IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v63y2018icp33-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrete choice approach for assessing deprivation cost in humanitarian relief operations

Author

Listed:
  • Cantillo, Victor
  • Serrano, Iván
  • Macea, Luis F.
  • Holguín-Veras, José

Abstract

One of the key objectives of humanitarian logistics is to guarantee the timely delivery of supplies to people affected by disasters during the response phase. In this regard, it is fundamental to design appropriate models to minimize the social costs of response operations to distribute essential supplies to populations in need. In addition to merely cover logistics cost, social costs include deprivations costs, which are an increasing function of deprivation time, derived from the human suffering caused by the lack of access to a good or a service. This research uses the theory of discrete choices to assess deprivation costs due to the time spent waiting for the delivery of a basket of basic supplies, defined as the changes in the welfare of people affected by disasters. To this end, we designed a stated choice survey, applied to people living in areas affected by floods and earthquakes in Colombia. The estimated models consider the influence of individual's socioeconomic characteristics and random effects on the deprivation cost functions. The functions have a nonlinear structure, strictly increasing, and convex on the deprivation time. The results are useful for estimating the social costs of humanitarian relief operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Cantillo, Victor & Serrano, Iván & Macea, Luis F. & Holguín-Veras, José, 2018. "Discrete choice approach for assessing deprivation cost in humanitarian relief operations," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 33-46.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:63:y:2018:i:c:p:33-46
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2017.06.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012116302683
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2017.06.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khayal, Danya & Pradhananga, Rojee & Pokharel, Shaligram & Mutlu, Fatih, 2015. "A model for planning locations of temporary distribution facilities for emergency response," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 22-30.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Le Trong Hung & González-Cabán, Armando, 2009. "Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: A scope test and comparison of White and Hispanic households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 155-160, May.
    3. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    4. Vladimir Balza-Franco & Carlos D. Paternina-Arboleda & Víctor Cantillo & Luis Fernando Macea & Diana G. Ramírez-Ríos, 2017. "A collaborative supply chain model for non-for-profit networks based on cooperative game theory," International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 26(4), pages 475-496.
    5. Morrison, Mark & Bergland, Olvar, 2006. "Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 420-428, December.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    7. Huang, Michael & Smilowitz, Karen & Balcik, Burcu, 2012. "Models for relief routing: Equity, efficiency and efficacy," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-18.
    8. Gutjahr, Walter J. & Nolz, Pamela C., 2016. "Multicriteria optimization in humanitarian aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(2), pages 351-366.
    9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    11. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    12. Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2007. "An emergency logistics distribution approach for quick response to urgent relief demand in disasters," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 687-709, November.
    13. Rivera-Royero, Daniel & Galindo, Gina & Yie-Pinedo, Ruben, 2016. "A dynamic model for disaster response considering prioritized demand points," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 59-75.
    14. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    15. Jon M. Stauffer & Alfonso J. Pedraza-Martinez & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2016. "Temporary Hubs for the Global Vehicle Supply Chain in Humanitarian Operations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 25(2), pages 192-209, February.
    16. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li Zhu & Yeming Gong & Yishui Xu & Jun Gu, 2019. "Emergency relief routing models for injured victims considering equity and priority," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1573-1606, December.
    2. Amir Jamali & Amirhossein Ranjbar & Jafar Heydari & Sina Nayeri, 2022. "A multi-objective stochastic programming model to configure a sustainable humanitarian logistics considering deprivation cost and patient severity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(1), pages 1265-1300, December.
    3. Delgado-Lindeman, Maira & Arellana, Julián & Cantillo, Víctor, 2019. "Willingness to pay functions for emergency ambulance services," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 28-37.
    4. Linlin Zhang & Na Cui, 2021. "Pre-Positioning Facility Location and Resource Allocation in Humanitarian Relief Operations Considering Deprivation Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-26, April.
    5. Cao, Cejun & Liu, Yang & Tang, Ou & Gao, Xuehong, 2021. "A fuzzy bi-level optimization model for multi-period post-disaster relief distribution in sustainable humanitarian supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    6. Guo, Penghui & Zhu, Jianjun, 2023. "Capacity reservation for humanitarian relief: A logic-based Benders decomposition method with subgradient cut," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(3), pages 942-970.
    7. Victor Cantillo & Luis F. Macea & Miguel Jaller, 2019. "Assessing Vulnerability of Transportation Networks for Disaster Response Operations," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 243-273, March.
    8. Fan, Yu & Shao, Jianfang & Wang, Xihui, 2023. "Relief items procurement and delivery through cooperation with suppliers and logistics companies considering budget constraints," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    9. Hu, Shaolong & Dong, Zhijie Sasha, 2019. "Supplier selection and pre-positioning strategy in humanitarian relief," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 287-298.
    10. Shao, Jianfang & Fan, Yu & Wang, Xihui & Liang, Changyong & Liang, Liang, 2023. "Designing a new framework agreement in humanitarian logistics based on deprivation cost functions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    11. Cotes, Nathalie & Cantillo, Victor, 2019. "Including deprivation costs in facility location models for humanitarian relief logistics," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 89-100.
    12. Fernandez Pernett, Stephanie & Amaya, Johanna & Arellana, Julián & Cantillo, Victor, 2022. "Questioning the implication of the utility-maximization assumption for the estimation of deprivation cost functions after disasters," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    13. Hu, Shaolong & Han, Chuanfeng & Dong, Zhijie Sasha & Meng, Lingpeng, 2019. "A multi-stage stochastic programming model for relief distribution considering the state of road network," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 64-87.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Macea, Luis F. & Cantillo, Victor & Arellana, Julian, 2018. "Influence of attitudes and perceptions on deprivation cost functions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 125-141.
    2. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    3. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    6. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    8. Cotes, Nathalie & Cantillo, Victor, 2019. "Including deprivation costs in facility location models for humanitarian relief logistics," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 89-100.
    9. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    10. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    11. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    13. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    14. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    16. Galassi, Veronica & Madlener, Reinhard, 2017. "The Role of Environmental Concern and Comfort Expectations in Energy Retrofit Decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 53-65.
    17. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    18. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    19. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    20. Papoutsi, Georgia S. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis & Drichoutis, Andreas C., 2015. "Fat tax, subsidy or both? The role of information and children's pester power in food choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 196-208.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:63:y:2018:i:c:p:33-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.