Diversity, equity, and inclusion are at the core of present-day health and humanitarian logistics. Aid organizations advocate inclusive people-centered approaches to ensure that affected communities receive appropriate aid in an effective and equitable way. Tensions and even conflicts can arise if affected communities perceive the distribution of aid as inequitable. These perceptions are driven by people’s so-called distributional preferences. These preferences are shaped by culture, social bonds, and experiences, and they describe how an individual’s well-being and behavior are impacted by potential inequalities. Their importance is increasingly recognized by aid organizations, but research on equity in health and humanitarian logistics remains focused on equal access and prioritizing needs. Using current examples from the Syrian and Rohingya refugee crises, we show the importance of recognizing and managing distributional preferences. Based on these examples and in line with diversity, equity, and inclusion principles, we discuss several ways that we, as the operations community, can help conceptualize inclusive and people-centered approaches that account for distributional preferences.
AbdinAFFangYCaunhyeA, et al. (2023) An optimization model for planning testing and control strategies to limit the spread of a pandemic—The case of COVID-19. European Journal of Operational Research304(1): 308–324.
2.
ALNAP (2022) The State of the Humanitarian System.
3.
AnsarAKhaledAF (2021) From solidarity to resistance: Host communities’ evolving response to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Journal of International Humanitarian Action6(1): 1–14.
4.
ArnetteANZobelCW (2019) A risk-based approach to improving disaster relief asset pre-positioning. Production and Operations Management28(2): 457–478.
5.
BaderFKeuschniggM (2020) Bounded solidarity in cross-national encounters: Individuals share more with others from poor countries but trust them less. Sociological Science7: 415–432.
6.
BalafoutasLKerschbamerRSutterM (2012) Distributional preferences and competitive behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization83(1): 125–135.
7.
BansakKHainmuellerJHangartnerD (2016) How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science (New York, N.Y.)354(6309): 217–222.
8.
BarnettMATetreaultPAEsperJA, et al. (1986) Similarity and empathy: The experience of rape. The Journal of Social Psychology126(1): 47–49.
9.
BatsonCDSympsonSCHindmanJL, et al. (1996) “I’ve been there, too”: Effect on empathy of prior experience with a need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin22(5): 474–482.
10.
BesiouMVan WassenhoveLN (2020) Humanitarian operations: A world of opportunity for relevant and impactful research. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management22(1): 135–145.
11.
BoltonGEBrandtsJOckenfelsA (2005) Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal115(506): 1054–1076.
12.
BreugemTVan WassenhoveLN (2022) The price of imposing vertical equity through asymmetric outcome constraints. Management Science68(11): 7977–7993.
13.
CappelenAWFalchRSørensenEØ, et al. (2021) Solidarity and fairness in times of crisis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization186: 1–11.
14.
ChangK (2010) Community cohesion after a natural disaster: Insights from a carlisle flood. Disasters34(2): 289–302.
15.
ChenYLiSX (2009) Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review99(1): 431–57.
16.
CooperDJKagelJH (2016) Other-regarding preferences. The Handbook of Experimental Economics2: 217.
17.
EisenhandlerOTzurM (2019) The humanitarian pickup and distribution problem. Operations Research67(1): 10–32.
18.
EklundJAndersson-StråbergTHansenEM (2009) “I’ve also experienced loss and fear”: Effects of prior similar experience on empathy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology50(1): 65–69.
19.
EvansG (2020) Europe’s migrant crisis: The year that changed a continent. BBC (August 31).
20.
FehrESchmidtKM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics114(3): 817–868.
21.
FianuSDavisLB (2018) A markov decision process model for equitable distribution of supplies under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research264(3): 1101–1115.
22.
GrallaEGoentzelJFineC (2014) Assessing trade-offs among multiple objectives for humanitarian aid delivery using expert preferences. Production and Operations Management23(6): 978–989.
23.
GuptaSStarrMKFarahaniRZ, et al. (2016) Disaster management from a pom perspective: Mapping a new domain. Production and Operations Management25(10): 1611–1637.
24.
GutjahrWJFischerS (2018) Equity and deprivation costs in humanitarian logistics. European Journal of Operational Research270(1): 185–197.
25.
HasnainTSengul OrgutIIvyJS (2021) Elicitation of preference among multiple criteria in food distribution by food banks. Production and Operations Management30(12): 4475–4500.
26.
HodgesSDKielKJKramerAD, et al. (2010) Giving birth to empathy: The effects of similar experience on empathic accuracy, empathic concern, and perceived empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36(3): 398–409.
27.
Inter Sector Coordination Group (2019) Multi-Sector Needs Assessment – Teknaf and Ukhiya Upazilas.
28.
JónassonJORamdasKSunguA (2022) Social impact operations at the global base of the pyramid. Production and Operations Management31(12): 4364–4378.
29.
KarsuÖMortonA (2015) Inequity averse optimization in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research245(2): 343–359.
30.
KhaledAF (2021) Do no harm in refugee humanitarian aid: The case of the Rohingya humanitarian response. Journal of International Humanitarian Action6(1): 1–13.
31.
LiSX (2020) Group identity, ingroup favoritism, and discrimination. Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics1–28.
32.
LiYLiHDecetyJ, et al. (2013) Experiencing a natural disaster alters children’s altruistic giving. Psychological Science24(9): 1686–1695.
Mercy Corps (2013) Mapping of Host Community-Refugee Tensions in Mafraq and Ramtha, Jordan.
35.
OCHA (2022) Global Humanitarian Overview 2022.
36.
OrgutISIvyJUzsoyR, et al. (2016) Modeling for the equitable and effective distribution of donated food under capacity constraints. IIE Transactions48(3): 252–266.
37.
ParkCHBerenguerG (2020) Supply constrained location-distribution in not-for-profit settings. Production and Operations Management29(11): 2461–2483.
38.
Rodríguez-PereiraJBalcikBRancourtM-È, et al. (2021) A cost-sharing mechanism for multi-country partnerships in disaster preparedness. Production and Operations Management30(12): 4541–4565.
39.
UNHCR (2016) Connecting refugees. How internet and mobile connectivity can improve refugee well-being and transform humanitarian action.
40.
United States Institute of Peace (2023) Conflict Dynamics between Bangladeshi Host Communities and Rohingya Refugees.
41.
VineMGreenwoodRM (2022) “You get to understand we are all human beings”: Community solidarity initiatives as spaces of recognition, resistance, and change. American Journal of Community Psychology69(3-4): 331–342.
42.
World Bank (2019) Bangladesh poverty assessment: Facing old and new frontiers in poverty reduction.
43.
World Food Programme (2021) Targeting and Prioritization – Operational Guidance Note.
44.
World Health Organization (2016) Framework on integrated, people-centred health services.
45.
World Vision International (2022) Warm welcomes, lurking tensions.
46.
WuYLochCHHeydenLV d (2008) A model of fair process and its limits. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management10(4): 637–653.
47.
YadavP (2010) Improving public health in developing countries through operations research. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science.
48.
ZhaiCBretthauerKMejiaJ, et al. (2023) Improving drinking water access and equity in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Production and Operations Management32(9): 2921–2939.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
