No abstract

Purpose In this contribution, the purpose of this study is to extend the established social cost concept of humanitarian logistics into a preference-based bi-objective approach. The novel concept offers an efficient, robust and transparent way to consider the decision-maker’s preference. In principle, the proposed method applies to any multi-objective decision and is especially suitable for decisions with conflicting objectives and asymmetric impact. Design/methodology/approach The authors bypass the shortcomings of the traditional approach by introducing a normalized weighted sum approach. Within this approach, logistics and deprivation costs are normalized with the help of Nadir and Utopia points. The weighting factor represents the preference of a decision-maker toward emphasizing the reduction of one cost component. The authors apply the approach to a case study for hypothetical water contamination in the city of Berlin, in which authorities select distribution center (DiC) locations to supply water to beneficiaries. Findings The results of the case study highlight that the decisions generated by the approach are more consistent with the decision-makers preferences while enabling higher efficiency gains. Furthermore, it is possible to identify robust solutions, i.e. DiCs opened in each scenario. These locations can be the focal point of interest during disaster preparedness. Moreover, the introduced approach increases the transparency of the decision by highlighting the cost-deprivation trade-off, together with the Pareto-front. Practical implications For practical users, such as disaster control and civil protection authorities, this approach provides a transparent focus on the trade-off of their decision objectives. The case study highlights that it proves to be a powerful concept for multi-objective decisions in the domain of humanitarian logistics and for collaborative decision-making. Originality/value To the best of the knowledge, the present study is the first to include preferences in the cost-deprivation trade-off. Moreover, it highlights the promising option to use a weighted-sum approach to understand the decisions affected by this trade-off better and thereby, increase the transparency and quality of decision-making in disasters.