A Planning and Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Humanitarian Logistics in Disaster Response
A Planning and Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Humanitarian Logistics in Disaster Response
Richard Oloruntoba
Abstract While the term sustainability has been used in a broad range of literatures,
disciplines and contexts; sustainability in the context of humanitarian logistics (HL)
has been given less attention and integration (Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010).
Sustainable humanitarian logistics (SHL) planning and decision-making in response
to natural disasters implies innovative, socially responsible, and proactive decisionmaking
by logisticians that minimizes negative impacts, and enables long-term
maintenance of community wellbeing, while maintaining a balance between social,
environmental, and economic goals. This chapter outlines important assumptions
from the existing literature on HL about its nature, processes and activities; and
discusses unaddressed issues of environmental responsibility, community participation
in disaster response and sustainability that are not currently addressed by the
HL literature. Using case examples of natural disaster response and recovery, and
associated logistical response in Australia as examples, the chapter illustrates the
range and types of response and recovery-related logistical activities that contribute
to sustainability in the field of HL, and from which a SHL planning and decisionmaking
framework is proposed.
Introduction
The terms ‘humanitarian logistics operations’ (HLO) and ‘sustainability’ seem
incompatible and unrelated. Both seem to be at opposite ends of the logistics,
distribution and transportation continuum (Frota et al. 2008; Halldorsson and Kovacs
2010; Lee et al. 2010). The perception of extreme bi-polarity seems to originate from
some of the earliest and most common references to humanitarian logistics (HL)
activities. References of this nature often implicitly assume that features of
sustainability, such as the protection of ecological systems and community participation,
are of secondary importance in the emergency delivery of urgent life-saving
disaster relief (e.g. Long and Wood 1995). Hence, it is not surprising that sustainability
is an often overlooked concept in humanitarian logistics literature.
Yet, sustainability in both research and practice is rapidly gaining ground as a
viable area of research (e.g. Baumgartner et al. 2008; Golini et al. 2014; Hirsch
et al. 2006; Mont et al. 2014; Sharma and Ruud 2003). Sustainability is also an
ideology in economic, technological, political and academic circles—in spite of the
fact that academic research has only just begun to understand the concept theoretically,
empirically and strategically (Bansal and Roth 2000; Kilbourne et al.
2002; Sharma et al. 2010).
Nonetheless, understanding the importance of sustainability in HL activities, its
strategic nature, and how it influences the development of HL theory and practice
seem to be urgent tasks (Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010; Sharma et al. 2007; Starik
and Marcus 2000; Varey 2011). So far, efforts to introduce sustainable HL solutions
in theory and practice implicitly have assumed that HL practitioners and employees
of humanitarian and disaster relief organizations are aware of the goals of sustainable
humanitarian logistics operations, and related policies and procedures.
However, such an assumption may be inaccurate as HL practitioners and employees
may be unaware of sustainability issues, especially pertaining to HL activities in the
context of natural disaster response and management (Lozano and Lozano 2014).
Even when they are aware of the issues, the term ‘sustainability’ has been used so
generally in a broad range of literatures, scientific disciplines, and contexts that the
term probably means different things to different people (Borland 2009a, b; Lindahl
et al. 2014).
As a result of complexities arising from differing usages of the term, each
‘context’ must define what sustainability means to it (Borland 2009a, b; Lindahl
et al. 2014). However, it is impractical to have a different approach to each similar
event. A part of this challenge is that sustainability as a concept has its roots in a
range of scientific disciplines and, therefore, does not belong to any one body of
knowledge (Borland 2009a, b). The concept of sustainability is interdisciplinary,
and scientific papers published about the concept often use a range of laws and
theories as a lens for analysis. For example, ecological systems theories, systems
theory, the laws of thermodynamics and Gaia theory have often been used (Borland
2009a, b). Overall, it seems that the overarching theme of these varied approaches
to the concept of sustainability is to try to explain the behavior, homeostatic balance
and maintenance of life on earth (Lovelock 2000).
In the specific context of HLO for natural disaster management, sustainable
humanitarian logistics (SHL) implies innovative, socially responsible and proactive
decision-making by responders and logisticians, as well as host governments. Such
decision-making must: minimize negative impacts; enable long-term maintenance of
community wellbeing; and maintain a balance between life-saving, social, ethical,
environmental and economic goals. Also, SHL implies a systematic longer term
view and a focus on life-saving ethics, as well as social, environmental and economic
goals.
As previously highlighted, in spite of the importance of SHL, sustainability in
the field of HLO and HL research has had relatively little attention and integration
(Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010). As a result, reference to SHL often results in
one’s mind almost always wandering to issues of: transport energy efficiency
(Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010); reduced transport emissions and carbon-footprints
in transport, as well as the delivery and distribution of recyclable disaster relief such
as tents and cooking utensils. However, sustainability is broader in scope than these
narrow issues. Thus, the HL literature is in urgent need of research that addresses
issues of sustainability in HL planning and decision-making which incorporates, for
example, considerations of: environmental conservation, community participation,
social responsibility, equity and ethics. This chapter fills this gap by:
1. Drawing out key assumptions about current approaches to the nature, process and
activities of HL, and how these might have become barriers to SHL planning and
decision-making;
2. Advocating for sustainable humanitarian logistics (SHL) planning and decisionmaking
in response to, and management of, natural disasters with a focus on
environmental conservation, community participation, social responsibility,
equity, and ethics;
3. Outlining a simple framework from case examples for SHL planning and
decision-making in humanitarian assistance and disaster recovery.
The rest of the chapter is structured as follows: Sect. 3.2 traces the historical
origins of important features and characteristics of HL and the key assumptions that
underpin current approaches and perspectives on the nature, processes and activities
of HL; and how these might have become barriers to the incorporation of
sustainability into HL planning and decision-making. Section 3.3 argues the case
for incorporating elements of sustainability into humanitarian logistics (SHL)
planning and decision-making in response to, and management of, natural disasters.
Section 3.4 outlines from case examples a framework for sustainable HL planning
and decision-making in disaster relief, thus explicating the range of disaster
response and recovery-related logistical activities that contribute to sustainability in
the field of HL. Section 3.5 concludes the chapter.
Origins, Features and Assumptions of HL Underpinning Current Approaches
There are several historical features and assumptions of HL that underpin current
approaches and perspectives in the HL literature. These features and assumptions
may be summarized into four broad categories: (a) response speed, (b) inconsistent
use of terms, (c) the anthropocentric nature of HL and (d) miscellaneous issues
in HL.
(a) Response speed: a barrier to sustainable HLO?
Early references to HL activities may be traced to Henry Dunant, Guillaume-Henri
Dufour, Gustave Moynier, Louis Appia and Théodore Maunoir who rapidly
organized and delivered relief to wounded soldiers, and later founded the first
National Society for Relief in the state of Württemberg in Germany in 1863, which
later became the Red Cross Society (Arizzabalaja 2014). Later, in 1917, Samuel
Prince undertook a sociological study of the aftermath of the Halifax ship explosion
in 1917 and associated disaster relief response (Prince 1920). More recently, Long
and Wood (1995) in their seminal article referred to the term ‘disaster relief’ in the
context of urgent famine relief rather than HL. However, Thomas (2003, p. 3)
seems to be the first to use the term ‘HL’ directly in the context of ‘the processes
and systems involved in mobilizing people, resources, skills and knowledge to help
vulnerable people affected by natural disasters and complex emergencies.
These examples imply an urgency to provide relief to needy and vulnerable
people affected by disasters in order to save lives and reduce suffering. Therefore,
the focus of HL seems to be on the speedy delivery of relief goods and services,
leaving very little time to plan for other important considerations that have little to
do with a speedy response, at least in the emergency relief phase (Thomas 2003).
Long and Wood (1995) described the features of such logistical activities quite
well: “…a model for famine relief would emphasize quick reaction capabilities…,”
(p. 215), and with a requirement for agility, flexibility and speed in the distribution
of relief. Such a focus on speed may leave little room to think more systematically
and comprehensively. Such antecedents seem to be a hallmark of HL activity
according to the academic literature. A second feature is the inconsistent use of
terms and terminology.
(b) Inconsistent use of terms and terminology in HL
A second issue is that, as commonly found in emerging areas of research and
emerging disciplines, and, in spite of its generally acknowledged importance in our
disaster-prone world, there remains no consensus on what the term HL actually
means. There is no agreement on how the term relates to other concepts and
processes in procuring, delivering and distributing relief to needy people in the
aftermath of a disaster (compare, for example, the definitions of Holguín-Veras
et al. 2012; Kovacs and Spens 2007 and Oloruntoba and Gray 2006). Kovacs and
Spens (2007) in their literature review indicate that HL encompasses a range of
operations at different times and can be a response to various catastrophes with the
goal to “aid people in their survival”, and this includes “assisting the development
of a region…,” “… and the running of refugee camps” (p. 101). Presumably
“different times” refer to the notion that there are three phases of disaster management
and, as such, HL involves the range of activities that are performed before,
during and after a disaster. Implicit in such a phased conceptualization of how
disasters unfold is that HL activities ensure that planning, mitigation and preventive
measures are undertaken before a disaster strikes (Van Wassenhove and Pedraza-
Martinez 2014).
Subsequently HL activities ensure that prompt and appropriate assistance is
given to victims of disasters when they occur, as well as in the longer term aftermath
during recovery, rehabilitation, rebuilding and resettlement of affected communities
(Kapucu 2007, 2008). In reality, mitigation and preparedness activities
such as: the training of disaster and emergency personnel; the setting up and
activating of disaster early warning and communication systems; and the undertaking
of the hazard, risk and vulnerability analyses of the population may not
strictly be categorized as logistics or HL activities, and so are the continuous
surveillance and monitoring activities undertaken before a disaster (Overstreet et al.
2011). Hence, it seems that, strictly speaking, many HL activities are often not
undertaken before a disaster occurs, given Thomas’ (2003) view of HL as being “…
processes and systems involved in mobilizing people, resources, skills and
knowledge to help vulnerable people affected by natural disasters and complex
emergencies…” (p. 3). Thomas (2003) seems to assume that a disaster needs to
strike first before HL can be triggered.
Furthermore, Long and Wood (1995) argue that: “Relief is foreign intervention
into a society with the intention of helping local citizens” (p. 213), such as in the
“logistics of famine relief” and other operations that often occur in less developed
regions, which usually have inadequate infrastructures and are away from major
traffic lanes (e.g. Pedraza Martinez et al. 2011; Long and Wood 1995; Thomas
2003). Hence, HL in this definition seems to be perceived as being international—
concerned with some far flung corner of the world, the proverbial ‘Timbuktu,’
where people cannot take care of themselves and require overseas assistance from
outsiders. The Japanese tsunami of 2011, Cyclone Larry of 2006, the Victorian
bushfires of 2009 and Hurricane Katrina of 2005 demonstrate that HL activity can
be local, domestic, national, regional or international.
Disaster impacted places in the developing world are often characterized in the
literature as not having infrastructure, having devastated infrastructure, or on-going
war which creates delivery challenges to outsiders who require prompt access in
order to help. Such characterisations may be a barrier to considerations of SHL in
planning and decision-making, given the emphasis on the devastated infrastructure
and on-going war.
There are other definitions of HL which are beyond the scope of this chapter to
consider, but it is sufficient to conclude that, despite the variety of approaches
available for defining HL, no authoritative or consensual definition exists (Overstreet
et al. 2011). This illustrates the complexity, ambiguity, inconsistencies and confusion
dogging a clear understanding of HL, and, as a result, leaves little room for designing a
sustainable HL that encompasses a broader range of ecological and social considerations.
Overall, it seems that HL activities, judging by its labels of ‘human,’
‘humanity,’ and ‘humanitarian,’ and by the nature of the logistical and other activities
undertaken (e.g. fundraising), firmly puts the human being or saving a human life
at the its core, with minimal systematic thought having been given to saving or
protecting nature in response to natural disasters. In other words, HL is anthropocentric
in its fundamental ideological perspective, whereby the human-being is the
priority and comes first regardless of social, environmental and other costs.
The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987) might have further reinforced such non-deliberate adoption of an anthropocentric
view of HL with its definition of sustainability (see Purser et al. 1995;
Sharma 2007). The United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development’s definition of sustainability also puts the survival and welfare of
human beings first and foremost in all considerations. Such a view in turn precipitates
the human or disaster victim bias in disaster and humanitarian responses.
Likewise, beyond HL, in corporations for example, the focus of management has
recently been on environmental management, sustainable development and environmental
resource management (Porritt 2007; Purser et al. 1995) though still
putting human needs and wants, including further human expansion, consumption
and economic growth and development, above the survival and development needs
of other species. Hence, it is not surprising that such universal parochialism has
resulted in other oversights. There are also other challenges in current views of HL
as discussed below.
(c) Other challenges in current approaches to HL
It is difficult to incorporate sustainability into HL planning and decision-making
ex-ante or as an ‘add-on.’ Such sustainable HL planning and decision-making must
be designed ab initio, in other words from the beginning. Challenges that arise from
this fact include the problem that current approaches to HL often tend to ignore
issues of pre-existing social vulnerability, such as building urban settlements in
high hazard areas, such as flood plains or earthquake zones, which render such
settlements ultimately unsustainable for habitation due to the risk of a natural
physical event coming to fruition (Overstreet et al. 2011). Likewise, issues at the
level of the individual such as pre-existing individual disaster resilience and preparedness
are often ignored in HL responses. These issues may include financial
issues, social issues, health issues and other indicators of resilience. For example,
when a disaster occurs, rich people have relatively greater resources to fall back on
than poor people. Also, individuals with social networks have more friends and
relatives to help them get back onto their feet than those without social resources
and networks. The current approaches to HL planning and response ignores such
issues of pre-existing social vulnerability, because the focus of HL in humanitarian
and disaster response is often narrowly construed. It tends to ignore existing
environmental hazards and increasing vulnerability (Overstreet et al. 2011). HL
similarly ignores the pre-disaster risks of increasing urbanization, globalization,
unmitigated population growth, global climate change and rising sea-levels
(McNamara and Prasad 2014).
HL has a narrow focus on the sourcing, transportation, delivery and distribution
of goods to meet the immediate physical and physiological needs of affected
populations, such as the provision of medical relief, food and water and the associated
fundraising. The socio-psychological and emotional aspects of caring for
affected persons are not often addressed. Other challenges in current approaches to
HL planning and decision-making include the relatively high levels of selectivity,
and sometimes inequities in the response to humanitarian crises. Research has
shown that the logistics of relief distribution often tends to ignore ethics and equity
(Sumathipala 2014; Flynn and Speier 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014; Zach 2014). One
ethical issue that is seldom discussed is the wise spending of tax payer and/or donor
funds. Governments have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to spend tax funds wisely,
and the HO who undertakes HL should also spend funds sustainably (McGee
2008). It seems that this has not always been done.
Another ethical question that is not often asked is whether governments should
get involved at all in disaster relief, recovery and rehabilitation using tax payers’
funds (McGee 2008). People in general often assume, without thinking, that the
government should get involved and use tax payers’ money; however, an ethical
analysis of this issue might reveal that it is less efficient for government to get
involved in such activities, than for the private sector (such as insurance companies
and disaster insurance). If someone who wants to live in a flood zone is not able or
willing to pay market rates for insurance coverage, they should move. People who
have enough sense not to live in a flood zone should not be forced to pay the
insurance premiums of those who do live in such places. It is inherently unfair to
force the general public to subsidize this kind of risk-taking behavior (McGee 2008).
Other challenges emanating from the current approach to HL include the sheer
diversity of actors in a humanitarian response (convergence of people, responders,
volunteers and relief material), and the sheer diversity of disaster contexts, beneficiaries,
stakeholders and requirements. This diversity of actors and stakeholders is
a source of challenge to the implementation of sustainability in HL planning and
decision-making, as various actors will have various goals that may be in conflict.
Further, the disconnection between governments and NGO humanitarian organizations
ensures a disconnected and fragmented response with limited holism or
systems in HL decision-making. As a result of the above discussion, HL planning
and decision-making must be based on a differentiation that helps to isolate specific
characteristics that will inform a sustainable, superior and consistent approach to
both humanitarian interventions and sustainable HL decision-making. In Australia,
the Cyclone Larry humanitarian response is thus far perceived as the benchmark for
HL as it incorporates elements of sustainability such as ethics, social responsibility
and environmental conservation.
To delineate the properties of sustainability, Belz and Peattie (2009) suggest a
framework that features a holistic and systems-based view, and an open-ended
timeframe. The current approaches to HL planning and decision-making as discussed
are inadequate, as the focus seems to be to exclusively mobilize and deliver
tangible relief goods to meet the life sustenance needs of human beings very quickly.
SHL is not just about logistics. Implementing SHL requires collaboration and
consensus with stakeholders of both responders and receiving communities. Such a
‘community’ and ‘beneficiary’ would need to be clarified, as there are currently
multiple understandings of the terms (Crow and Allan 1995). For example, ‘communities
of place’ have to do with varying locations, while ‘communities of interests’
have to do with the different demographic groups such as tourists, infants, farmers,
nursing mothers, etc. (Oloruntoba 2010; Thomsen 2008). Also, socio-demographic
and environmental contexts often come to the fore. Section 3.3 argues the case for
incorporating elements of sustainability into the planning and decision-making
processes of humanitarian logistics (HL).
The Case for Sustainability in Humanitarian Logistics
(SHL) Planning/Decision-Making
Criticisms of HL and disaster relief planning and management are common, most
often in the global media. Common criticisms often have to do with the delivery of
incorrect goods, or delays in the delivery of relief as well as inequitable distribution
of relief (Oloruntoba and Gray 2006). However, it is relatively uncommon to hear
criticisms of a lack of sustainability in HL decision-making, despite the broad
search for innovative practices in humanitarian practice (Weiss and Hoffman 2007;
Ramalingam et al. 2009). However, as understanding of sustainability and sustainable
business practices in the business world develops, the demands for SHL
will grow ever more loudly together with the recognition of the need to preserve
flora and fauna when undertaking HL activities.
As at the time of writing, most debris from earthquakes, cyclones, floods and
tsunamis end up in landfills, with minimal effort made to appropriately sort, separate,
recycle and properly dispose of such disaster waste and debris (Srinivas and
Helmys 2015; Takeda et al. 2014; Grzeda et al. 2014; Tanaka 2014). In addition,
bio-quarantine issues, such as the accidental transfer of indigenous species around
the world, or the spread of pandemics such as Cholera, and the Ebola virus disease
(EVD) through international HL, will become more visible and high profile in the
near future. Also, there will be demands about issues of bio-sanitization, for
example, of returning merchant and navy fleets, aircrafts and various personnel
from other parts of the world in the aftermath of disasters. Additionally, there will
be more stringent calls for the inclusion and participation of disaster-impacted
people in decisions that affect them.
Belz and Peattie (2009) suggest a framework of sustainability in which they
delineate the important characteristics and elements of sustainability, of which
taking a systems-based holistic view instead of an anthropocentric, ‘human only’
view is of paramount importance. Belz and Peattie (2009) also suggest an openended
timeframe, unlike the short timeframes of most disaster relief and disaster
management interventions and associated HL that tend to focus on providing short
term ‘relief’ succor for the needy. The framework by Belz and Peattie (2009)
advocates a global perspective that focuses on ecological sustainability rather than
mere economic efficiency, as well as recognition of the inherent value of nature, the
environment and the ecosystem.
Sustainability in HL demands a clear recognition of limits upon the resources of
nature, such as forests and fisheries, and nature’s limits as a repository for waste,
such as transport effluent and other emissions. Sustainability in HL demands that
we distinguish between unsustainable, unlimited and even wasteful uses of
Richard Oloruntoba
Abstract While the term sustainability has been used in a broad range of literatures,
disciplines and contexts; sustainability in the context of humanitarian logistics (HL)
has been given less attention and integration (Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010).
Sustainable humanitarian logistics (SHL) planning and decision-making in response
to natural disasters implies innovative, socially responsible, and proactive decisionmaking
by logisticians that minimizes negative impacts, and enables long-term
maintenance of community wellbeing, while maintaining a balance between social,
environmental, and economic goals. This chapter outlines important assumptions
from the existing literature on HL about its nature, processes and activities; and
discusses unaddressed issues of environmental responsibility, community participation
in disaster response and sustainability that are not currently addressed by the
HL literature. Using case examples of natural disaster response and recovery, and
associated logistical response in Australia as examples, the chapter illustrates the
range and types of response and recovery-related logistical activities that contribute
to sustainability in the field of HL, and from which a SHL planning and decisionmaking
framework is proposed.
Introduction
The terms ‘humanitarian logistics operations’ (HLO) and ‘sustainability’ seem
incompatible and unrelated. Both seem to be at opposite ends of the logistics,
distribution and transportation continuum (Frota et al. 2008; Halldorsson and Kovacs
2010; Lee et al. 2010). The perception of extreme bi-polarity seems to originate from
some of the earliest and most common references to humanitarian logistics (HL)
activities. References of this nature often implicitly assume that features of
sustainability, such as the protection of ecological systems and community participation,
are of secondary importance in the emergency delivery of urgent life-saving
disaster relief (e.g. Long and Wood 1995). Hence, it is not surprising that sustainability
is an often overlooked concept in humanitarian logistics literature.
Yet, sustainability in both research and practice is rapidly gaining ground as a
viable area of research (e.g. Baumgartner et al. 2008; Golini et al. 2014; Hirsch
et al. 2006; Mont et al. 2014; Sharma and Ruud 2003). Sustainability is also an
ideology in economic, technological, political and academic circles—in spite of the
fact that academic research has only just begun to understand the concept theoretically,
empirically and strategically (Bansal and Roth 2000; Kilbourne et al.
2002; Sharma et al. 2010).
Nonetheless, understanding the importance of sustainability in HL activities, its
strategic nature, and how it influences the development of HL theory and practice
seem to be urgent tasks (Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010; Sharma et al. 2007; Starik
and Marcus 2000; Varey 2011). So far, efforts to introduce sustainable HL solutions
in theory and practice implicitly have assumed that HL practitioners and employees
of humanitarian and disaster relief organizations are aware of the goals of sustainable
humanitarian logistics operations, and related policies and procedures.
However, such an assumption may be inaccurate as HL practitioners and employees
may be unaware of sustainability issues, especially pertaining to HL activities in the
context of natural disaster response and management (Lozano and Lozano 2014).
Even when they are aware of the issues, the term ‘sustainability’ has been used so
generally in a broad range of literatures, scientific disciplines, and contexts that the
term probably means different things to different people (Borland 2009a, b; Lindahl
et al. 2014).
As a result of complexities arising from differing usages of the term, each
‘context’ must define what sustainability means to it (Borland 2009a, b; Lindahl
et al. 2014). However, it is impractical to have a different approach to each similar
event. A part of this challenge is that sustainability as a concept has its roots in a
range of scientific disciplines and, therefore, does not belong to any one body of
knowledge (Borland 2009a, b). The concept of sustainability is interdisciplinary,
and scientific papers published about the concept often use a range of laws and
theories as a lens for analysis. For example, ecological systems theories, systems
theory, the laws of thermodynamics and Gaia theory have often been used (Borland
2009a, b). Overall, it seems that the overarching theme of these varied approaches
to the concept of sustainability is to try to explain the behavior, homeostatic balance
and maintenance of life on earth (Lovelock 2000).
In the specific context of HLO for natural disaster management, sustainable
humanitarian logistics (SHL) implies innovative, socially responsible and proactive
decision-making by responders and logisticians, as well as host governments. Such
decision-making must: minimize negative impacts; enable long-term maintenance of
community wellbeing; and maintain a balance between life-saving, social, ethical,
environmental and economic goals. Also, SHL implies a systematic longer term
view and a focus on life-saving ethics, as well as social, environmental and economic
goals.
As previously highlighted, in spite of the importance of SHL, sustainability in
the field of HLO and HL research has had relatively little attention and integration
(Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010). As a result, reference to SHL often results in
one’s mind almost always wandering to issues of: transport energy efficiency
(Halldorsson and Kovacs 2010); reduced transport emissions and carbon-footprints
in transport, as well as the delivery and distribution of recyclable disaster relief such
as tents and cooking utensils. However, sustainability is broader in scope than these
narrow issues. Thus, the HL literature is in urgent need of research that addresses
issues of sustainability in HL planning and decision-making which incorporates, for
example, considerations of: environmental conservation, community participation,
social responsibility, equity and ethics. This chapter fills this gap by:
1. Drawing out key assumptions about current approaches to the nature, process and
activities of HL, and how these might have become barriers to SHL planning and
decision-making;
2. Advocating for sustainable humanitarian logistics (SHL) planning and decisionmaking
in response to, and management of, natural disasters with a focus on
environmental conservation, community participation, social responsibility,
equity, and ethics;
3. Outlining a simple framework from case examples for SHL planning and
decision-making in humanitarian assistance and disaster recovery.
The rest of the chapter is structured as follows: Sect. 3.2 traces the historical
origins of important features and characteristics of HL and the key assumptions that
underpin current approaches and perspectives on the nature, processes and activities
of HL; and how these might have become barriers to the incorporation of
sustainability into HL planning and decision-making. Section 3.3 argues the case
for incorporating elements of sustainability into humanitarian logistics (SHL)
planning and decision-making in response to, and management of, natural disasters.
Section 3.4 outlines from case examples a framework for sustainable HL planning
and decision-making in disaster relief, thus explicating the range of disaster
response and recovery-related logistical activities that contribute to sustainability in
the field of HL. Section 3.5 concludes the chapter.
Origins, Features and Assumptions of HL Underpinning Current Approaches
There are several historical features and assumptions of HL that underpin current
approaches and perspectives in the HL literature. These features and assumptions
may be summarized into four broad categories: (a) response speed, (b) inconsistent
use of terms, (c) the anthropocentric nature of HL and (d) miscellaneous issues
in HL.
(a) Response speed: a barrier to sustainable HLO?
Early references to HL activities may be traced to Henry Dunant, Guillaume-Henri
Dufour, Gustave Moynier, Louis Appia and Théodore Maunoir who rapidly
organized and delivered relief to wounded soldiers, and later founded the first
National Society for Relief in the state of Württemberg in Germany in 1863, which
later became the Red Cross Society (Arizzabalaja 2014). Later, in 1917, Samuel
Prince undertook a sociological study of the aftermath of the Halifax ship explosion
in 1917 and associated disaster relief response (Prince 1920). More recently, Long
and Wood (1995) in their seminal article referred to the term ‘disaster relief’ in the
context of urgent famine relief rather than HL. However, Thomas (2003, p. 3)
seems to be the first to use the term ‘HL’ directly in the context of ‘the processes
and systems involved in mobilizing people, resources, skills and knowledge to help
vulnerable people affected by natural disasters and complex emergencies.
These examples imply an urgency to provide relief to needy and vulnerable
people affected by disasters in order to save lives and reduce suffering. Therefore,
the focus of HL seems to be on the speedy delivery of relief goods and services,
leaving very little time to plan for other important considerations that have little to
do with a speedy response, at least in the emergency relief phase (Thomas 2003).
Long and Wood (1995) described the features of such logistical activities quite
well: “…a model for famine relief would emphasize quick reaction capabilities…,”
(p. 215), and with a requirement for agility, flexibility and speed in the distribution
of relief. Such a focus on speed may leave little room to think more systematically
and comprehensively. Such antecedents seem to be a hallmark of HL activity
according to the academic literature. A second feature is the inconsistent use of
terms and terminology.
(b) Inconsistent use of terms and terminology in HL
A second issue is that, as commonly found in emerging areas of research and
emerging disciplines, and, in spite of its generally acknowledged importance in our
disaster-prone world, there remains no consensus on what the term HL actually
means. There is no agreement on how the term relates to other concepts and
processes in procuring, delivering and distributing relief to needy people in the
aftermath of a disaster (compare, for example, the definitions of Holguín-Veras
et al. 2012; Kovacs and Spens 2007 and Oloruntoba and Gray 2006). Kovacs and
Spens (2007) in their literature review indicate that HL encompasses a range of
operations at different times and can be a response to various catastrophes with the
goal to “aid people in their survival”, and this includes “assisting the development
of a region…,” “… and the running of refugee camps” (p. 101). Presumably
“different times” refer to the notion that there are three phases of disaster management
and, as such, HL involves the range of activities that are performed before,
during and after a disaster. Implicit in such a phased conceptualization of how
disasters unfold is that HL activities ensure that planning, mitigation and preventive
measures are undertaken before a disaster strikes (Van Wassenhove and Pedraza-
Martinez 2014).
Subsequently HL activities ensure that prompt and appropriate assistance is
given to victims of disasters when they occur, as well as in the longer term aftermath
during recovery, rehabilitation, rebuilding and resettlement of affected communities
(Kapucu 2007, 2008). In reality, mitigation and preparedness activities
such as: the training of disaster and emergency personnel; the setting up and
activating of disaster early warning and communication systems; and the undertaking
of the hazard, risk and vulnerability analyses of the population may not
strictly be categorized as logistics or HL activities, and so are the continuous
surveillance and monitoring activities undertaken before a disaster (Overstreet et al.
2011). Hence, it seems that, strictly speaking, many HL activities are often not
undertaken before a disaster occurs, given Thomas’ (2003) view of HL as being “…
processes and systems involved in mobilizing people, resources, skills and
knowledge to help vulnerable people affected by natural disasters and complex
emergencies…” (p. 3). Thomas (2003) seems to assume that a disaster needs to
strike first before HL can be triggered.
Furthermore, Long and Wood (1995) argue that: “Relief is foreign intervention
into a society with the intention of helping local citizens” (p. 213), such as in the
“logistics of famine relief” and other operations that often occur in less developed
regions, which usually have inadequate infrastructures and are away from major
traffic lanes (e.g. Pedraza Martinez et al. 2011; Long and Wood 1995; Thomas
2003). Hence, HL in this definition seems to be perceived as being international—
concerned with some far flung corner of the world, the proverbial ‘Timbuktu,’
where people cannot take care of themselves and require overseas assistance from
outsiders. The Japanese tsunami of 2011, Cyclone Larry of 2006, the Victorian
bushfires of 2009 and Hurricane Katrina of 2005 demonstrate that HL activity can
be local, domestic, national, regional or international.
Disaster impacted places in the developing world are often characterized in the
literature as not having infrastructure, having devastated infrastructure, or on-going
war which creates delivery challenges to outsiders who require prompt access in
order to help. Such characterisations may be a barrier to considerations of SHL in
planning and decision-making, given the emphasis on the devastated infrastructure
and on-going war.
There are other definitions of HL which are beyond the scope of this chapter to
consider, but it is sufficient to conclude that, despite the variety of approaches
available for defining HL, no authoritative or consensual definition exists (Overstreet
et al. 2011). This illustrates the complexity, ambiguity, inconsistencies and confusion
dogging a clear understanding of HL, and, as a result, leaves little room for designing a
sustainable HL that encompasses a broader range of ecological and social considerations.
Overall, it seems that HL activities, judging by its labels of ‘human,’
‘humanity,’ and ‘humanitarian,’ and by the nature of the logistical and other activities
undertaken (e.g. fundraising), firmly puts the human being or saving a human life
at the its core, with minimal systematic thought having been given to saving or
protecting nature in response to natural disasters. In other words, HL is anthropocentric
in its fundamental ideological perspective, whereby the human-being is the
priority and comes first regardless of social, environmental and other costs.
The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987) might have further reinforced such non-deliberate adoption of an anthropocentric
view of HL with its definition of sustainability (see Purser et al. 1995;
Sharma 2007). The United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development’s definition of sustainability also puts the survival and welfare of
human beings first and foremost in all considerations. Such a view in turn precipitates
the human or disaster victim bias in disaster and humanitarian responses.
Likewise, beyond HL, in corporations for example, the focus of management has
recently been on environmental management, sustainable development and environmental
resource management (Porritt 2007; Purser et al. 1995) though still
putting human needs and wants, including further human expansion, consumption
and economic growth and development, above the survival and development needs
of other species. Hence, it is not surprising that such universal parochialism has
resulted in other oversights. There are also other challenges in current views of HL
as discussed below.
(c) Other challenges in current approaches to HL
It is difficult to incorporate sustainability into HL planning and decision-making
ex-ante or as an ‘add-on.’ Such sustainable HL planning and decision-making must
be designed ab initio, in other words from the beginning. Challenges that arise from
this fact include the problem that current approaches to HL often tend to ignore
issues of pre-existing social vulnerability, such as building urban settlements in
high hazard areas, such as flood plains or earthquake zones, which render such
settlements ultimately unsustainable for habitation due to the risk of a natural
physical event coming to fruition (Overstreet et al. 2011). Likewise, issues at the
level of the individual such as pre-existing individual disaster resilience and preparedness
are often ignored in HL responses. These issues may include financial
issues, social issues, health issues and other indicators of resilience. For example,
when a disaster occurs, rich people have relatively greater resources to fall back on
than poor people. Also, individuals with social networks have more friends and
relatives to help them get back onto their feet than those without social resources
and networks. The current approaches to HL planning and response ignores such
issues of pre-existing social vulnerability, because the focus of HL in humanitarian
and disaster response is often narrowly construed. It tends to ignore existing
environmental hazards and increasing vulnerability (Overstreet et al. 2011). HL
similarly ignores the pre-disaster risks of increasing urbanization, globalization,
unmitigated population growth, global climate change and rising sea-levels
(McNamara and Prasad 2014).
HL has a narrow focus on the sourcing, transportation, delivery and distribution
of goods to meet the immediate physical and physiological needs of affected
populations, such as the provision of medical relief, food and water and the associated
fundraising. The socio-psychological and emotional aspects of caring for
affected persons are not often addressed. Other challenges in current approaches to
HL planning and decision-making include the relatively high levels of selectivity,
and sometimes inequities in the response to humanitarian crises. Research has
shown that the logistics of relief distribution often tends to ignore ethics and equity
(Sumathipala 2014; Flynn and Speier 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014; Zach 2014). One
ethical issue that is seldom discussed is the wise spending of tax payer and/or donor
funds. Governments have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to spend tax funds wisely,
and the HO who undertakes HL should also spend funds sustainably (McGee
2008). It seems that this has not always been done.
Another ethical question that is not often asked is whether governments should
get involved at all in disaster relief, recovery and rehabilitation using tax payers’
funds (McGee 2008). People in general often assume, without thinking, that the
government should get involved and use tax payers’ money; however, an ethical
analysis of this issue might reveal that it is less efficient for government to get
involved in such activities, than for the private sector (such as insurance companies
and disaster insurance). If someone who wants to live in a flood zone is not able or
willing to pay market rates for insurance coverage, they should move. People who
have enough sense not to live in a flood zone should not be forced to pay the
insurance premiums of those who do live in such places. It is inherently unfair to
force the general public to subsidize this kind of risk-taking behavior (McGee 2008).
Other challenges emanating from the current approach to HL include the sheer
diversity of actors in a humanitarian response (convergence of people, responders,
volunteers and relief material), and the sheer diversity of disaster contexts, beneficiaries,
stakeholders and requirements. This diversity of actors and stakeholders is
a source of challenge to the implementation of sustainability in HL planning and
decision-making, as various actors will have various goals that may be in conflict.
Further, the disconnection between governments and NGO humanitarian organizations
ensures a disconnected and fragmented response with limited holism or
systems in HL decision-making. As a result of the above discussion, HL planning
and decision-making must be based on a differentiation that helps to isolate specific
characteristics that will inform a sustainable, superior and consistent approach to
both humanitarian interventions and sustainable HL decision-making. In Australia,
the Cyclone Larry humanitarian response is thus far perceived as the benchmark for
HL as it incorporates elements of sustainability such as ethics, social responsibility
and environmental conservation.
To delineate the properties of sustainability, Belz and Peattie (2009) suggest a
framework that features a holistic and systems-based view, and an open-ended
timeframe. The current approaches to HL planning and decision-making as discussed
are inadequate, as the focus seems to be to exclusively mobilize and deliver
tangible relief goods to meet the life sustenance needs of human beings very quickly.
SHL is not just about logistics. Implementing SHL requires collaboration and
consensus with stakeholders of both responders and receiving communities. Such a
‘community’ and ‘beneficiary’ would need to be clarified, as there are currently
multiple understandings of the terms (Crow and Allan 1995). For example, ‘communities
of place’ have to do with varying locations, while ‘communities of interests’
have to do with the different demographic groups such as tourists, infants, farmers,
nursing mothers, etc. (Oloruntoba 2010; Thomsen 2008). Also, socio-demographic
and environmental contexts often come to the fore. Section 3.3 argues the case for
incorporating elements of sustainability into the planning and decision-making
processes of humanitarian logistics (HL).
The Case for Sustainability in Humanitarian Logistics
(SHL) Planning/Decision-Making
Criticisms of HL and disaster relief planning and management are common, most
often in the global media. Common criticisms often have to do with the delivery of
incorrect goods, or delays in the delivery of relief as well as inequitable distribution
of relief (Oloruntoba and Gray 2006). However, it is relatively uncommon to hear
criticisms of a lack of sustainability in HL decision-making, despite the broad
search for innovative practices in humanitarian practice (Weiss and Hoffman 2007;
Ramalingam et al. 2009). However, as understanding of sustainability and sustainable
business practices in the business world develops, the demands for SHL
will grow ever more loudly together with the recognition of the need to preserve
flora and fauna when undertaking HL activities.
As at the time of writing, most debris from earthquakes, cyclones, floods and
tsunamis end up in landfills, with minimal effort made to appropriately sort, separate,
recycle and properly dispose of such disaster waste and debris (Srinivas and
Helmys 2015; Takeda et al. 2014; Grzeda et al. 2014; Tanaka 2014). In addition,
bio-quarantine issues, such as the accidental transfer of indigenous species around
the world, or the spread of pandemics such as Cholera, and the Ebola virus disease
(EVD) through international HL, will become more visible and high profile in the
near future. Also, there will be demands about issues of bio-sanitization, for
example, of returning merchant and navy fleets, aircrafts and various personnel
from other parts of the world in the aftermath of disasters. Additionally, there will
be more stringent calls for the inclusion and participation of disaster-impacted
people in decisions that affect them.
Belz and Peattie (2009) suggest a framework of sustainability in which they
delineate the important characteristics and elements of sustainability, of which
taking a systems-based holistic view instead of an anthropocentric, ‘human only’
view is of paramount importance. Belz and Peattie (2009) also suggest an openended
timeframe, unlike the short timeframes of most disaster relief and disaster
management interventions and associated HL that tend to focus on providing short
term ‘relief’ succor for the needy. The framework by Belz and Peattie (2009)
advocates a global perspective that focuses on ecological sustainability rather than
mere economic efficiency, as well as recognition of the inherent value of nature, the
environment and the ecosystem.
Sustainability in HL demands a clear recognition of limits upon the resources of
nature, such as forests and fisheries, and nature’s limits as a repository for waste,
such as transport effluent and other emissions. Sustainability in HL demands that
we distinguish between unsustainable, unlimited and even wasteful uses of
0 Response to "A Planning and Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Humanitarian Logistics in Disaster Response"
Post a Comment