Featured Post from Aston University

Experts explore the gap between research and practice in disaster management

Jul 7, 2021

5 min



The COVID-19 pandemic has attracted public attention to crisis management globally, writes Aston University's Oscar Rodriguez-Espindola.


Although authorities and international organisations are still actively and diligently trying to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, some of the attention is shifting towards understanding the decisions made and learning from our experience. Indeed, this experience has inadvertently shown different areas for improvement for emergency management systems.


The experience gained during the pandemic should lead governments and organisations to refine crisis management processes to prepare for challenges ahead. Leveraging research and specialist groups have been essential to support and inform decisions, as these can provide key insights guiding policy decisions.


However, the integration of research and practice should not take place at the response stage only, but as part of the core crisis management system at every stage.


It is crucial to maintain and strengthen the relationships between research and practice forged during the pandemic for different emergencies in the future. With the increasing number of different disasters happening and the threats stemming from climate change, it is not surprising that between 1994 and 2013 around 1.35 million lives have been claimed annually by natural disasters. Therefore, the value of partnerships between research and practice needs to be strengthened and implemented globally.


Academics from Aston University in the UK and the Universidad Autónoma de Occidente in Mexico have investigated the current status of the integration of research and practice for crisis management. A systematic literature review of decision models for humanitarian logistics has been used to understand the way these models have reflected the real conditions experienced by decision-makers and catered to their priorities.


Afterwards, interviews with two civil protection authorities of the state of Sinaloa, Mexico, have been undertaken to understand the conditions faced by them for crisis management, their processes and their view of decision models to support crisis management in the country. Next, a multicriteria decision analysis was used to capture their preferences regarding the objectives set for humanitarian operations to develop an analysis of their priorities.


Practice needs to be informed by research, but for that guidance to be impactful, research needs to have a thorough understanding of the conditions and challenges faced by practice. The literature focused on models for humanitarian logistics has shown that the engagement of academics with practitioners in the design of solutions to support decision-making has been declared in less than a quarter of the contributions, as shown in Table 1.


That means the design of solutions is based on prior secondary information or founded on a theoretical basis, which is not necessarily reflecting the current reality faced by authorities. It is noteworthy that there is an increasing trend in the number of articles involving practitioners in recent years, with more than half of them published in the previous three years. Despite that growth, however, the relative percentage of contributions incorporating practitioners has never been beyond 40% of all the models published in any year, which highlights that there is still a long way to go to support research development.


Table 1: Involvement of practitioners in the design of models for humanitarian logistics


Our interviews highlighted that authorities perceive the potential of systems to improve information management forecasting and decision-making, but they also unveiled the concerns about these systems providing unrealistic or unfeasible solutions.


Optimisation models are formulations in which a metric is maximised or minimised subject to a series of constraints. If the objective does not reflect the objectives and priorities of decision-makers, then results can be less relevant for decision-makers.


For instance, models solely aiming to minimise cost would struggle to give useful solutions to authorities focused primarily on providing support to all the victims equally. Therefore, the lack of involvement from decision-makers can lead practitioners to be cautious about using decision-making models.


To examine the link between contributions in the literature and the objectives and priorities of authorities, data about them was gathered and analysed using a technique known as Fuzzy-TOPSIS. The purpose was to identify the importance given to different objectives by authorities for different activities in order to rank them based on importance as shown in Table 2.


Although humanitarian logistics are characterised by a focus on the overarching ideas of saving lives and reducing suffering, it is still surprising to note that cost was the least important objective for authorities.


Conversely, more than three-quarters of the models surveyed are using cost as the main objective function, which makes it the most prominent objective in humanitarian logistics. As preferences from authorities seem considerably more focused on maintaining a reliable flow of support, with high levels of service and ensuring to reach the most affected population, our findings suggest a misalignment between research and practice.


Hence, neglecting to incorporate practitioners in decision-making models for humanitarian logistics can lead to omitting their needs and priorities, rendering the models less effective to provide workable solutions.


Table 2: Ranking of objectives from civil protection authorities


Additionally, it is important that research guides and influences practice in relevant aspects for further development. For instance, understandably, the chaotic and urgent conditions faced by authorities in humanitarian logistics force them to prioritise response over any other considerations.


Our interviews confirmed this, as they mentioned that even though sustainability is becoming a crucial element in regular times, it is undermined by the urgency of the response and only included in recovery activities.


This is an aspect worth looking into because research has shown that sustainability can be integrated into crisis management, even with the potential to provide improvements in terms of efficiency. Hence, a more thorough integration between research and practice would allow to positively influence activities on the field based on findings and results proposed and tested by cutting-edge investigations.


Overall, our findings suggest that despite the increasing remarks about the intention of joining research and practice, there is still a significant divide between them. Reducing that divide can be beneficial for both sides. More practice-informed research can allow to development of feasible solutions that can enhance the support provided to disaster victims in practice, whereas more research-informed practice can provide stronger foundations for effective decision-making and guide research to focus on key aspects to make it more impactful.


Therefore, it is essential to put more emphasis on integrating research and practice from the roots, to make their interaction more fruitful. Current trends seem to be going towards that direction, especially with the current focus on the impact on research, but further efforts are required to motivate researchers and practitioners to work together to improve crisis management.


This article was co-written by Oscar Rodriguez-Espindola, Pavel Albores, Hossein Ahmadi, Soumyadeb Chowdhury, Prasanta Dey from Aston University and Diego Chavira and Omar Ahumanda from the Universidad Autónoma de Occidente.


This work was supported by an Institutional Links grant, ID 527666998, under the Newton UK-Mexico partnership. The grant is funded by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and delivered by the British Council. For further information, please visit www.newtonfund.ac.uk


Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts
Powered by