IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v46y2012i10p1623-1640.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative performance of alternative humanitarian logistic structures after the Port-au-Prince earthquake: ACEs, PIEs, and CANs

Author

Listed:
  • Holguín-Veras, José
  • Jaller, Miguel
  • Wachtendorf, Tricia

Abstract

The paper analyzes the performance of different post-disaster humanitarian logistic structures that arose in response to the Port-au-Prince earthquake of January 12th, 2010. Based on field work conducted by the authors, the paper defines a typology of structures; assesses their relative performance in terms of delivering relief aid; and identifies the causes that explain the differences between them. Three structures are defined for comparative purposes: Agency Centric Efforts (ACEs), Partially Integrated Efforts (PIEs), and Collaborative Aid Networks (CANs). These structures differ to the extent to which they are integrated with the local social networks during the relief effort. Representative examples were analyzed to illustrate their inherent strengths and weaknesses, and reach conclusions of general applicability. The authors strengthen the analyses with discussions of “comparables,” i.e., other cases not fully discussed in the paper that shed additional light onto the performance of the structures.

Suggested Citation

  • Holguín-Veras, José & Jaller, Miguel & Wachtendorf, Tricia, 2012. "Comparative performance of alternative humanitarian logistic structures after the Port-au-Prince earthquake: ACEs, PIEs, and CANs," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1623-1640.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:46:y:2012:i:10:p:1623-1640 DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.08.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856412001322
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Chang, Stephanie E. & Nojima, Nobuoto, 2001. "Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 475-494, July.
    2. Urbina, Elba & Wolshon, Brian, 2003. "National review of hurricane evacuation plans and policies: a comparison and contrast of state practices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 257-275, March.
    3. Haghani, Ali & Oh, Sei-Chang, 1996. "Formulation and solution of a multi-commodity, multi-modal network flow model for disaster relief operations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 231-250, May.
    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. Nagurney, Anna & Flores, Emilio Alvarez & Soylu, Ceren, 2016. "A Generalized Nash Equilibrium network model for post-disaster humanitarian relief," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 1-18.
    2. Holguín-Veras, José & Taniguchi, Eiichi & Jaller, Miguel & Aros-Vera, Felipe & Ferreira, Frederico & Thompson, Russell G., 2014. "The Tohoku disasters: Chief lessons concerning the post disaster humanitarian logistics response and policy implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 86-104.
    3. Allahviranloo, Mahdieh & Chow, Joseph Y.J. & Recker, Will W., 2014. "Selective vehicle routing problems under uncertainty without recourse," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 68-88.
    4. repec:eee:ejores:v:264:y:2018:i:3:p:978-993 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Das, Rubel & Hanaoka, Shinya, 2014. "Relief inventory modelling with stochastic lead-time and demand," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 616-623.
    6. repec:eee:soceps:v:59:y:2017:i:c:p:56-66 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:transa:v:46:y:2012:i:10:p:1623-1640. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.