Table 1.

A comparison of relevant literature on the topic of HRL network design.

Author	Objective function					Type of problem				Period		Commodity		Uncertainty					Fleet	IoT	Solution method
	H	D	DC	T	C	L	A	R	I	S	M	S	M	SB	F	S	R	N
Paul and Hariharan. (2012)				*	*	*	*			*		*		*							commercial solver
Bozorgi-Amiri and Khorsi (2016)			*	*	*	*	*		*		*		*	*							ε-constraint method
Mohamadi et al. (2016)	*	*	*			*	*			*		*		*	*						commercial solver
Rezaei-Malek et al. (2016)				*	*	*	*				*		*	*			*				tchebycheff method
Tofighi et al. (2016)				*	*	*	*		*	*			*	*	*						metaheuristic
Vahdani et al. (2018)				*	*	*	*	*	*		*		*	*			*		*		metaheuristic
Haghi et al. (2017)	*				*	*	*			*			*	*			*				metaheuristic + ε-constraint method
Habibi-Kouchaksaraei et al. (2018)			*		*	*	*				*	*		*			*				commercial solver
Aslan and Çelik (2019)				*	*	*		*	*	*			*			*					heuristic
Salehi et al. (2017)					*	*	*		*		*		*	*		*	*				branch and cut method
Sarma et al. (2019)				*	*	*	*			*			*		*						commercial solver
Ghasemi et al. (2019)	*				*	*	*		*		*		*	*					*		metaheuristic
Wang and Nie (2019)					*	*	*			*		*		*							general benders decomposition
Ahmadi et al. (2020)			*	*			*	*			*	*					*				commercial solver
Abazari et al. (2021)		*		*	*	*	*		*	*			*		*				*		metaheuristic
Jenkins et al. (2020)	*		*			*	*			*				*							ε-constraint method
This Study	*	*		*	*	*	*		*		*		*	*	*				*	*	commercial solver

Cue: [Objective function: H = humanitarian, D = distance, DC = demand coverage, T = time, C = cost], [Type of problem: L = location, A = allocation, R = routing, I = inventory], [Period and Commodity: S = single, M = multi], [Uncertainty: SB = scenario-based, F = fuzzy, S = stochastic, R = robust, N = none].