You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sustainability
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

9 December 2022

Impact of Logistics Trends on Freight Transport Development in Urban Areas

,
,
and
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture, University of Maribor, Smetanova 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
2
Institute for Transport and Logistics—ITL, Viale Aldo Moro 38, 40127 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2022, 14(24), 16551;https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416551
This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Urban Transportation, Freight and Logistics
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

City logistics is subject to constant development, generated by new logistics trends and high customers’ expectations. With the aim of creating an effective, acceptable, and sustainable city logistics policy, it is therefore essential to understand logistics trends and their expected impact on the development of urban freight transport in the future. In this paper, we explore and compare the expectations of public authorities, business, and academia regarding the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of different logistics trends on urban logistics. Following a literature review, the expert survey was used to assess the expected impact and time horizon. According to the respondents, “e-commerce”, “automated vehicles”, “electric vehicles”, “grey power logistics”, “omni-channel logistics”, and the “desire for speed” will have the greatest impact on urban freight transport in the future. An interesting observation concerns some differences of opinion between public and private stakeholders. In general, the business community believes that the identified trends will have a greater impact on urban logistics in a shorter period of time, while public authorities believe that the mentioned trends will have a less strong impact on urban logistics in a longer time scale. This shows the need for more active collaboration between them in the policy-making process.

1. Introduction

Between the 1990s and the beginning of the twenty-first century, studies and pilot tests were carried out in European cities with the aim of reducing urban freight traffic, accidents, and pollution [1,2,3,4,5]. These resulted in various policies and restrictions (Urban Vehicle Access Regulations—UVAR) for urban freight transport [6,7,8,9]: e.g., Low Emission Zones (LEZ), delivery time windows, vehicle weight and/or size restrictions, and congestion charging. Some positive results have been achieved, but the problems in urban freight transport still persist [10].
A possible explanation for this inefficiency is the prevailing approach of policies which target only one specific negative impact (e.g., congestion) and does not consider all different aspects [11]. This leads to certain measures only having an impact on one particular aspect [12]. Moreover, some policies and measures mainly target the city centres and the last mile of traditional supply chains [13,14,15,16]. To understand the opportunities to mitigate urban freight flows and to address the problem in a holistic way, different aspects need to be covered and urban freight transport needs to be considered at the level of the entire supply chain, including business strategies [17,18,19].
The next possible reason is the complexity of urban logistics processes which is mainly due to the numerous and diverse stakeholders with their different and sometimes contradictory expectations [20]. Traditionally, receivers, carriers, and forwarders are seen as the most relevant stakeholders, but they are often not included in the policy-making process. The involvement of all relevant stakeholders is considered a prerequisite for the successful implementation of policies and for reducing potential conflicts between them [21].
Another reason for problems in urban freight transport is the rapid development of new logistics services supported by advanced information technology (IT) solutions [22,23,24]. Policy makers are in many cases not fully aware of these emerging trends and do not recognize the real needs and opportunities. This often leads to a conflict of interest between restrictive policies and commercial needs [25]. To solve this problem, a proactive approach is suggested to develop policies that take into account the expected evolution of logistics and its emerging trends.
As can be seen, today there are still some problems in designing an efficient urban freight transport policy and solutions are being sought for a more efficient approach. A comprehensive solution can only be achieved by addressing the problems holistically (multiple aspects, supply chain level), taking into account the opinion of different stakeholders and users (private and public) and considering new and emerging technological and logistics trends.
The main objective of this article is therefore to comprehensively address the problem of urban logistics, identifying and summarizing existing and emerging trends in order to recognize the most important ones and assess their impact on the future development of urban freight transport. The assessment is based on an international expert survey among different stakeholders to understand their perceptions and expectations.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the logistics trends identified in the scientific literature. Section 3 presents the survey methodology and the analysis/interpretation of results. Section 4 highlights the main elements worth discussing. Section 5 concludes this paper and suggests topics for future research.

4. Discussion and Implications

The objective of this research was to identify key logistics trends and assess their likely impact on urban logistics. A hypothesis about the different perceptions of stakeholder groups regarding the future development of logistics trends and their impact on urban freight transport was formulated and tested. The following conclusions can be made:
  • The business community apparently regards the “Globalization trends” as already present and evident, and therefore does not expect any additional important impact on urban areas. On the other hand, important impacts are expected in a shorter time frame, especially in the areas of “Sharing economy”, “CNG and EV for urban freight”, “Industry plans”, “E-commerce”, and “Omni-channel logistics”. Technological solutions such as “Unmanned Aerial vehicles”, “Automated vehicles” and the use of “IoT and Big Data” will play an important role in their opinion, but in a somewhat more distant future. In general, most trends are found in the upper left quadrant of the scatter plot. This means that the business community believes that the trends mentioned will have a greater impact on urban logistics, and in shorter period of time than the other stakeholder groups.
  • The stakeholders of the authority group consider the “E-commerce” as the most important trend that will influence urban freight transport in the medium-term future. “Omni-channel logistics” and “Desire for speed” are on the other hand perceived as highly influential already on a short term. Another very interesting observation is their expectation that “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” (e.g., drones) will influence urban freight transport much earlier than the expectations of the other stakeholders’ groups. In general, most of the trends are in the lower right quadrant of the scatter plot, which means that the authorities believe that the indicated trends will have less significant impacts on urban logistics, and over a longer period of time.
  • In the research community, almost all trends belonging to the core area of “Consumption” and “Land use and planning” are located in the lower right quadrant of the scatter plot (less important). In contrast, almost all drivers belonging to the “Technologies and Equipment” domain are in the upper left quadrant of the scatter plot (more important). This could be explained by the fact that researchers are predominantly dealing with technological innovations and prefer these kind of solutions.
In sum, the results show that stakeholders groups indeed have some different views on the importance of certain logistics trends and their impact on urban freight transport in the future. Of particular importance is the difference between public and private stakeholders, who in some cases have slightly different perceptions. This could well be one of the reasons why urban freight transport policies have had limited impact despite the enormous efforts made by the public sector in recent years.
The results clearly point to the need for a different approach in future urban freight transport policy planning. On the one hand, policies and measures should be designed in line with the latest trends that announce the development of activities and solutions. So, not only to solve current problems, but also to look into the future. This should be conducted on the basis of identified trends, which experts believe will have an important impact in the medium and long term. Since this is rarely the case today, the logistics industry is often ahead of politics, which often leads to disagreements [48].
The different perceptions between public and private stakeholders suggest that various interest groups and actors need to be involved in the policy planning process. In this way, there is an exchange of knowledge, best practices, and views that will lead to more efficient urban freight transport [2]. Such solutions can be found in the literature under the terms Freight Quality Partnership (networking of logistics companies) and Living Lab (testing of innovative solutions in collaboration between stakeholders and actors) [45,46,67]. In this way, the diametrically opposed goals of business and the public sector could be overcome, resulting in economically viable solutions that simultaneously address environmental constraints.
Given that many of the identified trends are closely linked to modern technological solutions based on the analysis and advanced processing of Big Data, greater consideration should be given to the principles of evidence-based policy making as expressed in some European Commission guidelines [68]. This is the principle of closely monitoring the progress of an activity before a measure is introduced, which can provide a benchmark for determining the impact after the measure is introduced. In this way, we obtain feedback on the success of the measure. In the past, advanced data processing (artificial intelligence, data mining) was not possible due to lack of technological solutions and systems [26,69]. In our opinion, this is the last key element that should be upgraded in order to create an efficient service for all stakeholders and, ultimately, for the city’s residents.

5. Conclusions

The rapid change in demand for more efficient urban logistics, faster, and more reliable deliveries, requires a corresponding adaptation of logistics practices, and consequently, urban freight transport policies. As the pace of change accelerates, it is not enough to just adapt to emerging trends, but we need to anticipate them and be proactive. Indeed, this is only possible if we identify and recognize the key trends in logistics and assess their potential impact on urban freight transport in the future.
To this end, we conducted an extensive literature review and selected the most promising trends to evaluate. A comprehensive questionnaire was created to identify the expected impact and the time period in which the impact of a particular trend is likely. An international pool of experts from academia, business, and public authorities was identified and selected to provide the most relevant and reliable results possible. A total of 63 experts from 24 countries participated in the survey and gave their valuable opinion.
The trends that the experts believe will have a major impact in the short term are addressed first, in particular, the “Desire for speed” and “Omni channel logistics”. Both trends can already be observed in urban areas today and, in some cases, already have a significant impact on urban freight transport. The demand for faster deliveries, for example, leads to a fragmentation of urban freight flows, which is why collaborative, flexible, and environmentally friendly solutions should be pursued. The combination of traditional and e-commerce channels on the other hand has a positive impact on urban freight transport, especially through the introduction of the hybrid channel, BOPS (Buy Online, Pick Up in Store) and other similar strategies.
In addition, the focus should also be on the trends that will influence urban freight transport in the medium term, especially those that are expected to have a major impact. Besides “E-commerce” which is strongly linked to “Omni channel logistics”, the experts attach the greatest importance to “CNG and EV for urban freight” and “Automated vehicles”. These trends are perceived by the experts as the most influential. The goal of policy makers is first to understand these new technologies and then, for example, to support the purchase of environmentally friendly vehicles and give them some priority in accessing urban areas. This role is particularly underlined by the high ranking of the following two trends “Public planning” and “Industry plans”. Both are expected to have an important impact on urban freight in a relatively short time.
Understanding these global logistics trends is crucial for all urban logistics stakeholders, especially city authorities. Feedback from the business community and researchers is very useful, as it can create a system of mutual support for the design and adoption of policies and, consequently, the implementation of new measures. With the development of new technologies, an even faster progress and, consequently, a more flexible urban transport policy, can be expected
The constant development of new trends makes it necessary to repeat this research and update the results to keep up with the innovations that may affect urban freight transport in the near future. Furthermore, we would recommend bringing even more experts on board to make additional comparisons in terms of differences between countries, between small and large cities, and for cities with different GDPs and levels of development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.L., M.M. and G.L.; methodology, T.L., M.M. and G.L.; validation, T.L. and K.H.; formal analysis, T.L. and K.H.; investigation, T.L., M.M. and K.H.; data curation, G.L. and T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, T.L.; writing—review and editing, T.L. and M.M.; visualization, T.L. and G.L.; supervision, M.M.; project administration, T.L.; funding acquisition, G.L. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by Interreg CENTRAL EUROPE, project CE222-SULPITER and ARRS (Slovenia), Research program No P1-0288.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture (approval code 001-TT/2022 and date of approval: 28 November 2022).

Data Availability Statement

According to the statement of the contributors, the data are not publicly available, but are kept by the authors.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the many experts who responded to our survey and made this research possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ville, S.; Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; Dablanc, L. The Limits of Public Policy Intervention in Urban Logistics: Lessons from Vicenza (Italy). Eur. Plan. Stud. 2013, 21, 1528–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Clausen, U.; Geiger, C.; Pöting, M. Hands-on Testing of Last Mile Concepts. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 1533–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Montella, A.; Marzano, V.; Mauriello, F.; Vitillo, R.; Fasanelli, R.; Pernetti, M.; Galante, F. Development of Macro-Level Safety Performance Functions in the City of Naples. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Riccardi, M.R.; Mauriello, F.; Sarkar, S.; Galante, F.; Scarano, A.; Montella, A. Parametric and Non-Parametric Analyses for Pedestrian Crash Severity Prediction in Great Britain. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rella Riccardi, M.; Mauriello, F.; Scarano, A.; Montella, A. Analysis of contributory factors of fatal pedestrian crashes by mixed logit model and association rules. Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Quak, H.; De Koster, R. The Impacts of Time Access Restrictions and Vehicle Weight Restrictions on Food Retailers and the Environment. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2006, 6, 131–150. [Google Scholar]
  7. Muñuzuri, J.; Cortés, P.; Grosso, R.; Guadix, J. Selecting the location of minihubs for freight delivery in congested downtown areas. J. Comput. Sci. 2012, 3, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cruz, C.; Montenon, A. Implementation and Impacts of Low Emission Zones on Freight Activities in Europe: Local Schemes Versus National Schemes. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 544–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Akgün, E.Z.; Monios, J.; Rye, T.; Fonzone, A. Influences on urban freight transport policy choice by local authorities. Transp. Policy 2019, 75, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boussier, J.; Cucu, T.; Ion, L.; Breuil, D. Simulation of goods delivery process. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 913–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Letnik, T.; Marksel, M.; Luppino, G.; Bardi, A.; Božičnik, S. Review of policies and measures for sustainable and energy efficient urban transport. Energy 2018, 163, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lindholm, M.; Behrends, S. Challenges in urban freight transport planning—A review in the Baltic Sea Region. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 22, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Olsson, J.; Hellström, D.; Pålsson, H. Framework of Last Mile Logistics Research: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lim, S.F.W.T.; Jin, X.; Srai, J.S. Consumer-driven e-commerce: A literature review, design framework, and research agenda on last-mile logistics models. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018, 48, 308–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McLeod, F.N.; Cherrett, T.J.; Bektas, T.; Allen, J.; Martinez-Sykora, A.; Lamas-Fernandez, C.; Bates, O.; Cheliotis, K.; Friday, A.; Piecyk, M.; et al. Quantifying environmental and financial benefits of using porters and cycle couriers for last-mile parcel delivery. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 82, 102311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Letnik, T.; Farina, A.; Mencinger, M.; Lupi, M.; Božičnik, S. Dynamic management of loading bays for energy efficient urban freight deliveries. Energy 2018, 159, 916–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Danielis, R.; Valeri, E.; Rotaris, L. Performance Evaluation Methods for Urban Freight Distribution Chains: A Survey of the Literature. In Proceedings of the URBE conference, Rome, Italy, 1–2 October 2015; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  18. Browne, M.; Gomez, M. The impact on urban distribution operations of upstream supply chain constraints. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 896–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Harris, S.; Weinzettel, J.; Bigano, A.; Källmén, A. Low carbon cities in 2050? GHG emissions of European cities using production-based and consumption-based emission accounting methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kiba-Janiak, M. Key Success Factors for City Logistics from the Perspective of Various Groups of Stakeholders. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Banister, D.; Hickman, R. Transport futures: Thinking the unthinkable. Transp. Policy 2013, 29, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Melo, S.; Coimbra, R.; Costa, Á.; Baptista, P. Analyzing the Effects of Routing in the Sustainability of the City and on the Operational Efficiency of Urban Logistics Services. In Proceedings of the URBE conference, Rome, Italy, 1–2 October 2015; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  23. Schrampf, J. ILOS—Intelligent Freight Logistics in Urban Areas: Freight Routing Optimisation in Vienna; BESTFACT: Vienna, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Certomà, C.; Corsini, F.; Rizzi, F. Crowdsourcing urban sustainability. Data, people and technologies in participatory governance. Futures 2014, 74, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buldeo Rai, H.; van Lier, T.; Meers, D.; Macharis, C. Improving urban freight transport sustainability: Policy assessment framework and case study. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 64, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Taniguchi, E.; Thompson, R.G.; Yamada, T. New Opportunities and Challenges for City Logistics. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ducret, R. Parcel deliveries and urban logistics: Changes and challenges in the courier express and parcel sector in Europe—The French case. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 11, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Environmental Sustainability and Energy-Efficient Supply Chain Management: A Review of Research Trends and Proposed Guidelines. Energies 2018, 11, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Toy, J.; Gesing, B.; Ward, J.; Noronha, J.; Bodenbenner, D.P. The Logistics Trend Radar, 5th ed.; DHL Customer Solutions and Innovation: Troisdorf, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gartner Hype Cycle for Supply Chain Strategy. Available online: https://blogs.gartner.com/power-of-the-profession-blog/hype-cycle-for-supply-chain-strategy-2021/ (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  31. Cardenas, I.D.; Vanelslander, T.; Dewulf, W. The E-Commerce Parcel Delivery Market: Developing a Typology from an Urban Logistics Perspective. In Proceedings of the URBE Conference, Rome, Italy, 1–2 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Viu-Roig, M.; Alvarez-Palau, E.J. The Impact of E-Commerce-Related Last-Mile Logistics on Cities: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Taniguchi, E.; Thompson, R.G.; Yamada, T. Recent Trends and Innovations in Modelling City Logistics. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shee, H.K.; Miah, S.J.; De Vass, T. Impact of smart logistics on smart city sustainable performance: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021, 32, 821–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fiore, G.M. Space for Cities: Satellite Applications Enhancing Quality of Life in Urban Areas. In Studies in Space Policy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 22, pp. 251–263. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hensher, D.A.; Brewer, A.M. Developing a freight strategy: The use of a collaborative learning process to secure stakeholder input. Transp. Policy 2001, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lozzi, G.; Iannaccone, G.; Maltese, I.; Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Lozzi, R. On-Demand Logistics: Solutions, Barriers, and Enablers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gardrat, M. Urban growth and freight transport: From sprawl to distension. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 91, 102979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Browne, M.; Allen, J.; Leonardi, J. Evaluating the use of an urban consolidation centre and electric vehicles in central London. IATSS Res. 2011, 35, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lebeau, P.; Macharis, C.; Mierlo, J.; Van Janjevic, M. Implementing an Urban Consolidation Centre: Involving Stakeholders in a Bottom-up Approach. In Proceedings of the URBE Conference, Rome, Italy, 1–2 October 2015; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  41. Dreischerf, A.J.; Buijs, P. How Urban Consolidation Centres affect distribution networks: An empirical investigation from the perspective of suppliers. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 518–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Janjevic, M.; Ndiaye, A.B. Development and Application of a Transferability Framework for Micro-consolidation Schemes in Urban Freight Transport. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 284–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Balm, S.; Browne, M.; Leonardi, J.; Quak, H. Developing an Evaluation Framework for Innovative Urban and Interurban Freight Transport Solutions. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Jedliński, M. The Idea of “FQP Projectability Semicircle” in Determining the Freight Quality Partnership Implementation Potential of the City. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 16, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Lindholm, M. Successes and Failings of an Urban Freight Quality Partnership—The Story of the Gothenburg Local Freight Network. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kijewska, K.; Jedliński, M.; Iwan, S. Ecological utility of FQP projects in the stakeholders’ opinion in the light of empirical studies based on the example of the city of Szczecin. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 74, 103171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Le Pira, M. Smart urban freight planning process: Integrating desk, living lab and modelling approaches in decision-making. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2017, 9, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nesterova, N.; Quak, H. A city logistics living lab: A methodological approach. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 16, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lai, M.; Cai, X.; Hall, N.G. Cost Allocation for Less-Than-Truckload Collaboration via Shipper Consortium. Transp. Sci. 2022, 56, 585–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nordtømme, M.E.; Bjerkan, K.Y.; Sund, A.B. Barriers to urban freight policy implementation: The case of urban consolidation center in Oslo. Transp. Policy 2015, 44, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ruzzenenti, F.; Basosi, R. Modelling the rebound effect with network theory: An insight into the European freight transport sector. Energy 2017, 118, 272–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gyarmathy, A.; Peszynski, K.; Young, L. Theoretical framework for a local, agile supply chain to create innovative product closer to end-user: Onshore-offshore debate. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 13, 108–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kaufmann, L.; Mayer, A.; Matej, S.; Kalt, G.; Lauk, C.; Theurl, M.C.; Erb, K.-H. Regional self-sufficiency: A multi-dimensional analysis relating agricultural production and consumption in the European Union. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 34, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Letnik, T.; Mencinger, M.; Bozicnik, S. Dynamic Management of Urban Last-Mile Deliveries. In City Logistics 2; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 23–37. [Google Scholar]
  55. Schliwa, G.; Armitage, R.; Aziz, S.; Evans, J.; Rhoades, J. Sustainable city logistics—Making cargo cycles viable for urban freight transport. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 15, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Roumboutsos, A.; Kapros, S.; Vanelslander, T. Green city logistics: Systems of Innovation to assess the potential of E-vehicles. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 11, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ahani, P.; Arantes, A.; Melo, S. A portfolio approach for optimal fleet replacement toward sustainable urban freight transportation. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 48, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhao, F.; Chen, K.; Hao, H.; Liu, Z. Challenges, Potential and Opportunities for Internal Combustion Engines in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Taniguchi, E. Concepts of City Logistics for Sustainable and Liveable Cities. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ehmke, J.F.; Campbell, A.M.; Thomas, B.W. Data-driven approaches for emissions-minimized paths in urban areas. Comput. Oper. Res. 2016, 67, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Parent, M. Advanced urban transport: Automation is on the way. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2007, 22, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lagorio, A.; Pinto, R.; Golini, R. Research in urban logistics: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2016, 46, 908–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Forza, C. Survey research in operations management: A process-based perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2002, 22, 152–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sax, L.J.; Gilmartin, S.K.; Bryant, A.N. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Res. High. Educ. 2003, 44, 409–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cortina, J.M. What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Quak, H.; Lindholm, M.; Tavasszy, L.; Browne, M. From Freight Partnerships to City Logistics Living Labs—Giving Meaning to the Elusive Concept of Living Labs. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Van Woensel, L. Evidence for Policy-Making: Foresight-Based Scientific Advice|Think Tank|European Parliament. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2021)690529 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  69. Lin, C.; Choy, K.; Pang, G.; Ng, M.T.W. A data mining and optimization-based real-time mobile intelligent routing system for city logistics. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 17–20 December 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 156–161. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Modelling Erosion and Floods in Volcanic Environment: The Case Study of the Island of Vulcano (Aeolian Archipelago, Italy)
Previous
COVID-19 and Households Waste in Hispanic America: An Assessment of Trends
Next