Search results

At the inception of the Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management (JHLSCM), logistics coordination was identified as important, both in practice and research, but few studies on the topic had been published. Ten years later, many, if not most, papers in the journal mention the topic. So the picture has changed, but to what extent? This paper discusses how coordination research has followed humanitarian logistics practice and vice versa.

The point of departure in the present article is the most salient topic from the study’s original papers (Jahre et al., 2009; Jahre and Jensen, 2010). The authors discuss how these topics have developed in research and practice. A recent literature review (Grange et al., 2020) enables us to pick relevant papers from JHLSCM and supplement them with more recent ones. The authors complement this approach with updated data on the cluster system, particularly the logistics cluster, to add insights from the empirical domain.

In practice, the cluster concept has developed from coordination within clusters in response to the inclusion of inter-cluster coordination in preparedness, and more recently a focus on localized preparedness. However, JHLSCM research does not appear to have kept pace, with a few notable exceptions. The majority of its papers still focus on response. To the extent that preparedness is covered, it is primarily done so at the global level.

The authors use a framework to discuss humanitarian logistics coordination research and identify important gaps. Based on developments in practice, the study’s key contribution is a revised model with suggestions for further research.

To meet the rising global needs, the humanitarian community has signed off on making a strategic change toward more localisation, which commonly refers to the empowerment of national and local actors in humanitarian assistance. However, to this date, actual initiatives for localisation are rare. To enhance understanding of the phenomenon, the authors explore localisation of logistics preparedness capacities and obstacles to its implementation. The authors particularly take the perspective of the international humanitarian organisation (IHO) community as they are expected to implement the localisation strategy.

A phenomenon-driven, exploratory and qualitative study was conducted. Data collection included in-depth interviews with 28 experienced humanitarian professionals.

The findings showed the ambiguity inherent in the localisation strategy with largely different views on four important dimensions. Particularly, the interviewees differ about strengthening external actors or internal national/local offices. The resulting framework visualises the gap between strategy formulation and implementation, which forms major obstacles to the localisation aims.

Further research is required to support the advancement of localisation of logistics preparedness capacities. Important aspects for future research include triangulation of results, other stakeholder perspectives and the influence of context.

The authors add to the important debate surrounding localisation by offering remedies to overcoming obstacles to strategy implementation. Further, the authors’ proposed framework offers a language to precisely describe the ways in which IHOs (should) view localisation of logistics preparedness capacities and its operationalisation.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first academic article on localisation within the humanitarian logistics context.

An unprecedented scale of human migration has lead humanitarians to view camps as long-term settlements rather than temporary holding facilities. The purpose of this paper is to increase the understanding of and identify challenges with this proposed new approach to camp design.

Based on the camp design literature, the authors developed an interview guide and checklist for data collection. A multi-site case study and within- and cross-case analysis was then conducted.

The findings suggest that the proposed new approach is implemented only to a limited extent, and mostly in a stepwise manner. As camps mature, there is a shift toward the new approach, but most camps are established using the traditional top-down, temporary, and isolated approach.

The findings are based on four camps in four different countries and do not provide an exhaustive global coverage.

The insights the authors derived and the challenges identified from the empirical evidence can be used to better plan future camps.

The results can support improvements in camp design, thus alleviating suffering for both refugees and host communities, particularly in developing countries. In particular, the trade-off between a permanent solution and the temporary must be accounted for.

The study contributes to the literature by developing and proposing a conceptual framework to camp design. The cross-case analysis provides an initial understanding and categorization of challenges with implementing the new approach. It also suggests an evolutionary perspective of camp design.