A Multi-Objective Robust Stochastic Programming Model For Disaster Relief Logistics Under Uncertainty

OR Spectrum (2013) 35:905933
DOI 10.1007/s00291-011-0268-x
REGULAR ARTICLE
A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

for disaster relief logistics under uncertainty
Ali Bozorgi-Amiri M. S. Jabalameli
S. M. J. Mirzapour Al-e-Hashem
Published online: 13 August 2011

Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Humanitarian relief logistics is one of the most important elements of a

relief operation in disaster management. The present work develops a multi-objective
robust stochastic programming approach for disaster relief logistics under uncertainty.
In our approach, not only demands but also supplies and the cost of procurement and
transportation are considered as the uncertain parameters. Furthermore, the model considers uncertainty for the locations where those demands might arise and the possibility
that some of the pre-positioned supplies in the relief distribution center or supplier
might be partially destroyed by the disaster. Our multi-objective model attempts to
minimize the sum of the expected value and the variance of the total cost of the relief
chain while penalizing the solutions infeasibility due to parameter uncertainty; at the
same time the model aims to maximize the affected areas satisfaction levels through
minimizing the sum of the maximum shortages in the affected areas. Considering the
global evaluation of two objectives, a compromise programming model is formulated
and solved to obtain a non-dominating compromise solution. We present a case study
of our robust stochastic optimization approach for disaster planning for earthquake
scenarios in a region of Iran. Our findings show that the proposed model can help in
making decisions on both facility location and resource allocation in cases of disaster
relief efforts.
Keywords Humanitarian relief logistics Preparedness and response phase
Pre-positioning Robust stochastic programming Multi-objective optimization
A. Bozorgi-Amiri (B) M. S. Jabalameli S. M. J. Mirzapour Al-e-Hashem

Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Narmak, 1684613114 Tehran, Iran
e-mail: alibozorgi@iust.ac.ir
123
906
A. Bozorgi-Amiri et al.
1 Introduction
Every year, natural disasters, such as earthquake, flood, drought, hurricane, landslide,
volcanic eruption, fire, tsunami, avalanche, extreme cold, heat wave, and cyclone kill
thousands of people and destroy millions-of-dollars worth of habitats and assets (Van
Wassenhove 2006). For example, a major tsunami affected 12 countries in 2004; massive earthquakes struck Bam, Iran in 2003, Pakistan in 2005, China in 2008 and Haiti
in 2010; and an extensive flood devastated Pakistan in 2010. The rapid growth in world
population and increased human concentrations in dangerous environment have led to
rises in both the frequency and severity of natural disasters; consequently, the number
of people affected by natural disasters continues to rise. For example, between 2000
and 2007, the number of reported natural disasters was approximately 460 disasters
per year, indicating a dramatic increase, and also the number of victims is generally
between 100 million and 400 million per year around the world (Haghani and Afshar
2009).
The unpredictable nature of such events, in addition to the large number of casualties at stake, makes the field of humanitarian logistics a critical aspect of any disaster
relief operation, and it represents one of the main levers to achieve improvements in
terms of cost, time, and quality (Blecken et al. 2009). The timely and effective mobilization of resources is essential in aiding people who are made vulnerable by natural
disasters. The supply shortage may render emergency response ineffective and result
in increased suffering (Knott 1987, 1988). Hence, it is important to develop strategies
to accelerate supply response or when dealing with the unpredictability of demand.
The pre-positioning of commodities at or near the location of consumption is one of
the most important logistical strategies to reduce delivery time and operating costs
(Yi and Kumar 2007; Balcik and Beamon 2008). Pre-positioning allows not only a
faster response but also better procurement planning and improved distribution costs;
however, it requires an additional investment before the event occurs.
The complex nature and dynamics of the relationships among the different actors
in a relief chain imply an important degree of uncertainty in relief chain planning
decisions. In such environments, there are two main characteristics of the disaster
planning problems that a decision maker will be faced with: (1) conflicting objectives
that may arise from the nature of operations (e.g., to minimize costs and at the same
time to increase affected areas satisfaction) and the structure of the relief chain where
it is often difficult to align the goals of the different parties within the relief chain;
(2) lack of knowledge of data (e.g., demand, supply or cost). In real humanitarian
operations, it is often seen that demand, supply, and cost are uncertain during the first
stage of disaster response (Mert and Adivar 2010). Uncertainty in supply is caused
by the variability brought about by how the supplier operates because of the faults or
delays in the suppliers deliveries. It is often unknown which resources are available,
and even the involvement and contribution of suppliers is unpredictable (Tomasini and
Van Wassenhove 2004). On the other hand, per-positioned assets can be destroyed by
a disaster. Uncertainty in the cost of the operations generally happens because of the
uncertainty associated with routes, suppliers, etc. Finally, demand uncertainty, according to (Davis 1993), is the most important of the three and is presented as demand
volatility or inaccurate assessments. For example, in the Haiti earthquake, during the
123
907
first 23 days estimates of the numbers of victims ranged from 30,000 to 100,000 (Van
Wassenhove et al. 2010). Thus, it is important that models addressing problems in this
area should be designed to handle the foregoing two complexities, that is, conflicting
objectives and data uncertainty.
The purpose of this paper was to model disaster planning and response capturing the
inherent uncertainty in demand, supply, and cost resulting from a disaster. To cope with
the challenging problem resulting from the analysis of three sources of uncertainty, a
novel robust optimization model is therefore proposed. The model tackles the disaster relief logistics problem as a multi-objective, stochastic, mixed-integer, nonlinear
programming model. The problem is then solved using the Lp-metrics technique.
The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows:
Achieving a model which contemplates the different sources of uncertainty affecting relief chains in an integrated fashion. This is important because the interaction
between these sources of uncertainty creates decision making challenges.
Develop a novel robust optimization model to tackle the disaster relief logistics
problem as a multi-objective, stochastic, mixed-integer, nonlinear programming
problem. This formulation not only takes into account the expected total cost of
relief logistics but also considers the risk reflected by the variability of the total
cost and the satisfaction of affected areas (AAs).
Applying the model to a real-world disaster relief chain dedicated to the supply
of relief commodities to the AAs.
We also assess the potential improvement of using robust stochastic optimization

with all sources of uncertainty (demand/supply/cost) in the relief chain planning process compared with the models with lower degrees of uncertainty and report the cost
saving quantities.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, the relevant literature is
reviewed. In Sect. 3, the concept of the robust optimization is described. The general
problem description statement is given in Sect. 4. A robust optimization model is
developed to formulate the relief logistics network in Sect. 5. In Sect. 6, a solution
method is presented. Then, the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed model are
demonstrated by a case analysis and experimental result in Sect. 7. Our conclusions
and future research plans are presented in the final section.
2 Literature review
Although a broad literature based on humanitarian aid and disaster relief exists, there
are only limited research results on the specific area of humanitarian logistics (Van
Wassenhove 2006; Kovacs and Spens 2007). There are a number of articles providing overviews on humanitarian logistics (Altay and Green 2006; Kovacs and Spens
2007). In this section, we review the literature on disaster relief logistics problems.
This review is divided into two contrasting categories: literatures on disaster relief
logistics and those on the management of uncertainties in disaster relief logistics. We
discuss some of the key papers in each category.
123
908
2.1 Disaster relief logistics

The related academic literature in this context falls into three streams: facility location,
inventory management, and network flow problems. Research on facility locations
emphasizes the pre-positioning of emergency stock in the pre-disaster phase. One of
the earliest studies directed at the locations of emergency facilities is by Toregas et al.
(1971), who modeled the problem as a set-covering problem and used linear programming as the method of solution. Parentela and Nambisan (2000) developed emergency
response plans that combined all the information in connection with the location and
capacities of resource suppliers, the spatial distribution of the victims, the environment
and the economy. Brotcorne et al. (2003) classified the location and relocation models
of ambulances and other emergency vehicles into three categories: deterministic models, probabilistic queuing models, and dynamic models. Akkihal (2006) considered
optimal locations for warehousing non-consumable inventories required for the initial
aid deployment. Tzeng et al. (2007) proposed a multi-objective deterministic model
to distribute commodities to demand points, considering the cost, response time, and
demand satisfaction, and solved it using a fuzzy multi-objective programming method.
Balcik and Beamon (2008) presented a maximally covered location model of pre-positioning relief commodities in order to determine the number, locations, and capacities
of the relief distribution centers (RDCs) as well as when the demand for relief commodities can be met by suppliers and warehouses. The model considered pre- and
post-disaster budget constraints but did not consider the possibility of either inventory
being destroyed or the shortage costs. Ukkusuri and Yushimito (2008) developed a
model for selecting the optimal locations for the pre-positioning of supplies in such
a way to maximize the probability that demand points can be reached from a single
supply facility in the presence of transportation network disruptions.
Research on inventory management focuses on determining the item quantities
required at various RDCs along the relief chain, procurement quantities, and order frequency; it also identifies the appropriate amount of safety stock to maintain. Whybark
(2007) argued that disaster planning is centered on disaster inventories and, therefore, acquisition, storage, and the distribution of products are significant. However,
little research is known on the inventory in disaster relief logistics. Ozbay and Ozguven
(2007) developed a time-dependent inventory control model for safety stock levels that
could be used for the development of efficient pre- and post-disaster plans. Beamon
and Kotleba (2006) formulated a stochastic inventory control model that determined
optimal order quantities and reorder points for a pre-positioned warehouse during the
course of a long-term emergency relief response.
Given the decisions regarding the location and replenishment, the next step is network flows, classified in two categories: victim evacuation and relief distribution.
Some research work on victim evacuation can be found in Bakuli and Smith (1996),
Barbarosoglu et al. (2002), Han et al. (2006), Yi and Ozdamar (2007), Yi and Kumar
(2007), Regnier (2008), Stepanov and Smith (2009) and Saadatseresht et al. (2009).
Models for relief distribution have been proposed by Haghani and Oh (1996), Fiedrich
et al. (2000), Viswanath and Peeta (2003), Sakakibara et al. (2004), Ozdamar et al.
(2004), Barbarosoglu and Arda (2004), Amiri (2006), Jia et al. (2007a), Lodree and
Taskin (2008), Campbell et al. (2008), Sheu (2007, 2010). Each of these models
123
909
chooses an optimization goal such as minimum response time, maximum population

coverage, or overall cost. Relief distribution models plan the allocation of resources to
stochastic AAs using available transportation networks that are subject to predefined
impact scenarios.
2.2 Stochastic optimization approach for disaster relief logistics

The significance of uncertainty has motivated a number of researchers to address stochastic optimization in disaster relief planning involving the distribution of emergency
commodities and necessity items by probabilistic scenarios representing disasters and
their outcomes (see, e.g., Cormican et al. 1998; Barbarosoglu and Arda 2004; Beraldi
et al. 2004; Chang et al. 2007; Beraldi and Bruni 2009; Mete and Zabinsky 2010; Rawls
and Turnsquist 2010). Research addressing the design of disaster planning is limited
to those that modeled the stochastic situation under demand uncertainty and those
that modeled it under demand and supply uncertainty (or demand/cost uncertainty).
Jia et al. (2007a) presented a single-objective, uncapacitated facility location model
to locate emergency service facilities such as fire stations or resources such as ambulances in the event of a large-scale emergency. As in the problem we address here, they
considered that the capability of a facility of providing Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) may be disrupted during a large-scale emergency due to road damage and/or the
destruction of the facility. They did not consider the inventory decision and capacity
constraint of facility. Jia et al. (2007b) also proposed heuristic methods and addressed
the demand uncertainty and shortage of supplies by requiring multiple supply points.
There are a few studies that address a comprehensive (strategic and tactical issues
simultaneously) disaster design (emergency) relief logistics using two-stage stochastic
programming. Chang et al. (2007) modeled locating and distributing rescue resources
in a flood emergency under possible flood scenarios using two-stage stochastic programming; the model could serve as a decision-making tool for the government agencies in the planning of flood emergency logistics under demand uncertainty. Salmeron
and Apte (2010) developed a two-stage stochastic optimization model for planning the
allocation of budget for acquiring and positioning relief assets; in this model, the firststage decisions represented the aid pre-positioning by the expansion of resources
such as warehouses, medical facilities, ramp spaces, and shelters, whereas the second
stage concerned the logistics of the problem under demand/cost uncertainty; however, they did not consider the relationship between relief locations (backup coverage)
and the possibility of inventory being destroyed. Mete and Zabinsky (2010) introduced a stochastic optimization model for disaster preparedness and response under
demand/cost uncertainty, in order to assist in deciding on the location and allocation of medical supplies to be used during emergencies in the Seattle area, which
is known to be vulnerable to earthquakes. They also offered an MIP transportation
model that is potentially useful in routing decisions during the response phase. Rawls
and Turnsquist (2010) developed a two-stage, stochastic, mixed-integer program that
determined the locations and quantities of various types of emergency commodities;
their model also considered the transportation network availability following a disaster
under demand/cost uncertainty.
123
910
Although stochastic programming has been applied in Chang et al. (2007);

Salmeron and Apte (2010); Mete and Zabinsky (2010); Rawls and Turnsquist (2010),
conventional stochastic programming models are severely limited due to the inability
to handle risk aversion or decision-makers preferences in a direct manner with a consequence of excluding many important domains of application (Azaron et al. 2008).
Mulvey et al. (1995) presented an improved stochastic programming, called robust programming, that is capable of tackling the preferred risk aversion of the decision-makers. In this method, the variability term was simply added to the main objective function
with an associated weighting parameter representing the risk tolerance of the modeler.
To overcome the disadvantages of traditional, stochastic relief-chain design
approaches, we developed a robust stochastic programming approach for the design
of disaster relief logistics under uncertainty. In our approach, not only demands but
also supplies and the cost of procuring and transportation are all considered as the
uncertain parameters. To the best of knowledge, it is the first time these three sources
of uncertainty are considered simultaneously in the disaster planning problem. We
coped with uncertainty by using a scenario-based approach that attempts to capture
uncertainty by representing it in terms of a number of discrete realizations of stochastic quantities that constitute distinct scenarios. We further assumed that a disaster
specifically disrupts the capability of the facility (suppliers and RDCs) by damaging
the roads and/or destroying the facility, which is a realistic scenario in some areas
faced with frequent, sudden-onset disasters, such as Iran.
The goal is to select optimum numbers, locations, and capacity levels of the RDC
for delivering the commodities to the AAs with minimum costs while satisfying the
desired service level to the beneficiaries (or AAs). Our multi-objective model includes
two objectives. The first objective function is the minimization of the sum of the costs
for the first-stage setup, inventory procurement, and transportation and the costs for the
second-stage procurement, transportation, holding, and shortage. To develop a robust
model, two additional terms are added to the first objective: cost variability and penalty
of infeasibility. The variability of the total cost should be considered in the model,
because when we focus merely on the expected total cost, the obtained solution may
be sub-optimal if the total cost substantially varies because of randomness. The second
objective function is the maximization of the AAs satisfaction by minimizing the sum
of the maximum shortage in AAs. In other words, we conceptualized the satisfaction
of fairness in formulating the multi-objective functions to avoid the possibility of a
severely unfair relief distribution to certain AAs in the relief distribution process.
Although the ideas of variability, infeasibility penalty function, and fair distribution
have been considered in other areas, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time
that they are combined in a multi-objective scheme for designing the robust disaster
relief logistics under three sources of uncertainty (demand/supply/cost). Furthermore,
our model incorporates the idea of backup coverage.
3 Robust optimization
Robust optimization, one of the most popular topics in the field of optimization and
control science the late 1990s, deals with an optimization problem involving uncertain parameters. Mulvey et al. (1995) introduce a model for robust optimization that
123
911
involves two types of robustness: solution robustness (the solution is nearly optimal
in all scenarios) and model robustness (the solution is nearly feasible in all scenarios). The definition of nearly is left up to the modeler; their objective function
has general penalty functions for both model and solution robustness, weighted by a
parameter intended to capture the modelers preference between the two. The robust
optimization method developed by Mulvey et al. (1995), in fact, extends stochastic
programming by replacing traditional expected cost minimization objective by one
that explicitly addresses cost variability. In the following, the framework of robust
optimization is briefly described (Mirzapour Al-e-hashem et al. 2011). Consider the
following linear programming model that includes random parameters:
Min f (x, y) = c T x + d T y
s.t. Ax = b
Bx + C y = e
x, y 0
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
where x is a vector of the design variables that should be determined under the uncertainty of model parameters and y is a vector of the control variables. A, B, C are
parameter matrices, while b, e are parameter vectors. A, b are known deterministically, while B, C, e are uncertain. A specific realization of an uncertain parameter
is called a scenario. Assume a finite set of scenarios = {1, 2, . . . , s} to model the
uncertain parameters; with each scenario
s we associate the subset {ds , Bs , Cs , es }
and the probability of the scenario ps ( s ps = 1).
Also, the control variable y, which is subject to adjustment when one scenario is
realized, can be denoted as ys for scenario s. Because of parameter uncertainty, the
model may be infeasible for some scenarios. Therefore, error vector s presents the
infeasibility of the model under scenario s. If the model is feasible s will be equal to
0; otherwise, s will be assigned a positive value according to Eq. (7). A robust optimization model based on the mathematical problem (1)(4) is formulated as follows:
Min (x, y1 , y2 , . . . , ys ) + (1 , 2 , . . . , s )
(5)
s.t. Ax = b
Bs x + Cs ys + s = es s
(6)
(7)
x, ys 0 s
(8)
There are two terms in the above objective function: The first term represents the
solution robustness that captures the firms desire for lower costs and its degree of risk
aversion, while the second term represents the model robustness, penalizing solutions
that fail to meet demand in a scenario or violate other physical constraints such as
capacity. Using the weight , the trade-offs between the solution robustness measured
from the first term ( ) and the model robustness measured from the penalty term
( ) can be modeled under the multi-criteria decision-making process.
We use to represent f (x, y), which is a cost or benefit function, s = f (x, ys ),
for scenario s. A high variance for s = f (x, ys ) means that the solution is a high-risk
decision. Mulvey et al. (1995) applied a quadratic form of variance to capture the
123
912
concept of risk and represent the solution robustness. To cope with the computational
complexity due to its nonlinearity, however, Yu and Li (2000) proposed an absolute
deviation in place of the quadratic term, which is presented as follows:

(9)
() =
p s s +
ps s
p s s

s
s
s
where indicates the weight placed on the solution variance in which the solution is
less sensitive to change in data under all scenarios as increases. In order to minimize
objective (9) efficiently, they proposed an efficient method. The framework of Yu and
Lis model is designed to minimize the objective function in (10):

Min
p s s +
ps
ss s + 2s
s
(10)
s
s.t. s
s
s
ps s + s 0 s
(11)
s
s 0 s
(12)

It can be interpreted as the amount by which
s ps s ,
s is greater than
p
is
greater
than
s , then
then
s = 0, while as the amount by which
s
s
s
s = s ps s s .
Based on this discussion, the objective function can be formulated as follows:

Min
p s s +
ps
ps s + 2s +
p s s
(13)
s
s
s
s
s
With this background in mind, we will present the detailed problem formulation in
the following sections.
4 Problem description
In this paper, we assume that disaster relief logistics network consists of three stages
and two echelons (see, Fig. 1). The first stage is the set of Suppliers, the second stage
contains RDCs, and the last stage consists of areas affected by disaster. Suppliers (e.g.,
aid agencies, governments, private sector, etc.) play the critical role in our relief chain
and provide the required commodities to people in devastated areas; those people
play the role of the customer in our physical distribution. Concerning the selection
of the warehouse locations from a set of candidate RDCs, certain issues have to be
addressed, namely (i) the storage capacity of the warehouses and (ii) the distance to
the affected people that keeps the transportation costs at minimum. In other words,
the RDCs in our network are positioned close to both the AAs and the suppliers in
order to distribute the goods to affected people efficiently. In our paper, a third issue
also is of considerable practical relevance, namely (iii) the safety of warehouses with
respect to the risk of destruction or stealing (Doerner and Hartl 2008).
123
913
Fig. 1 General schema of relief distribution chain
Before the formulation is considered, we make the following assumptions on the

problem:
(1) The capability of suppliers and candidate RDCs may be partially disrupted by a
disaster through damage to the roads and/or destruction to the facility.
(2) Both the level of demand for the AA and the cost parameters are uncertain and
depend on various factors including the disaster scenario and the impact of the
disaster. To represent uncertain parameters, we make use of discrete scenarios
from a set S of possible disaster situations. We assume that the probability distribution of scenarios can be devised by subject matter experts or disaster planners.
(3) More than one kind of relief commodity must be delivered, and each commodity
is associated with a different volume and a different cost of procurement, storage,
and transportation.
(4) All nodes are candidates for the pre-positioning of RDCs.
(5) An RDC can be opened in only one of three possible configurations with distinct
storage capacity (small, medium, or large), subject to the associated setup cost.
(6) Each AA may be served by multiple RDCs, provided no RDC is being opened
in the area.
(7) Each RDC may be supplied by either suppliers (with limited capacity) or other
RDCs (backup coverage).
(8) Inventory may be stored at RDCs, but such inventory is penalized.
With the above assumptions in place, we consider two objectives for our model:
total cost and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction and its prerequisite, fair distribution, play a significant role in disaster relief distribution systems because the main
purpose of the system is to satisfy the demand of the victims as much as possible; for
this reason, this objective is modeled here as a mini-max rather than a mini-sum problem. The purpose of the design is to resolve for each of candidate locations as the RDC,
so that we can identify and investigate the efficiency of the optimal distribution systems.
First-stage variables and their related parameters such as RDC setup cost are assumed
to be certain. On the other hand, second-stage variables and related parameters, such
123
914
as demand from AAs, are considered to be uncertain parameters. The need to consider
the different sources of uncertainty (demand, supply, and cost) in the relief chain arises
from the fact that the pre-positioning of the RDCs, the procurement of relief commodities, and all of the decisions to be made for disaster relief are affected by uncertainty.
On the other hand, modeling complexity, variability, and uncertainty in model parameters will also make the design and management of efficient relief logistics systems very
challenging and, therefore, deserve particular attention by the system planners. The
uncertainty is delineated from a finite sample of scenarios designed by experts based
on historical data and geographical faults. Each scenario is associated with a probability level representing the experts expectations of the occurrence of the particular
scenario. Next, we present the mathematical model formulation of this problem.
5 Model formulation
The following notation is used to formulate the facility location and supply pre-positioning model:
5.1 Explanation of parameters and variables
Sets/ indices
I
J
K
L
S
C
Set of suppliers indexed by i I

Set of candidate RDCs indexed by j J
Set of AAs by disaster indexed by k K
Set of size of RDCs indexed by l L
Set of possible scenarios indexed by s S
Set of commodities indexed by c C
Parameters
ps
F jl
ic
ics
Ci jc
Ci jcs
C jkcs
h kc
c
vc
D jcs
Sic
Capl
jcs
Occurrence probability of scenario s

Fixed cost for opening a RDC of size l at location j
Procuring cost of a unit commodity c from supplier i
Procuring cost of a unit commodity c from supplier i in scenario s
Transportation cost for a unit commodity c from supplier i to RDC j
Transportation cost of a unit commodity c from supplier i to RDC j in
scenario s
Transportation cost of a unit commodity c from RDC j to AA k in
scenario s
Inventory holding cost for a unit commodity c at AA k
Inventory shortage cost for a unit commodity c
Required unit space for commodity c
Amount of demand for commodity c at AA j in scenario s
Amount of commodity c that could be supplied from supplier i
Type of capacity of RDC that has been opened
Fraction of stocked material of commodity c at RDC j
that remains usable in scenario s(0 jcs 1)
123
ics
1 , 2
(Gamma)
M
915
Fraction of stocked material of commodity c

at supplier i that remains usable in scenario s(0 ics 1)
Weight assigned to cost variability
Weight assigned to model infeasibility penalty
A very large number
Continuous and Binary variables

Q i jc
Amount of commodity c procured from supplier i and stored at the

RDC j
Amount of commodity c transferred from supplier i to RDC j in
scenario s
Amount of commodity c transferred from RDC j to AA k in
scenario s
Amount of inventory held at AA k in scenario s
Amount of shortage at AA k in scenario s
1 if RDC with capacity category l is located at candidate RDC j;
0 otherwise
X i jcs
Y jkcs
Ikcs
bkcs
Z jl
5.2 Mathematical formulation

Now, we present a novel multi-objective, robust, stochastic optimization approach
based on Mulveys model in which uncertainty is represented by a set of finite discrete
scenarios (s). Equations (14)(21) are defined for the convenience of formulation.
F jl Z jl
SC (Setup costs)
(14)
ic Q i jc
PC (Procuring costs) in pre-disaster
(15)
ci jc Q i jc
TC (Transportation costs from suppliers to RDCs)
jJ lL

iI jJ, cC

iI jJ cC
in pre-disaster
(16)
ics X i jcs
PCs (Procuring costs) in post-disaster
(17)
ci jcs X i jcs
TCSs (Transportation costs from suppliers to RDCs)

iI
jJ cC
iI
jJ cC

jJ
in post-disaster
c jkcs Y jkcs
(18)
TCRCs (Transportation costs from RDCs to AAs)
kK cC

kK
h kc Ikcs
(19)
ICs (Inventory holding costs in AAs)
(20)
SCs (Shortage costs in AAs)
(21)
cC

kK
in post-disaster
c bkcs
cC
123
916
We recast the above discussion in the following multi-objective, disaster relief

planning formulation:
Min Obj1
= SC + PC + TC +
+1
ps (PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs + SCs )
sS
ps
(PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs + SCs )
sS

ps (PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs + SCs ) + 21s
s S
ps jcs
jJ cC sS
Min Obj2 =
ps

sS
cC
+2
(22)

max{bkcs }
kK

ps
sS

cC
max {bkcs }
kK
ps
s S

cC

max {bkcs } +22s
kK
(23)
s.t :
X i jcs + jcs
iI
Q i jc +

Yk jcs
k= jJ
iI

Z jl
lL
Y jkcs = jcs
k= jJ
j J, c C, s S
(24)

Ykkcs +
Y jkcs 1
Z kl Dkcs = Ikcs bkcs k K , c C, s S
j=kJ
Y jkcs M

lL
Z kl + Dkcs
lL
Y j jcs M.D jcs

X i jcs M
Z jl j J, c C, s S
(26)
(27)
Z jl i I, j J, c C, s S
(28)
Z jl j J, k K , c C, s S
(29)
lL
Y jkcs M
kK

lL
vc Q i jc
iI cC
j J, k K , c C, s S
jL
iI
(25)
vc I jcs
cC
123

lL
Capl Z jl j J
(30)
lL
Capl Z jl j J, s S
(31)
917
Q i jc Sic i I, c C
(32)
X i jcs ics Sic i I, c C, s S
(33)
Z jl 1 j J
(34)
jJ

jJ

lL
(PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs )

ps (PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs + SCs ) + 1s 0 s S

s S

cC
max {bkcs }
kK

ps
s S

cC
(35)

max {bkcs } + 2s 0 s S
(36)
kK
Z jl {0, 1} Q i jc , X i jcs , Y jkcs , I jcs , bkcs , jcs , 1s , 2s 0

i I, j J, k K , l L , c C, s S
(37)
The two objectives in our model are indicated by Eqs. (22) and (23) and described
as follows:
Objective # 1: The first objective function (Eq. 22) minimizes the three terms. The
first term is related to the expected value of total cost or the sum of the first stage and
the expected value of second-stage costs. The first-stage costs include the preparedness
phase costs (associated with setup, procurement and transportation from suppliers to
RDCs). The second-stage costs include the response phase costs (associated with procurement, transportation from suppliers to RDCs, transportation from RDCs to AAs,
inventory holding and shortage).
The second term of first objective function (Eq. 22) is related to the total cost variability. The last term in (22) measures the models robustness with respect to the
infeasibility associated with control constraints (24) under scenario s.
Objective # 2: The second objective maximizes the AAs satisfaction by minimizing
the sum of maximum shortage at devastated demand points. The idea of the mini-max
method is employed to sum up the least satisfactory value of each relief item so as to
reduce the number of objective equations.
The first and second terms in Eq. (23) are the expected value and variability of the
objective function, respectively. This objective is explicitly nonlinear, and the linear
equivalent equations could be rewritten with the help of an auxiliary variable Wcs 0
as follows:

Min Obj2 =
ps
Wcs
sS
+2
cC

sS
ps

cC
Wcs

s S
s.t. Wcs bkcs k K , c C, s S

Wcs 0 c C, s S

ps

Wcs

+ 22s
(38)
cC
(39)
(40)
123
918
Our model attempts to determine the best nodes for opening the RDC among the
potential sites while attempting to minimize total cost and maximize demand coverage.
We will now explain the constraints:
Constraint (24) is a control balance equation for each RDC that is used to determine
the amount of commodity supplied to a specific RDC from suppliers in preparedness
phase, a similar quantity from suppliers and other RDCs (backup plan) in response
phase, and the amount of commodity transferred to AAs from the RDCs. Note that,
if the amount of commodity supplied in the preparedness phase plus that supplied in
the response phase is greater than the amount of commodity transferred to AAs, the
deviation ( jcs ) is indicating an increased

inventory penalized by the last
commodity
term of the first objective function ( jJ cC sS ps jcs ). We designate this
penalty function as expected overloading. This constraint has an explicit non-linear
term that could be rewritten as a linear term with the help of the following constraints:
X i jcs + jcs.
iI
G1 jcs
Q i jc + G1 jcs
Y jkcs = jcs j J, c C, s S
k= jJ
iI
(41)
Yk jcs j J, c C, s S
(42)
k= jJ
G1 jcs M
Z jl j J, c C, s S
lL
G1 jcs
Yk jcs M 1
k= jJ
(43)

j J, c C, s S
Z jl
(44)
lL
Constraint (25) is an inventory balance equation for AAs. This constraint has an
explicit non-linear term that could be transformed to a linear term with the help of an
integer variable as follows:
Ykkcs + G2kcs Dkcs = Ikcs bkcs k K , c C, s S

Y jkcs k K , c C, s S
G2kcs
j=kJ
G2kcs M 1
G2kcs

j=kJ
(45)
(46)

Z kl
lL
Y jkcs M
k K , c C, s S
Z kl k K , c C, s S
(47)
(48)
lL
Constraint (26) guarantees that a RDC could transfer commodity to other nodes
only if there exist either another RDC or an AA on that node. Constraint (27) indicates that an RDC could transfer commodity to its own area only if its demand points
are affected. Constraints (28) and (29) prevent suppliers and RDCs from transferring
commodity to demand points where no RDC has been opened. The capacity limits
of RDCs are represented by (30) and (31). Constraint (32) ensures that the amount
123
919
of commodity c procured from supplier i cannot exceed the suppliers capacity. Constraint (33) ensures that the dispatched commodity from no supplier can exceed the
amount of commodity c at supplier i and remain usable in scenario s. Note that the
parameter ics with a value between zero and one is to represent the degree of accessibility of suppliers. Constraint (34) prevents more than one RDC from being placed at
any nodes. Constraints (35) and (36) are auxiliary constraints for linearization defined
in (11). Finally, Constraint (37) determines the type of the variables.
6 Solution procedure
The methods of multi-objective optimization have been successfully applied in the literature. The techniques of Goal Programming (GP), Compromise Programming (CP),
and the Reference Point Method (RPM) are three of the most well-known multi-objective decision-making methodologies (Romero et al. 1998). Among them, Compromise
Programming is still frequently employed in multi-objective optimization problems.
In this paper, the Compromise Programming is used to solve our multi-objective optimization problem.
In this method, a multi-objective problem is solved by regarding each objective
function separately and then reformulating a single objective that aims to minimize
the sum over the normalized difference between each objective and corresponding
optimum value. For our proposed model, we assume that two objective functions are
called Obj1 and later Obj2 . Based on the Lp-metrics method, our model should be
solved for each of the two objectives separately. Assuming that the optimum values
for these two problems are Obj1 and Obj2 , the Lp-metrics objective function can now
be formulated as follows:

Obj1 Obj1
Obj2 Obj2
Min Obj3 = w
+
(1
w)
Obj1
Obj2
(49)
where 0 w 1 is the relative weight of the components of the objective function

given by the decision maker, namely, Lp-metrics coefficient. Using this Lp-metrics
objective function and considering our model constraints, we arrive at a single-objective, mixed-integer programming model, which can be solved efficiently using a linear
programming solver.
7 Case study
Iran is a country prone to many types of natural disasters, such as earthquakes. There
have been a number of earthquakes with magnitude 2 or above on the Richter scale
that caused heavy causalities as well as widespread economic loses. We present a
case study in a region of Iran to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model.
It is based on discussions with subject matter experts of Tehran Municipality Urban
Planning and Research Center.
123
920
Fig. 2 Seismicity of Tehran and surrounding areas; 19092008 (Nowroozi 2010). (Faults are from Geological map of Iran, National Iranian Oil Co. 1978; and Nazari et al. 2007)
7.1 Case description

The main study area lies in a region of Iran (Fig. 2). This region is located near the
foothills of the southern Central Alborz, which is surrounded by several active faults
with a population about 27 million people and with the size of about 1,300 km in
diameter. Many historical and recent earthquakes have affected this region, mostly on
the Mosha, North-Tehran, Garmsar, Eshtehard, Kahrizak, Parchin, Ipak, North-Ray,
and South-Ray faults, producing earthquakes greater than Ms = 6.5 (Berberian and
Yeats 2001; Jafari 2010).
Studies of recent destructive earthquakes in Iran show that social and economic
losses have been mainly due to the failure of buildings. For example, Nateghi (2001)
demonstrated that for a 0.35 g scenario in Tehran about 640,000 residences out of
1,100,000 would collapse or suffer serious damage, 1,450,000 people would be killed,
and about 4,330,000 would suffer injuries.
According to Fig. 3, we consider five suppliers, named Sup1 , . . ., Sup5 (Sari, Qazvin, Tehran, Arak, and Isfahan), and 15 demand points spread geographically over
the entire map. In dealing with disasters, three types of emergency supplies, namely,
water, food, and shelter are considered in this case study. We consider four scenarios,
s1, s2, s3 , and s4 , with occurrence probabilities of 0.45, 0.3, 0.1, and 0.15, respectively.
Note that these scenarios and their associated probabilities are devised by the subject matter experts or disaster planners on the basis of historical records and known
geological faults. Nodes, potential RDCs, and potential demand points are shown in
123
921
Caspian Sea
Gorgan
Rasht
Qazvin
Sari
Karaj
Shahriar
IslamshahrTehran
Robatkarim
Semnan
Varamin
Gom
Arak
Kashan
Isfahan
Node
Suppliers
Fig. 3 Map of case study: nodes and suppliers

Table 1 Nodes, potential
RDCs, and potential DPs
Table 2 Capacity of Suppliers

for each commodity (103 units)
Gorgan
Karaj
Shahriar
Semnan
Tehran
Gom
Sari
Varamin
Arak
Rasht
Robatkarim
Isfahan
Qazvin
Islamshahr
Kashan
Suppliers
(Water, food, shelter)
Sari
(450, 450, 150)
Qazvin
(450, 450, 150)
Tehran
(510, 510, 170)
Arak
(450, 450, 150)
Isfahan
(450, 450, 150)
Table 1. The capacities of five suppliers for each commodity are shown in Table 2. The
unit cost of opening a new facility (F) that depends on its capacity is listed in Table 3.
Table 4 contains the pre-disaster phase data for the volume (v) occupied by each
1,000 units of commodity; the procurement price for the same (); and the transportation cost per unit distance for the same (transport). In the response phase, the 1000-unit
procurement prices are estimated to be the same as the commodity procurement price
123
922
Table 3 Facility setup cost

depending on its storage
capacity
F (103 $)
Size
Small
500
Medium
800
16
1,200
24
Large
Table 4 Unit procure price,

transportation cost, and volume
occupied by commodity
Cap (103 m3 )
Commodity
(103 )
(103 $/unit)
10
v
(m3 /unit)
Transport.
(103 $/unit-km)
Water
0.5
4.5
0.6
Food
0.15
Shelter
20
120
1.8
Table 5 Demand (103 units)

DP
Gorgan
(water, food
shelter)
Semnan
(water, food,
shelter)
Sari
(water, food,
shelter)
Rasht
(water, food,
shelter)
Qazvin
(water, food,
shelter)
s1
(319, 319, 106)
(34, 34, 11)
(579, 579, 193)
(524, 524, 175)
(68, 68, 23)
s2
(159, 159, 53)
(69, 69, 23)
(521, 521, 174)
(429, 429, 143)
(169, 169, 56)
s3
(96, 96, 32)
(29, 29, 10)
(289, 289, 96)
(238, 238, 79)
(158, 158, 53)
s4
(287, 287, 96)
(57, 57, 19)
(579, 579, 193)
(476, 476, 159)
(113, 113, 38)
DP
Karaj
(water, food,
shelter)
Tehran
(water, food,
shelter)
Varamin
(water, food,
shelter)
Robatkarim
(water, food,
shelter)
Islamshahr
(water, food,
shelter)
s1
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
s2
(293, 293, 98)
(1418, 1418, 473)
(103, 103, 34)
(138, 138, 46)
(98, 98, 33)
s3
(222, 222, 74)
(1654, 1654, 551)
(81, 81, 27)
(100, 100, 33)
(76, 76, 25)
s4
(256, 256, 85)
(1339, 1339, 446)
(76, 76, 25)
(94, 94, 31)
(67, 67, 22)
DP
Shahriar
(water, food,
shelter)
Gom
(water, food,
shelter)
Arak
(water, food,
shelter)
Isfahan
(water, food,
shelter)
Kashan
(water, food,
shelter)
s1
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0)
s2
(188, 188, 63)
(228, 228, 76)
(22, 22, 7)
(225, 225, 75)
(30, 30, 10)
s3
(177, 177, 59)
(187, 187, 62)
(75, 75, 25)
(990, 990, 330)
(30, 30, 10)
s4
(146, 146, 49)
(166, 166, 55)
(22, 22, 7)
(225, 225, 75)
(21, 21, 7)
in the pre-disaster phase, and the unit transportation cost is estimated to be 1.8 times
that of the pre-disaster phase; these data are assumed to be fixed among scenarios.
The cost for unmet demand penalty is estimated to be ten times the procurement price
of the corresponding commodity, and the holding cost is estimated according to the
current procurement price of the commodity. The cost of transportation between nodes
is estimated on the basis of distance.
Table 5 shows that for each scenario, there is a four-element vector representing
demand at 15 potential demand points in detail. Demand for water and that for food at
123
923
Table 6 Percentage of commodity that remains usable after disaster ( jcs )

Node
Gorgan
(water, food,
shelter)
Semnan
(water, food,
shelter)
Sari
(water, food,
shelter)
Rasht
(water, food,
shelter)
Qazvin
(water, food,
shelter)
s1
(80, 77, 85)
(93, 90, 98)
(75, 72, 80)
(82, 79, 87)
(100, 100,100)
s2
(90, 87, 95)
(88, 85, 93)
(82, 79, 87)
(82, 79, 87)
(85, 82, 90)
s3
(94, 91, 99)
(95, 92, 100)
(90, 87, 95)
(92, 89, 97)
(87, 84, 92)
s4
(82, 79, 87)
(90, 87, 95)
(80, 77, 85)
(81, 78, 86)
(90, 87, 95)
Node
Karaj
(water, food,
shelter)
Tehran
(water, food,
shelter)
Varamin
(water, food,
shelter)
Robatkarim
(water, food,
shelter)
Islamshahr
(water, food,
shelter)
s1
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
s2
(83, 80, 88)
(82, 79, 87)
(81, 78, 86)
(78, 75, 83)
(78, 75, 83)
s3
(87, 84, 92)
(79, 76, 84)
(85, 82, 90)
(84, 81, 89)
(83, 80, 89)
s4
(85, 82, 90)
(83, 80, 88)
(86, 83, 91)
(85, 82, 90)
(85, 80, 90)
Node
Shahriar
(water, food,
shelter)
Gom
(water, food,
shelter)
Arak
(water, food,
shelter)
Isfahan
(water, food,
shelter)
Kashan
(water, food,
shelter)
s1
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
(100, 100, 100)
s2
(82, 79, 83)
(78, 75, 83)
(95, 92, 100)
(95, 92, 100)
(90, 87, 95)
s3
(83, 80, 87)
(82, 79, 87)
(83, 80, 88)
(78, 75, 83)
(90, 87, 95)
s4
(86, 83, 89)
(84, 81, 89)
(95, 92, 100)
(95, 92, 100)
(93, 90, 98)
each demand point for a given scenario is estimated on the basis of the population density multiplied by the vulnerability probability of the demand point. This probability
depends on the following factors: (1) disaster type, (2) disaster intensity, and (3) urban
fabrics. Because the shelter under consideration has a capacity for accommodating
three people, the estimated demand for shelter is set to the number of affected people
divided by three.
The capability of a facility (supplier or RDC) may be disrupted partially by a disaster due to damage to the roads and/or the facility itself. The percentage of commodity
c at facility j that remains usable under scenario s is shown in Table 6. We use the Lpmetrics formulation (49) with equal relative weights (0.5) to solve this multi-objective
disaster relief problem.
7.2 Results
In this section, we present computational results and analyze the behavior of the proposed model. We solve the problem using Lingo 10 running on a PC Pentium IV-3
GHz with 4 GB of RAM (DDR 3) under the Windows XP SP3 environment. We ran
the model, and the results are given in Tables 7, 8 and 9. Table 7 shows that nine
RDCs are opened and distributed widely across the network. Four of the nine RDCs
123
924
Table 7 Results of the storage amount of commodities in RDCs

RDC
Facility size
Water (103 units)
Food (103 units)
Shelter (103 units)
Semnan
Large
2,025
2,310
Sari
Large
Qazvin
Small
83
Karaj
Medium
133
Varamin
Small
Isfahan
Small
Kashan
Large
284
189
85
200
78
Table 8 Amount of RDCs relief commodities procured from suppliers in post-disaster phase (X i jcs )
Supply RDC
point
Item
Semnan
(s1 , s2 ,
s3 , s4 )
Sari
(s1 , s2
s3 , s4 )
Sari
Water
(0, 0, 0, 360)
Food
(0, 0, 0, 346)
Karaj
(s1 , s2 ,
s3 , s4 )
Varamin
(s1 , s2 ,
s3 , s4 )
Isfahan
(s1 , s2 ,
s3 , s4 )
(0, 369, 405, 0)
(0, 0, 391, 0)
(0, 355, 0, 0)
(0, 130, 142, 0)
(0, 0, 391, 405)
(0, 369, 378, 155)
Shelter (0, 0, 0, 127)

Qazvin Water
Food
Shelter (0, 135, 0, 142)

Tehran Water
Food
Arak
Qazvin
(s1 , s2
s3 , s4 )
(0, 0, 138, 0)
(0, 0, 0, 423)
(0, 418, 402, 0)
(0, 402, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 387, 408)
Shelter
(0, 147, 0, 149)
(0, 0, 142, 0)
Water
(0, 0, 373, 427)
Food
(0, 414, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 0, 414)
(0, 0, 360, 0)
(0, 0, 25, 0) (0, 0, 106, 0)
(0, 414, 337, 220)
Shelter (0, 0, 0, 30)
(0, 150, 124, 414)
Shelter (0, 0, 0, 150)

Isfahan Water
Food
(0, 427, 0, 0)
(0, 427, 351, 0)
are specialized: one facility stores only one of the three commodity types (shelter);
another facility (Semnan) stores only two of the commodity types (water and shelter);
yet another facility stores all three commodity types; and one facility stores nothing
in pre-disaster phase. In total, approximately 2.3 million units of water are pre-positioned, along with 2.3 million units of food and approximately 0.58 million units
of shelter. The total cost of the pre-disaster phase for this solution that is not subjected to uncertainty is approximately 35.1 million dollars. The expected value of
total cost for the post-disaster phase in this solution is about 55.5 million dollars. The
expected value of the sum of maximum shortage for all AAs in this solution is 52 1,000
units.
Table 8 shows the amount of each commodity procured from the suppliers and
transported to RDCs under various scenarios in the post-disaster phase. Under sce-
123
Kashan
Isfahan
Varamin
Karaj
Qazvin
Shelter
Shelter
Water
Food
Food
Water
38
Food
Shelter
18
14
32
34
Semnan
Shelter
Water
Water
Shelter
Food
Food
62
Shelter
167
Food
Water
181
96
Shelter
Water
232
Food
Sari
224
Water
Semnan
Gorgan
Item
RDC
1,103
666
139
199
631
162
480
479
39
826
1,223
Sari
124
333
404
151
524
Rasht
592
232
114
68
41
116
114
Qazvin
167
1,319
84
243
240
18
71
279
Karaj
10
225
557
155
1,563
1,574
92
1,121
41
847
217
212
62
284
311
1,319
653
Tehran
Table 9 Amount of relief commodities transferred from RDCs to demand points (Y jkcs )
726
27
70
70
143
277
181
51
1,311
1,915
Varamin
46
26
72
29
84
68
Robat
61
25
66
68
Eslam
49
174
54
147
153
63
Shah
56
75
158
167
104
166
198
Gom
20
22
19
38
28
Arak
104
245
158
466
463
264
1,313
Isfahan
13
20
1,313
423
552
21
Kashan

925
123
926
Semnan
Qazvin
Karaj
Backup
Relief
Distribution
Varamin
Kashan
Relief
Distribution
DP
DP
Varamin
Tehran
Kashan
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4 Difference between relief distribution and backup coverage
nario 2 (s2 ), for example, Semnan RDC provides shelters received in various quantities
from several suppliers (127, 142, 150, and 30 1,000 units from Sari, Qazvin, Arak,
and Isfahan, respectively). Note that the supplier cities in which a RDC is located can
take advantage of and provide part of its relief commodities from its own supplier to
the RDC with zero transportation cost. When an RDC has a commodity shortfall to
serve the closest demand points, the second closest RDC is assigned to service them.
For example, Semnan RDC provides food for AAs Gorgan, Semnan, Sari, Tehran,
and Varamin with the average amount of 232, 32, 826, 1319, and 1311 1,000 units,
respectively, in all scenarios (see Table 9). It should be noted that whenever an RDC
provides a service to a specific AA with an existing RDC, the service is considered a
backup coverage for this existing RDC (see Fig. 4a); otherwise, the service is regarded
as a relief distribution for that demand point (see Fig. 4b). In other words, if a certain
AA has a designated RDC, the relief distribution is carried out by its own RDC.
To emphasize the importance of simultaneously considering the total cost and the
satisfaction of affected people, as incorporated in our proposed model, the following
three models are defined for sensitivity analysis:
1.
2.
3.
Model1 consists of the total cost of relief supply chain (Obj1 ) and its related
constraints;
Model2 consists of the sum of the maximum shortage at all demand points (Obj2 )
and its related constraints;
Lp-metrics model consists of the objective function (Obj3 ) calculated by Eq. (49)
and its related constraints.
A series of multi-objective solutions for the model were obtained by varying the
possible number of RDCs (n). Figures 5 and 6 graphically show the objective function
values Obj1 and Obj2 for these solutions, respectively, as a function of the possible
number of selected RDCs ranging from 1 to 9.
As can be seen in Fig. 5, the value of Obj1 decreases when the possible number
of RDCs increases in all three models. Thus, it can be concluded that the best value
for the possible number of RDCs is equal to 7. According to Fig. 6, the best value of
Obj2 is obtained when n = 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the same way as Obj1 . Although the value
of Obj1 decreases when the possible number of RDCs increases both in Model2 and
Lp-metrics model, the value of Obj2 obtained from solving Model1 does not decrease
when the possible number of RDCs increases regularly. According to Figs. 5 and 6,
the possible number of RDCs is assumed to be 7, and the solution reported in the
previous section is based on this assumption. In addition, Figs. 5 and 6 show that the
123

Model 1
927
Model 2
Lp-metric
Obj1 (103$)
270000
250000
230000
210000
190000
170000
150000
130000
110000
90000
70000
50000
1
N=Number of selected RDC

Fig. 5 Total cost versus the possible number of selected RDCs
Model2
Model2
Lp-metric
140
1800
130
1600
120
1400
110
Obj1 (10 3$)
Obj2 (10 3 Units)
Model1
2000
1200
1000
800
Lp-metric
100
90
80
600
70
400
60
200
50
40
0
1
Fig. 6 Sum of maximum shortage in all AAs versus the possible number of selected RDCs
proposed Lp-metrics model behaves in such a way that the values of Obj1 and Obj2
follow their best values, Obj1 and Obj2 , as possible.
In order to arrive at an appropriate solution such that the decision maker will be
able to make trade-offs of one criterion against another based on the results, the aforementioned problem is solved several times while varying the Lp-metrics coefficient
(w). By solving this disaster relief logistics problem, it is concluded that the relationship between total cost and satisfaction is clear, and that it is possible to easily
define a utility function. According to Fig. 7, increasing weight for Obj1 (the total
cost) causes Obj2 (amount of shortage) to increase (less satisfaction). Also, decreasing weight for Obj1 causes Obj2 to decrease. Thus, it seems that by raising the goal
for any of the objectives, we create more space for other objectives to be improved. It
is also concluded that there are some positive correlations between the total cost and
the satisfaction.
In Fig. 8, a sensitivity analysis is performed for model robustness and solution
robustness against the multiplier of model robustness (Gamma) in the Lp-metrics
model. As Fig. 8a demonstrates, the expected overloading will eventually drop to zero
123
928
Obj1 versus Obj2
70
Obj2 (10 3 units)
w=0.9
65
60
w=0.8
w=0.7
55
w=0.5
w=0.6
50
45
96000
97000
98000
99000
100000
101000
102000
103000
w=0.3
w=0.1
w=0.4
w=0.2
104000
105000
106000
Obj1 (10 3 $)
Fig. 7 Results of sensitivity analysis for Lp-metrics coefficient (w)
1800
85000
1600
Expected overloading
Expected cost(103 $)
Solution Robustness
90000
80000
75000
70000
65000
60000
55000
Model Robustness
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
50000
0
0
200
400
600
800
200
400
Gamma
Gamma
(a)
(b)
600
800
Fig. 8 Solution robustness (a) and model robustness (b) versus Gamma ( )
with an increase in the value of Gamma. On the other hand, expected cost increases
exponentially by increasing the value of Gamma (see Fig. 8b). It means that the DM
could here choose the best value of Gamma based on his/her preferences. A risk-averse
DM may tend to select the lower values of Gamma; conversely a risk-seeking DM
may prefer higher values of that.
Managing uncertainty in disaster relief planning is a crucial issue. To highlight the
role of uncertainty in disaster relief logistic planning, we compare here, four typical
models; each one covers partial degree of uncertainty. This comparison is made to
measure the effect of not considering all uncertain parameters all together in those
situations where the environment is actually uncertain. An example of this kind of
mistakes may appear when a deterministic model is used to solve problems which are
affected by uncertain parameters considering just mean values for such parameters.
In order to perform the aforementioned comparison, the relief chain designs obtained
by solving the proposed model for the case study are evaluated against the models in
which some or all sources of uncertainty is neglected. The aforementioned models are
as follows:
123
Modeli (Deterministic):
Assuming:
- No demand uncertainty
- No supply uncertainty
- No cost uncertainty
Modelii:
Assuming:
- Demand uncertainty
- No supply uncertainty
929
Modeliii:
Assuming:
- Supply uncertainty
Modeliv:
Assuming:
- Supply uncertainty
- Cost uncertainty
Fig. 9 Typical models with different degrees of uncertainty (Modeli to Modeliv )
102
100
Total Cost (10 6$)
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
1
Deterministic
Demand uncertainty
Demand/supply uncertainty
All source of uncertainty
Fig. 10 Total cost of Modeli to Modeliv under scenario 14
Modeli is not subject to uncertainty (deterministic model). Modelii considers

merely demand uncertainty. Modeliii covers both uncertainty of demand and supply.
Finally, Modeliv (the proposed model) considers all sources of uncertainty simultaneously (see Fig. 9). Note that, in this comparison, we set the second objective function
to a pre-specified level for all models.
To quantify the cost saving by considering the various sources of uncertainty, each
typical model is solved for the case problem and the results are shown in Fig. 10.
According to Fig. 10, Modeli does not consider uncertainty. Therefore an essential
cost is incurred in disaster relief system and causes total cost to become considerably
unstable dealing with different scenarios. When demand uncertainty is considered in
Modelii , the complexity of the model increases to some extent, but the capability of the
model to respond to unexpected situations increases as well. Whenever higher degrees
of uncertainty are being considered, the modeling complexity (highly constrained and
large amount of variables) increases accordingly, but total cost will be improved in
comparison with existing models which cover lower degrees of uncertainty. As shown
in Fig. 10, Modeliv is more reliable than Modeliii and in the same way; Modeliii is
more reliable than Modelii. This fact is conceived by the lower cost of these models
in comparison with each other under different scenarios. On average, 8.9, 6.8, and
123
930
45
40
Cost (10 6 $)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Deterministic
Demand/suppply uncertainty
Demand uncertainty
all sources of
o uncertainty
Fig. 11 Average component total cost for Modeli to Modeliv
3.8% cost saving is achieved by considering three sources of uncertainty (Modeliv )

in comparison with models i, ii and iii, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the components of the average total cost for different models. As can
be seen, by considering all sources of uncertainty (Modeliv ), we have lower cost for
each objective function components in comparison with the other models. It therefore
would seem more reasonable for decision makers to prefer the modeling complexity
of considering all sources of uncertainty (the proposed model) to immune themselves
from the risk of probable future losses.
8 Conclusions and recommendations

In this paper, we proposed a multi-objective, robust, stochastic programming model
to simultaneously optimize the humanitarian relief operations in both the preparedness and response phases. Our model consists of two stages; the first stage determines
the location of RDCs and the required inventory quantities for each type of relief
items under storage, and the second stage determines the amount of transportation
from RDCs to AAs. Our multi-objective model minimizes expected total costs, cost
variability, and expected penalty for infeasible solution due to uncertain parameters
while maximizing customer satisfaction. In our model, the cost parameters for the
relief logistics as well as demand are subject to uncertainty. Furthermore, the model
considers uncertainty in the locations where those demands might arise as well as the
possibility that some of the pre-positioned supplies at RDC or supplier might be partially destroyed by the disaster (supply uncertainty). Finally, we solved our model as
a single-objective, linear programming problem applying the Lp-metrics method. To
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model, a case study based on a specific
disaster scenario is presented. Sensitivity analysis is also performed to validate the
model.
123
931
We also assessed the potential improvement of using robust stochastic optimization

with all sources of uncertainty in the relief chain planning process compared with the
models with lower degrees of uncertainty. The results of our case study show that on
average, cost savings of at least 3.8% could be achieved by using the proposed model.
Because both the model and the computed results, obtained from a set of real data,
have been based on the input and feedback from experts, we have confidence in the
strength and practicability of these conclusions for dealing with uncertain disaster scenarios. Decision-makers involved in relief planning can gain insights into their own
planning problem by using our proposed model to analyze their own sets of data.
At the end, we make the following relevant suggestions for further research: (1)
Although we have not addressed the vehicle scheduling problem, the constraints of
rescue vehicle types and the limitations of rescue manpower should be considered
in disaster-relief logistics management; (2) for large-scale problems, especially those
involving a concurrent increase in the number of scenarios, the number of commodities
and the number of potential locations, it would be necessary to employ meta-heuristics. Although meta-heuristics have been applied successfully to the deterministic
optimization programming, only a few meta-heuristic solutions have been devised
for stochastic optimization programming; and (3) it would be interesting to develop
a new approach based, for example, on fuzzy logic, to determine the probability of
occurrence behind real scenarios because the model results are highly dependent on
them.
Acknowledgments We are most grateful to The Guest Editor, Professor Van Wassenhove, to Professor
Karl Doerner, and to the anonymous referees whose detailed reviews and insightful comments led to a
significant improvement in the article.
References
Akkihal A (2006) Inventory pre-positioning for humanitarian operations. Thesis for Degree of Master of
Engineering in Logistics, MIT CTL
Altay N, Green WG (2006) OR/MS research in disaster operations management. Eur J Oper Res
175(1):475493
Amiri A (2006) Designing a distribution network in a supply chain: formulation and efficient solution
procedure. Eur J Oper Res 171:567576
Azaron A, Brown KN, Tarim SA, Modarres M (2008) A multiobjective stochastic programming approach
for supply chain design considering risk. Int J Prod Econ 116:129138
Bakuli DL, Smith JM (1996) Resource allocation in state-dependent emergency evacuation networks. Eur
J Oper Res 89(4):543555
Balcik B, Beamon BM (2008) Facility location in humanitarian relief. Int J Logist Res Appl 11(2):101121
Barbarosoglu G, Ozdamar L, Cevik A (2002) An interactive approach for hierarchical analysis of helicopter
logistics in disaster relief operations. Eur J Oper Res 140:118133
Barbarosoglu G, Arda Y (2004) A two-stage stochastic programming framework for transportation planning in disaster response. J Oper Res Soc 55:4353
Beamon BM, Kotleba SA (2006) Inventory modeling for complex emergencies in humanitarian relief
operations. Int J Logist Res Appl 9(1):118
Beraldi P, Bruni ME, Conforti D (2004) Designing robust emergency medical service via stochastic programming. Eur J Oper Res 158(1):183193
Beraldi P, Bruni ME (2009) A probabilistic model applied to emergency service vehicle location. Eur J
Oper Res 196(1):323331
123
932
Berberian M, Yeats RS (2001) Contribution of archaeological data to studies of earthquake history in the
Iranian plateau. J Struct Geol 23:563584
Blecken A, Hellingrath B, Dangelmaier W, Schulz SF (2009) A humanitarian supply chain process reference model. Int J Serv Technol Manag 12(4):391413
Brotcorne L, Laporte G, Semet F (2003) Ambulance location and relocation models. Eur J Oper Res
147(3):451463
Campbell AM, Vandenbussche D, Hermann W (2008) Routing for relief efforts. Transp Sci 42(2):127145
Chang MS, Tseng YL, Chen JW (2007) A scenario planning approach for the flood emergency logistics
preparation problem under uncertainty. Transp Res Part E 43(6):737754
Cormican KJ, David P, Morton R, Kevin W (1998) Stochastic network interdiction. Oper Res 46(2):184
197
Davis T (1993) Effective supply chain management. Sloan Manag Rev 34(4):3546
Doerner KF, Hartl RF (2008) Health care logistics, emergency preparedness, and disaster relief: new challenges for routing problems with a focus on the Austrian situation. In: The vehicle routing problem:
latest advances and new challenges, Part III. Springer, USA, pp 527550
Fiedrich A, Gehbauer F, Rickers U (2000) Optimized resource allocation for emergency response after
earthquake disasters. Saf Sci 35:4157
Haghani A, Afshar AM (2009) Supply chain management in disaster response. Final Project report, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland
Haghani A, Oh SC (1996) Formulation and solution of a multi-commodity, multi-modal network flow
model for disaster relief operations. Transp Res part A Pol 30(3):231250
Han LD, Yuan F, Chin SM, Hwang H (2006) Global optimization of emergency evacuation assignments.
Interfaces 36(6):502513
Jafari MA (2010) Statistical prediction of the next great earthquake around Tehran, Iran. J Geodyn 49:1418
Jia H, Ordonez F, Dessouky M (2007a) A modeling framework for facility location of medical services for
large-scale emergencies. IIE Trans 39(1):4155
Jia H, Ordonez F, Dessouky M (2007b) Solution approaches for facility location of medical supplies for
large-scale emergencies. Comput Ind Eng 52(2):257276
Knott R (1987) The logistics of bulk relief suppliers. Disaster 11:113115
Knott R (1988) Vehicle routing for emergency relief management: a knowledge-based approach. Disaster
12:285293
Kovacs G, Spens KM (2007) Humanitarian logistics in disaster relief operations. Int J Phys Distrib Logist
Manag 37(2):99114
Lodree EJ, Taskin S (2008) An insurance risk management framework for disaster relief and supply chain
disruption inventory planning. J Oper Res Soc 59(5):674684
Mert A, Adivar BO (2010) Fuzzy disaster relief planning with credibility measures. In: 24th Mini EURO
conference on Continuous optimization and information-based technologies in the financial sector,
June 2326, Izmir, Turkey
Mete ON, Zabinsky Z (2010) Stochastic optimization of medical supply distribution. Int J Prod Econ
126:7684
Mirzapour Al-e-hashem SMJ, Malekly H, Aryanezhad MB (2011) A multi-objective robust optimization
model formulation product multi-site aggregate production planning in a supply chain under uncertainty. Int J Prod Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.027
Mulvey JM, Vanderbei RJ, Zenios SA (1995) Robust optimization of large-scale systems. Oper Res
43(2):264281
Nateghi AF (2001) Earthquake scenario for the mega-city of Tehran. Disaster Prev Manag 10(2):95100
Nazari H, Ritz JF, Salamati R, Solaymoni S, Balescu S, Michelot, JL, Ghassemi A, Talebian M, Lamothe M,
Massaulut M (2007) Paleoseismological analysis in Central Alborz. In: 50th Anniversary earthquake
Conference commemorating the 1957 Gobi-Altay earthquake (JulyAugust 2007, Ulaanbaatar-Mongolia)
Nowroozi AA (2010) Probability of peak ground horizontal and peak ground vertical accelerations at Tehran
and surrounding areas. Pure Appl Geophys 167:14591474
Ozbay K, Ozguven EE (2007) Stochastic humanitarian inventory control model for disaster planning.
Transp Res Rec 2022(1):6375
Ozdamar L, Ekinci E, Kucukyazici B (2004) Emergency logistics planning in natural disasters. Ann Oper
Res 129(14):217245
123
933
Parentela E, Nambisan SS (2000) Emergency response (disaster management). In: Urban planning and
development applications of GIS, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 181196
Rawls CG, Turnsquist MA (2010) Pre-positioning of emergency supplies for disaster response. Transp Res
Part B Methodol 44(4):521534
Regnier E (2008) Public evacuation decisions and hurricane track uncertainty. Manag Sci 54(1):1628
Romero C, Tamiz M, Jones DF (1998) Goal programming, compromise programming and reference point
method formulations: linkages and utility interpretations. J Oper Res Soc 49(9):986991
Saadatseresht M, Mansourian A, Taleai M (2009) Evacuation planning using multi-objective evolutionary
optimization approach. Eur J Oper Res 198:305314
Sakakibara H, Kajitani Y, Okada N (2004) Road network robustness for avoiding functional isolation in
disasters. J Transp Eng ASCE 130:560567
Salmeron J, Apte A (2010) Stochastic optimization for natural disaster asset prepositioning. Prod Oper
Manag 19(5):561574
Sheu JB (2007) An emergency logistics distribution approach for quick response to urgent relief demand
in disasters. Transp Res Part E 43(6):687709
Sheu JB (2010) Dynamic relief-demand management for emergency logistics operations under large-scale
disasters. Transp Res Part E 46:117
Stepanov A, Smith JM (2009) Multi-objective evacuation routing in transportation networks. Eur J Oper
Res 198:435446
Tomasini RM, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Pan-American health organizations humanitarian supply management system: de-politicization of the humanitarian supply chain by creating accountability. J Public
Procur 4(3):437449
Toregas C, Swain R, ReVelle C, Bergman L (1971) The location of emergency service facilities. Oper Res
19(6):13631373
Tzeng GH, Cheng HJ, Huang TD (2007) Multi-objective optimal planning for designing relief delivery
systems. Transp Res Part E 43(6):673686
Ukkusuri S, Yushimito W (2008) Location routing approach for the humanitarian prepositioning problem.
Transp Res Rec 2089:1825
Van Wassenhove LN (2006) Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear. J Oper Res
Soc 57(5):475489
Van Wassenhove LN, Martinez AJP, Stapleton O (2010) An Analysis of the relief supply chain in the first
week after the Haiti earthquake. INSEAD Humanitarian Research Group. http://www.insead.edu/
facultyresearch/centres/isic/documents/HaitiReliefSupplyChain_Final25Jan_.pdf
Viswanath K, Peeta S (2003) Multi-commodity maximal covering network design problem for planning
critical routes for earthquake response. Transp Res Rec 1857:110
Whybark DC (2007) Issues in managing disaster relief inventories. Int J Prod Econ 108(12):228235
Yi W, Kumar A (2007) Ant colony optimization for disaster relief operations. Transp Res Part E 43:660672
Yi W, Ozdamar L (2007) A dynamic logistics coordination model for evacuation and support in disaster
response activities. Eur J Oper Res 179:11771193
Yu CS, Li HL (2000) A robust optimization model for stochastic logistic problems. Int J Prod Econ 64(1
3):385397
123

A Multi-Objective Robust Stochastic Programming Model For Disaster Relief Logistics Under Uncertainty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Multi-Objective Robust Stochastic Programming Model For Disaster Relief Logistics Under Uncertainty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OR Spectrum (2013) 35:905933

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

Published online: 13 August 2011

Abstract Humanitarian relief logistics is one of the most important elements of a

A. Bozorgi-Amiri (B) M. S. Jabalameli S. M. J. Mirzapour Al-e-Hashem

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

We also assess the potential improvement of using robust stochastic optimization

2.1 Disaster relief logistics

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

chooses an optimization goal such as minimum response time, maximum population

2.2 Stochastic optimization approach for disaster relief logistics

Although stochastic programming has been applied in Chang et al. (2007);

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

Fig. 1 General schema of relief distribution chain

Before the formulation is considered, we make the following assumptions on the

Set of suppliers indexed by i I

Occurrence probability of scenario s

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

Fraction of stocked material of commodity c

Continuous and Binary variables

Amount of commodity c procured from supplier i and stored at the

5.2 Mathematical formulation

PC (Procuring costs) in pre-disaster

TC (Transportation costs from suppliers to RDCs)

PCs (Procuring costs) in post-disaster

TCSs (Transportation costs from suppliers to RDCs)

TCRCs (Transportation costs from RDCs to AAs)

ICs (Inventory holding costs in AAs)

SCs (Shortage costs in AAs)

We recast the above discussion in the following multi-objective, disaster relief

ps (PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs + SCs )

(PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs + SCs )

Y j jcs M.D jcs

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

X i jcs ics Sic i I, c C, s S

(PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs )

ps  (PCs  + TCSs  + TCRCs  + ICs  + SCs  ) + 1s 0 s S

Z jl {0, 1} Q i jc , X i jcs , Y jkcs , I jcs , bkcs , jcs , 1s , 2s 0

s.t. Wcs bkcs k K , c C, s S

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

where 0 w 1 is the relative weight of the components of the objective function

7.1 Case description

A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model

Fig. 3 Map of case study: nodes and suppliers

Table 2 Capacity of Suppliers

(Water, food, shelter)

(450, 450, 150)

(450, 450, 150)

(510, 510, 170)

(450, 450, 150)

(450, 450, 150)

Table 3 Facility setup cost

Table 4 Unit procure price,

Table 5 Demand (103 units)

(319, 319, 106)

(34, 34, 11)

(579, 579, 193)

(524, 524, 175)

(68, 68, 23)

(159, 159, 53)

(69, 69, 23)

(521, 521, 174)

ps (PCs + TCSs + TCRCs + ICs + SCs ) + 1s 0 s S