journal article·2026-05-01Open access

A Dynamic Multi-Objective Model for District-Level Post-Earthquake Resource Allocation Integrating Social Vulnerability, Occupational Safety, and Markov-Based Updating: An Istanbul Case Study

Halil Ibrahim Yavuz, Hayri Baraclı

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 9

Abstract

Post-earthquake emergency response planning requires rapid and adaptive resource allocation under disrupted accessibility, uneven district-level demand, and hazardous field conditions. In large metropolitan areas, these challenges are intensified by spatial differences in social vulnerability, infrastructure disruption, operational feasibility, and responder exposure. Static allocation approaches are often insufficient in such environments because they cannot adequately reflect temporal change or the evolving relationship between urgency, accessibility, and operational risk. This study proposes a dynamic multi-objective model for district-level post-earthquake resource allocation that integrates social vulnerability, occupational safety, and Markov-based updating within a single analytical framework. First, district priority scores are derived through an Analytic Hierarchy Process based on building damage ratio, intervention time, social vulnerability, critical infrastructure damage, secondary hazard risk, team capacity, and occupational safety. Second, a Markov-based updating mechanism is used to represent time-dependent redistribution across response periods. Third, a constrained weighted-sum multi-objective optimization model is formulated to balance district priority, social vulnerability, and responder safety under capacity and accessibility limits. The model is applied to Istanbul using official district-level data from national and local institutional sources. Scenario-based analysis is conducted under balanced, priority-oriented, vulnerability-oriented, and safety-oriented settings, together with static and dynamic model comparisons. The results show that the dynamic structure produces a more adaptive allocation profile than the static structure, with the share of the Very High allocation class declining from 37.66% to 34.95% and the Low allocation class increasing from 12.89% to 16.00% over the response horizon. The findings also indicate that greater emphasis on social vulnerability shifts allocation toward more fragile districts, whereas stronger safety emphasis reduces cumulative operational exposure at the cost of moderate reductions in immediate coverage. Overall, the study contributes to the disaster response literature by linking multi-criteria district prioritization, dynamic redistribution, and safety-aware allocation within a unified district-level decision structure. Beyond the Istanbul application, the proposed framework offers a practical basis for more responsive, equitable, and operationally sustainable post-earthquake planning in complex urban environments.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis · Facility Location and Emergency Management · Disaster Management and Resilience

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, 34349 Istanbul, Türkiye

References (30)

Show source-provided references
1. OR/MS research in disaster operations management10.1016/j.ejor.2005.05.016 ↗
2. Review of recent developments in OR/MS research in disaster operations management10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.039 ↗
3. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 ↗
4. The practical use of social vulnerability indicators in disaster management10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102464 ↗
5. Optimization models for disaster response operations: A literature review10.1007/s00291-024-00750-6 ↗
6. Puterman, M.L. (1994). Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming, Wiley.10.1002/9780470316887 ↗
7. Dynamic heterogeneous resource allocation in post-disaster relief operation considering fairness10.1016/j.aei.2024.102858 ↗
8. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process
9. A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.106 ↗
10. International Labour Organization, and World Health Organization (2018). Occupational Safety and Health in Public Health Emergencies: A Manual for Protecting Health Workers and Responders, WHO.
11. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill.10.21236/ADA214804 ↗
12. Howard, R.A. (1960). Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes, MIT Press.
13. Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023 ↗
14. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) (2022). Turkey Disaster Response Plan (TAMP), AFAD.
15. (2024, January 01). Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Open Data Portal, Available online: https://data.ibb.gov.tr.
16. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Industry and Technology (2020). Industrial Zones Atlas.
17. How to achieve sustainable emergency management? A case study for Istanbul city with a stochastic approach10.1016/j.cie.2025.111456 ↗
18. Resource management in disaster relief: A bibliometric and content-analysis-based literature review10.1007/s10479-024-06324-7 ↗
19. Fifty years of operational research and emergency response10.1057/jors.2009.3 ↗
20. Pre-positioning of emergency supplies for disaster response10.1016/j.trb.2009.08.003 ↗
21. A scenario planning approach for the flood emergency logistics preparation problem under uncertainty10.1016/j.tre.2006.10.013 ↗
22. The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability10.1111/1467-8306.93101 ↗
23. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. (2004). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge. [2nd ed.].10.4324/9780203974575 ↗
24. Birkmann, J. (2013). Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, United Nations University Press. [2nd ed.].
25. Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective10.1007/s11069-013-0831-7 ↗
26. Reviewing composite vulnerability and resilience indexes: A sustainable approach and application10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.02.011 ↗
27. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, UNDRR.
28. Kapukaya, E.N., and Satoglu, S.I. (2025). A multi-objective dynamic resource allocation model for search and rescue and first aid tasks in disaster response by employing volunteers. Logistics, 9.10.3390/logistics9010041 ↗
29. Pre-positioning and real-time disaster response operations: Optimization with mobile phone location data10.1016/j.tre.2021.102344 ↗
30. Wang, F., Xie, Z., Liu, H., Pei, Z., and Liu, D. (2022). Multiobjective emergency resource allocation under the natural disaster chain with path planning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19.10.3390/ijerph19137876 ↗