Defining, measuring and interpreting the appropriateness of humanitarian assistance

  • Abdelmagid N
  • Checchi F
  • Garry S
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
48Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper presents findings from a literature review of methods that explicitly assess the appropriateness of a humanitarian response. We set out to highlight the key features and limitations of each method and introduce a definition and conceptual framework for the measurement and interpretation of the appropriateness of humanitarian responses. This review is part of a broader project to enhance the accountability of humanitarian responses through developing auditing approaches for real-time monitoring. We identified eight methods that explicitly analyse the appropriateness of a humanitarian response. The review revealed that existing methods vary considerably in their definitions of ‘appropriateness’, provide insufficient guidance on measurement, are vulnerable to interpretive bias and frequently report findings on ‘appropriateness’ in an ambiguous manner. These findings suggest that, as a matter of accountability, more structured and systematic approaches to measuring the appropriateness of humanitarian response are needed. We propose a definition and conceptual framework for the measurement and interpretation of the appropriateness of humanitarian response that seeks to address the limitations identified in the review. We provide a brief overview of the main components and features of a systematic approach and audit tool for assessing the ‘appropriateness’ of a humanitarian response. The use of this and other systematic approaches is essential for enhancing governance and accountability in humanitarian responses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Abdelmagid, N., Checchi, F., Garry, S., & Warsame, A. (2019). Defining, measuring and interpreting the appropriateness of humanitarian assistance. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-019-0062-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free