), (3,
3, 6), (4, 4, 4), and (12, 12, 12). Here, (3, 3, 6) indicates
that there are three trucks of Type 1, three trucks of
Type 2, and six trucks of Type 3. Note that there are
same total number of trucks (i.e., 12) in each of the
first four combinations. The last combination essen-
tially represents the unlimited number of trucks of
each type.1 By having the combinations this way, we
are able to identify the best combination of trucks that
is preferable for the logistic activity under a given dis-
aster scenario.
In order to present our insights, we consider the last
combination (i.e., (12, 12, 12)) as the baseline case,
because it represents the unlimited truck case.We
thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this
analysis. In Figure 10, we present the percentage
increase in operational cost (compared to that in the
baseline case) when the number of trucks of each type
is not unlimited. Here, we also attempt to analyze the
best combinations of trucks for different types of cri-
sis. In this figure, the x-axis represents each problem
class, and, as discussed above, the y-axis represents
the percentage increase in operational cost from the

808 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
Figure 8 Impact of Budget on Fixed Cost of Trucks
(a)
(c)
unlimited truck case. The absence of vertical bars
indicates 0% (or almost 0%) increase in cost over the
unlimited truck case. Hence, for those instances, the
solution is as good as that in the unlimited truck case.
On the other hand, a large value indicates that the
solution deteriorates when the number of trucks
becomes limited.
In the figure, different combinations for the number
of trucks of different types are represented as follows:
1 represents (12, 0, 0), 2 represents (0, 12, 0), and
so on.
Interestingly, Figure 10 shows that none of the
combinations has 0% increase in operational cost for
all the scenarios. However, the overall results sug-
gest that, in general, the results are better when
there is a good mix of trucks of all types (i.e., combi-
nations 3 and 4). Also, the figure shows that the
results are usually the worst for combination 1
where the number of large size trucks is high.
Hence, in spite of the economies of scale, it is not
always beneficial to keep the high number of large
trucks. These results are consistent across different
impacts of disasters (i.e., different problem classes).
We also find that, for both SML and LMS configura-
tions, the truck combination does not impact the
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
(b)
selection of SAs (for brevity, we do not present the
details of this result in the figure).
The results (and insights) presented above remain
the same in the Unfulfilled Demand case men-
tioned in section 3 and discussed further in section 6.
6. Conclusions and Future Research
Directions
In this research, we present an integrated logistics
model for humanitarian operations. The past studies
have emphasized that the humanitarian logistics
problem needs to be solved differently than a tradi-
tional supply chain system. In this regard, by adding
more value on the humanitarian causes, our objective
function helps in choosing staging areas that reduce
the time to meet demand. Our innovative value func-
tion and penalty costs help achieve this objective. In
our integrated model, we simultaneously determine
the location of staging areas, inventory assignment to
staging areas, the number and sizes of trucks, and the
routing of trucks. These decisions were made in isola-
tion in the previous research. The results of the pro-
posed model provide valuable insights for the
disaster management organizations who are responsi-
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society 809

Figure 9 Impact of Budget on Transportation Cost

(a) (b)

(c)

ble for the last mile distribution problem. First of all,
our results show that having the value function in the
objective provides us the flexibility to select SAs
based on their closeness to the PODs rather than their
operational costs. This is very important in a disaster
situation, because the demand needs to be satisfied in
a timely manner.
Our analysis would help emergency management
administrators in credibly establishing the minimum
budget required for carrying out the response opera-
tions. This is very useful, especially when the
resources are limited (which is usually the case). Fur-
ther, our results indicate that the disaster manage-
ment organizations should allocate the budget in an
optimal manner using the proposed methodology.
Having more budget than the optimal level results in
an opportunity cost. In other words, the optimal
assignment of budget may reduce the unnecessary
allocation of money for a given humanitarian effort.
Next, we find that in the event of very low operational
budget, the organizations must find smaller SAs clo-
ser to the PODs in order to carry out the operations in

Figure 10 Sensitivity of Operational Cost to the Truck Combinations

(a) (b)

810 Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
a feasible manner. Further, from the perspective of
operational cost, it is beneficial to have larger SAs far-
ther from the PODs at the high level of operational
budget. This benefit diminishes when the impact of
disaster is high. However, from the perspective of
value function, it is always beneficial to have larger
locations closer to PODs even when the budget is high
and the impact of disaster is not very high. Finally,
our results indicate that it is not always beneficial to
keep high number of large trucks. Rather, the organi-
zation needs to keep a mix of different types of trucks
to conduct efficient operations.
We drew attention to Unfulfilled Demand in
sections 3 and 5. The Unfulfilled Demand case
is a relaxation of our model that requires the
removal of constraint sets (3) and (4); and chang-
ing the variable D0skt to Dskt throughout the formu-
lation. Therefore, a feasible solution to our model
always remains feasible in the Unfulfilled
Demand case. Further, as mentioned in section 5,
for our experiments, we consider that the budget
is sufficient to carry out the relief operations.
Hence, the results (and insights) obtained from all
of our experiments are valid for the Unfulfilled
Demand as well.
One possible future research direction is to validate
the presented model using the data collected from
actual crisis situations. Such validity would not only
help in strengthening the results of this model, but it
may also help in fine-tuning the model. Another pos-
sible future research direction is to extend this model
for other types of disasters that are not easily pre-
dictable. Finally, it would be interesting and useful to
model and analyze other phases of disasters (i.e., pre-
paredness phase and reconstruction phase) in a simi-
lar manner.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the department editor, the anonymous
senior editor, and the three anonymous referees for their
comments and suggestions that have greatly improved this
manuscript.
Note
1 State%20Unified%20Logistics%20Plan.pdf (accessed date May
The combination (0, 0, 12) does not yield feasible solu-
tions, and therefore we do not consider it in our analysis.
References
Afshar, A., A. Haghani. 2012. Modeling integrated supply chain
logistics in real-time large-scale disaster relief operations.
Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci. 46(4): 327338.
Altay, N., R. Pal. 2014. Information diffusion among agents:
Implications for humanitarian operations. Prod. Oper. Manag.
23(6): 10151027.
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Angelis, V. D., M. Mecoli, C. Nikoi, G. Storchi. 2007. Multiperiod
integrated routing and scheduling of world food programme
cargo planes in angola. Comput. Oper. Res. 34(6): 16011615.
Apte, A. 2009. Humanitarian logistics: A new field of research
and action. Found. Trends Technol. Inf. Oper. Manag. 3: 1100.
Balcik, B., B. M. Beamon. 2008. Facility location in humanitarian
relief. Int. J. Log.: Res. Appl. 11(2): 101121.
Balcik, B., B. M. Beamon, K. Smilowitz. 2008. Last mile distribu-
tion in humanitarian relief. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 12(2): 5163.
Barbarosoglu, G., Y. Arda. 2004. A two-stage stochastic program-
ming framework for transportation planning in disaster
response. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 55(1): 4353.
Barbarosoglu, G., L. Ozdamar, A. Cevik. 2002. An interactive
approach for hierarchical analysis of helicopter logistics in
disaster relief operations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 140(1): 118133.
Beamon, B. M., S. A. Kotleba. 2006. Inventory modelling for com-
plex emergencies in humanitarian relief operations. Int. J.
Log.: Res. Appl. 9(1): 118.
Berman, O., Z. Drezner, G. O. Wesolowsky. 2007. The transfer
point location problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 179(3): 978989.
Broward. 2009. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
(CEMP). Available at http://www.broward.org/Emergency/
Documents/2009browardcemp110309.pdf (accessed date May
25, 2015).
Carroll, A., J. Neu. 2009. Volatility, unpredictability and asymme-
try: An organising framework for humanitarian logistics oper-
ations? Manage. Res. News 32(11): 10241037.
Caunhye, A. M., X. Nie, S. Pokharel. 2012. Optimization models
in emergency logistics: A literature review. Socio-Econ. Plann.
Sci. 46(1): 413.
Christopher, M., P. Tatham. 2011. Humanitarian Logistics: Meeting
the Challenge of Preparing for and Responding to Disasters. Kogan
Page, London, United Kingdom.
Coppola, D. 2006. Introduction to International Disaster Management.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, USA.
Dawande, M., I. Drobouchevitch, T. Rajapakshe, C. Sriskandara-
jah. 2010. Analysis of revenue maximization under two
movie-screening policies. Prod. Oper. Manag. 19(1): 111124.
Eftekhar, M., A. Masini, A. Robotis, L. N. Van Wassenhove. 2014.
Vehicle procurement policy for humanitarian development
programs. Prod. Oper. Manag. 23(6): 951964.
FEMA. 2012. The Federal Emergency Management Agencys
(FEMAs) methodology for estimating potential losses from
disasters. FEMA HAZUS. Available at http://www.fema.
gov/hazus (accessed date May 25, 2015).
Fishburn, P. C. 1984. Equity axioms for public risks. Oper. Res.
32(4): 901908.
Florida. 2005. Logistics technical bulletin. State Emergency
Response Team. Available at http://www.floridadisaster.org/
Response/Logistics/2007/Documents/LTB%201-1.pdf (accessed
date May 25, 2015).
Florida. 2009. State of Florida State Unified Logistics Plan. Available
at http://www.floridadisaster.org/documents/CEMP/Florida_
25, 2015).
Frazier, C., M. Weintraub. 2013. Brazos County and Texas A&M
Emergency Coordinators, Interview.
Haghani, A., A. M. Afshar. 2009. Supply chain management in
disaster response. Final project report, Mid-Atlantic Universi-
ties Transportation Center.
Hall, J. 2013. Texas Division of Emergency Management State
Coordinator Region 2, Interview.
Hodge, N. 2010. Rescue ops in Haiti: The first 72 hours are criti-
cal. WIRED. Available at http://www.wired.com/danger
Manoj, Kumar, and Gupta: Integrated Logistics Model for Disaster
Production and Operations Management 25(5), pp. 791811, 2015 Production and Operations Management Society
room/2010/01/rescue-ops-in-haiti-the-first-72-hours-are-criti-
cal/#more-21598 (accessed date May 25, 2015).
Holgu
-Veras, J., M. Jaller, L. N. Van Wassenhove, N. P
erez, T.
Wachtendorf. 2012. On the unique features of post-disaster
humanitarian logistics. J. Oper. Manag. 30(7): 494506.
Homeland. 2009. Femas sourcing for disaster response goods &
services. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspec-
tor General. Available at http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/
Mgmt/OIG_09-96_Aug09.pdf (accessed date May 25, 2015).
IFRC. 2000. Disaster emergency needs assessment. http://
www.ifrc.org/Global/Disemnas.pdf (accessed date May 25,
2015).
Jia, H., F. Ordez, M. Dessouky. 2007. A modeling framework for
facility location of medical services for large-scale emergen-
cies. IIE Trans. 39(1): 4155.
Kapucu, N., W. Lawther, S. Pattison. 2007. Logistics and staging
areas in managing disasters and emergencies. J. Homeland
Secur. Emerg. Manag. 4(2): 117.
Keeney, R. L. 1980. Equity and public risk. Oper. Res. 28(3-part-i):
527534.
Keeney, R. L., R. L. Winkler. 1985. Evaluating decision strategies
for equity of public risks. Oper. Res. 33(5): 955970.
Kelly, C. 2003. Guidelines for rapid environmental impact assess-
ment in disasters. Benfield Hazard Research Center. Available at
http://www.forcedmigration.org/sphere/pdf/shelter/benfield-
hazard/rea-guidelines-4-2.pdf (accessed date May 25, 2015).
Kov

acs, G., K. Spens. 2009. Identifying challenges in humanitarian
logistics. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Log. Manag. 39(6): 506528.
Lin, Y., R. Batta, P. Rogerson, A. Blatt, M. Flanigan. 2011. A logis-
tics model for emergency supply of critical items in the after-
math of a disaster. Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci. 45(4): 132145.
McCall, V. M. 2006. Designing and pre-positioning humanitar-
ian assistance pack-up kits (HA PUKs) to support pacific
fleet emergency relief operations. Masters Thesis, Naval
Postgraduate School. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA462646 (accessed date May 25,
2015).
Moffett, S. 2013. FEMA Region 6 External Affairs, Interview.
Oh, S.-C., A. Haghani. 1997. Testing and evaluation of a multi-
commodity multi-modal network flow model for disaster
relief management. J. Adv. Transport. 31(3): 249282.
Oregon. 2013. SA IMass Commodities. Available at http://
www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/plans_train/docs/eop/eop_
sa_i.pdf (accessed date May 25, 2015).
Ozdamar, L., M. A. Ertem. 2015. Models, solutions and enabling
technologies in humanitarian logistics. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 244(1):
5565.
Ozdamar, L., E. Ekinci, B. Kkyazici. 2004. Emergency logistics
planning in natural disasters. Ann. Oper. Res. 129: 217245.
811
Perry, T. 2005. Special report: Delivering relief to tsunami victims.
Log. Today 46: 13.
Rajapakshe, T., M. Dawande, C. Sriskandarajah. 2013. On the
trade-off between remanufacturing and recycling. Int. J. Serv.
Oper. Manag. 14(1): 153.
Rajapakshe, T., M. Dawande, S. Gavirneni, C. Sriskandarajah, P. R.
Panchalavarapu. 2014. Dedicated transportation subnetworks:
Design, analysis, and insights. Prod. Oper. Manag. 23(1):
138159.
Robinson, C. 2012. Trailer equipment guide. Available at http://
www.chrobinson.com/en/us/-/media/ChRobinson/News-
PDF/TruckloadEquipmentGuide.pdf (accessed date May 25,
2015).
Salmer
on, J., A. Apte. 2010. Stochastic optimization for natural dis-
aster asset prepositioning. Prod. Oper. Manag. 19(5): 561574.
Samii, R., L. Van Wassenhove, K. Kumar, I. Becerra-Fernandez.
2002. Ifrc choreographer of disaster management: Preparing
for tomorrows disasters. INSEAD case study, 45039.
Sarin, R. K. 1985. Technical notemeasuring equity in public risk.
Oper. Res. 33(1): 210217.
Smith, E. 2011. Incident support bases, spring flood edition.
FEMA Blog, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Avail-
able at http://blog.fema.gov/2011/03/incident-support-
bases-spring-flood.html (accessed date May 25, 2015).
Sodhi, M. S., C. S. Tang. 2014. Buttressing supply chains against
floods in asia for humanitarian relief and economic recovery.
Prod. Oper. Manag. 23(6): 938950.
de la Torre, L., I. Dolinskaya, K. Smilowitz. 2012. Disaster relief
routing: Integrating research and practice. Socio-Econ. Plann.
Sci. 46(1): 8897.
Ukkusuri, S. V., W. F. Yushimito. 2008. Location routing approach
for the humanitarian prepositioning problem. J. Transp. Res.
Board 2089: 1825.
Van Wassenhove, L. N. 2006. Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply
chain management in high gear. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57(5): 475489.
Yi, W., A. Kumar. 2007. Ant colony optimization for disaster relief
operations. Transp. Res. Part E 43(6): 660672.
Yi, W., L. Ozdamar. 2007. A dynamic logistics coordination model
for evacuation and support in disaster response activities.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 179(3): 11771193.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
online version of this article:
Appendix S1: MIP Formulation.
Appendix S2: Staging Areas.