Sustainable Urban Last-Mile Logistics: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
- RQ1: What sustainable last-mile concepts and solutions have been studied in the recent literature?
- RQ2: What are the drivers and challenges associated with each last-mile solution?
- RQ3: How can the last-mile research field be characterised?
- TS=((“sustaina*” OR “green” OR “emission*” OR “impact*” OR “environmen*” OR “pollut*”) AND (“delivery” OR “freight” OR “logistic” OR “shipp*” OR “distribution” OR “last-mile”) AND (“city” OR “urban*” OR “metropolitan area*”) AND (“business model*” OR “B2C” OR “B2B” OR “business-to-consumer” OR “business-to-business” OR “retail*” OR “e-commerce” OR “brick-and-mortar” OR “omnichannel”)).
3. Results
- (i)
- Supply chain & channels (red cluster): contains keywords associated with urban supply chains and different commerce channels;
- (ii)
- Delivery methods & attributes (violet cluster): maps the relation between alternative delivery methods and their location and the different perspectives involved;
- (iii)
- Innovative vehicles (blue cluster): groups terms related to the adoption of alternative vehicles such as cargo bikes or electric vehicles;
- (iv)
- Logistic infrastructures & schemes (yellow cluster): fundamentally related to logistic infrastructures like the Urban Consolidation Centre (UCC) and the associated delivery schemes;
- (v)
- Operational optimisation (red cluster): groups keywords related to operational optimisation such as routing, time windows and efficiency;
- (vi)
- Emerging business models (green cluster): aggregates keywords related to innovative business models such as those based on collaboration, sharing economy or crowdsourcing, where the involvement of stakeholders is fundamental.
3.1. Supply Chain & Channels
3.2. Delivery Methods & Attributes
3.3. Innovative Vehicles
3.4. Logistic Infrastructures & Schemes
3.5. Operational Optimisation
3.6. Emerging Business Models
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AI | Artificial Intelligence |
API | Application Programming Interface |
AV | Autonomous Vehicle |
B2B | Business-to-Business |
B2C | Business-to-Consumer |
CDP | Collection and Delivery Points |
ERP | Enterprise Resource Planning |
GDP | Gross domestic product |
GHG | Greenhouse Gas |
GIS | Geographic Information System |
GPS | Global Positioning System |
ICT | Information and Communications Technology |
IoT | Internet of Things |
QR | Quick Response |
RFID | Radio-frequency Identification |
TKA | Title, Keywords and Abstract |
UCC | Urban Consolidation Centre |
WMS | Warehouse Management System |
References
- Eurostat. E-Commerce Statistics for Individuals. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=E-commerce_statistics_for_individuals (accessed on 1 April 2022).
- Chaparro-Peláez, J.; Agudo-Peregrina, Á.F.; Pascual-Miguel, F.J. Conjoint analysis of drivers and inhibitors of e-commerce adoption. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1277–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, R.Y. The Impact of COVID-19 on Consumers: Preparing for Digital Sales. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2020, 48, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, J.; Piecyk, M.; Piotrowska, M.; McLeod, F.; Cherrett, T.; Ghali, K.; Nguyen, T.; Bektas, T.; Bates, O.; Friday, A.; et al. Understanding the impact of e-commerce on last-mile light goods vehicle activity in urban areas: The case of London. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lim, S.; Jin, X.; Srai, J. 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] [Green Version]
- Gevaers, R.; van de Voorde, E.; Vanelslander, T. Characteristics of Innovations in Last-Mile Logistics - Using Best Practices, Case Studies and Making the Link with Green and Sustainable Logistics. In Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 5–7 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McKinnon, A.; Browne, M.; Whiteing, A.; Piecyk, M. Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Briner, R.B.; Denyer, D. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management; Rousseau, D., Ed.; Oxford Library of Psychology, Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 112–129. [Google Scholar]
- Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 671–689. [Google Scholar]
- Clarivate. Web of Science Core Collection: Explanation of Peer Reviewed Journals. 2018. Available online: https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch (accessed on 27 April 2022).
- Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, J.; Hellstrom, D.; Palsson, H. Framework of Last Mile Logistics Research: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loiseau, E.; Colin, M.; Alaphilippe, A.; Coste, G.; Roux, P. To what extent are short food supply chains (SFSCs) environmentally friendly? Application to French apple distribution using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Oliveira, L.; Barraza, B.; Bertocini, B.; Isler, C.; Pires, D.; Madalon, E.; Lima, J.; Vieira, J.; Meira, L.; Bracarense, L.; et al. An Overview of Problems and Solutions for Urban Freight Transport in Brazilian Cities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aljohani, K.; Thompson, R. An Examination of Last Mile Delivery Practices of Freight Carriers Servicing Business Receivers in Inner-City Areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, O.; Friday, A.; Allen, J.; Cherrett, T.; McLeod, F.; Bektas, T.; Nguyen, T.; Piecyk, M.; Piotrowska, M.; Wise, S.; et al. Transforming Last-Mile Logistics: Opportunities for More Sustainable Deliveries. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018. CHI ’18. pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanchez-Diaz, I. Modeling urban freight generation: A study of commercial establishments’ freight needs. Transp. Res. Part A-Policy Pract. 2017, 102, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cardenas, I.; Beckers, J.; Vanelslander, T. E-commerce last-mile in Belgium: Developing an external cost delivery index. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2017, 24, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidayatno, A.; Destyanto, A.; Fadhil, M. Model Conceptualization on E-Commerce Growth Impact to Emissions Generated from Urban Logistics Transportation: A Case Study of Jakarta. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering (CPESE 2018), Nagoya, Japan, 19–21 September 2018; Bevrani, H., Ed.; Volume 156, pp. 144–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Xue, L.; Jiang, Y.; Song, M.; Wei, D.; Liu, G. Food delivery waste in Wuhan, China: Patterns, drivers, and implications. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 177, 105960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escursell, S.; Llorach-Massana, P.; Roncero, M. Sustainability in e-commerce packaging: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taniguchi, E.; Thompson, R.; Yamada, T. New opportunities and challenges for city logistics. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on City Logistics, Tenerife, Spain, 17–19 June 2015; Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R., Eds.; Volume 12, pp. 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Villa, R.; Monzon, A. Mobility Restrictions and E-Commerce: Holistic Balance in Madrid Centre during COVID-19 Lockdown. Economies 2021, 9, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milewski, D.; Milewska, B. The Energy Efficiency of the Last Mile in the E-Commerce Distribution in the Context the COVID-19 Pandemic. Energies 2021, 14, 7863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savelsbergh, M.; Van Woensel, T. City Logistics: Challenges and Opportunities. Transp. Sci. 2016, 50, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosona, T. Urban Freight Last Mile Logistics-Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Sustainability: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arvianto, A.; Sopha, B.; Asih, A.; Imron, M. City logistics challenges and innovative solutions in developed and developing economies: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2021, 13, 18479790211039723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boysen, N.; Fedtke, S.; Schwerdfeger, S. Last-mile delivery concepts: A survey from an operational research perspective. OR Spectr. 2021, 43, 1–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Marco, A.; Mangano, G.; Zenezini, G. Classification and benchmark of City Logistics measures: An empirical analysis. Int. J.-Logist.-Res. Appl. 2018, 21, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viu-Roig, M.; Alvarez-Palau, E. The Impact of E-Commerce-Related Last-Mile Logistics on Cities: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feichtinger, S.; Gronalt, M. The Environmental Impact of Transport Activities for Online and In-Store Shopping: A Systematic Literature Review to Identify Relevant Factors for Quantitative Assessments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahmohammadi, S.; Steinmann, Z.; Tambjerg, L.; van Loon, P.; King, J.; Huijbregts, M. Comparative Greenhouse Gas Footprinting of Online versus Traditional Shopping for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods: A Stochastic Approach. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 3499–3509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjorgen, A.; Bjerkan, K.; Hjelkrem, O. E-groceries: Sustainable last mile distribution in city planning. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 100805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Maltese, I.; Iannaccone, G.; Fan, J. E-Groceries: A Channel Choice Analysis in Shanghai. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Oliveira, L.; Morganti, E.; Dablanc, L.; de Oliveira, R. Analysis of the potential demand of automated delivery stations for e-commerce deliveries in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 65, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Wong, Y.; Shi, W.; Yuen, K. Shoppers’ logistics activities in omni-channel retailing: A conceptualisation and an exploration on perceptual differences in effort valuation. Transp. Policy 2022, 115, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Z.; Haasis, H. Integration of Urban Freight Innovations: Sustainable Inner-Urban Intermodal Transportation in the Retail/Postal Industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lachapelle, U.; Burke, M.; Brotherton, A.; Leung, A. Parcel locker systems in a car dominant city: Location, characterisation and potential impacts on city planning and consumer travel access. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 71, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Oliveira, L.; Oliveira, R.; de Sousa, L.; Caliari, I.; Nascimento, C. Analysis of accessibility from collection and delivery points: Towards the sustainability of the e-commerce delivery. Urbe-Rev. Bras. Gest. Urbana 2019, 11, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kedia, A.; Kusumastuti, D.; Nicholson, A. Establishing Collection and Delivery Points to Encourage the Use of Active Transport: A Case Study in New Zealand Using a Consumer-Centric Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lemke, J.; Iwan, S.; Korczak, J. Usability of the parcel lockers from the customer perspective-the research in Polish Cities. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference “Green Cities-Green Logistics for Greener Cities”, Szczecin, Poland, 2–3 March 2016; Iwan, S., Thompson, R., Kijewska, K., Eds.; Volume 16, pp. 272–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pronello, C.; Camusso, C.; Valentina, R. Last mile freight distribution and transport operators’ needs: Which targets and challenges? In Proceedings of the World Conference on Transport Research-WCTR 2016, Shanghai, China, 10–15 July 2016; Ulengin, F., Li, K., Boltze, M., Eds.; Volume 25, pp. 888–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iannaccone, G.; Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V. What Young E-Consumers Want? Forecasting Parcel Lockers Choice in Rome. Logistics 2021, 5, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moroz, M.; Polkowski, Z. The last mile issue and urban logistics: Choosing parcel machines in the context of the ecological attitudes of the Y generation consumers purchasing online. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference “Green Cities-Green Logistics for Greener Cities”, Szczecin, Poland, 2–3 March 2016; Iwan, S., Thompson, R., Kijewska, K., Eds.; Volume 16, pp. 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hagen, T.; Scheel-Kopeinig, S. Would customers be willing to use an alternative (chargeable) delivery concept for the last mile? Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 39, 100626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenberg, L.; Balouka, N.; Herer, Y.; Dani, E.; Gasparin, P.; Dobers, K.; Rudiger, D.; Pattiniemi, P.; Portheine, P.; van Uden, S. Introducing the Shared Micro-Depot Network for Last-Mile Logistics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, F.; Comi, A. Investigating the Effects of City Logistics Measures on the Economy of the City. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kijewska, K.; Torbacki, W.; Iwan, S. Application of AHP and DEMATEL Methods in Choosing and Analysing the Measures for the Distribution of Goods in Szczecin Region. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alves, R.; Lima, R.; de Sena, D.; de Pinho, A.; Holguin-Veras, J. Agent-Based Simulation Model for Evaluating Urban Freight Policy to E-Commerce. Sustainability 2019, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arnold, F.; Cardenas, I.; Sorensen, K.; Dewulf, W. Simulation of B2C e-commerce distribution in Antwerp using cargo bikes and delivery points. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2018, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Matteis, T.; Thaller, C.; Liedtke, G. Simulation-based Assessment of Cargo Bicycle and Pick-up Point in Urban Parcel Delivery. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies (ANT 2018)/The 8th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Information Technology (SEIT-2018)/Affiliated Workshops, Porto, Portugal, 8–11 May 2018; Shakshuki, E., Yasar, A., Eds.; Volume 130, pp. 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousavi, K.; Khan, S.; Saiyed, S.; Amirjamshidi, G.; Roorda, M. Pilot Off-Peak Delivery Program in the Region of Peel. Sustainability 2021, 13, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazarevic, D.; Svadlenka, L.; Radojicic, V.; Dobrodolac, M. New Express Delivery Service and Its Impact on CO2 Emissions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Oliveira, G.; de Oliveira, L. Stakeholder’s perceptions of city logistics: An exploratory study in Brazil. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on City Logistics, Tenerife, Spain, 17–19 June 2015; Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R., Eds.; Volume 12, pp. 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caspersen, E.; Navrud, S. The sharing economy and consumer preferences for environmentally sustainable last mile deliveries. Transp. Res. Part D-Transp. Environ. 2021, 95, 102863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, E.; Oliveira, L.; Isler, C. Assessing the Effects of Delivery Attributes on E-Shopping Consumer Behaviour. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patella, S.; Grazieschi, G.; Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Carrese, S. The Adoption of Green Vehicles in Last Mile Logistics: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Oliveira, C.; Bandeira, R.; Goes, G.; Goncalves, D.; D’Agosto, M. Sustainable Vehicles-Based Alternatives in Last Mile Distribution of Urban Freight Transport: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elangovan, R.; Kanwhen, O.; Dong, Z.; Mohamed, A.; Rojas-Cessa, R. Comparative Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emission of Diesel and Electric Trucks for Food Distribution in Gowanus District of New York City. Front. Big Data 2021, 4, 693820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins-Turner, K.; Grahle, A.; Nagel, K.; Gohlich, D. Electrification of Urban Freight Transport—A Case Study of the Food Retailing Industry. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies (ANT)/The 3rd International Conference on Emerging Data and Industry 4.0 (EDI40)/Affiliated Workshops, Warsaw, Poland, 6–9 April 2020; Shakshuki, E., Yasar, A., Eds.; Volume 170, pp. 757–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsakalidis, A.; Krause, J.; Julea, A.; Peduzzi, E.; Pisoni, E.; Thiel, C. Electric light commercial vehicles: Are they the sleeping giant of electromobility? Transp. Res. Part D-Transp. Environ. 2020, 86, 102421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siragusa, C.; Tumino, A.; Mangiaracina, R.; Perego, A. Electric vehicles performing last-mile delivery in B2C e-commerce: An economic and environmental assessment. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2022, 16, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brotcorne, L.; Perboli, G.; Rosano, M.; Wei, Q. A Managerial Analysis of Urban Parcel Delivery: A Lean Business Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anosike, A.; Loomes, H.; Udokporo, C.; Garza-Reyes, J. Exploring the challenges of electric vehicle adoption in final mile parcel delivery. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwan, S.; Nurnberg, M.; Jedlinski, M.; Kijewska, K. Efficiency of light electric vehicles in last mile deliveries-Szczecin case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 74, 103167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Settey, T.; Gnap, J.; Benova, D.; Pavlicko, M.; Blazekova, O. The Growth of E-Commerce Due to COVID-19 and the Need for Urban Logistics Centers Using Electric Vehicles: Bratislava Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurnberg, M. Analysis of using cargo bikes in urban logistics on the example of Stargard. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference “Green Cities–Green Logistics for Greener Cities”, Szczecin, Poland, 13–14 September 2018; Iwan, S., Thompson, R., Kijewska, K., Eds.; Volume 39, pp. 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano-Hernandez, A.; Ballano, A.; Faulin, J. Selecting Freight Transportation Modes in Last-Mile Urban Distribution in Pamplona (Spain): An Option for Drone Delivery in Smart Cities. Energies 2021, 14, 4748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kin, B.; Verlinde, S.; van Lier, T.; Macharis, C. Is there life after subsidy for an urban consolidation centre? An investigation of the total costs and benefits of a privately-initiated concept. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on City Logistics, Tenerife, Spain, 17–19 June 2015; Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R., Eds.; Volume 12, pp. 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Duin, J.; van Dam, T.; Wiegmans, B.; Tavasszy, L. Understanding Financial Viability of Urban Consolidation Centres: Regent Street (London), Bristol/Bath & Nijmegen. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference “Green Cities-Green Logistics for Greener Cities”, Szczecin, Poland, 2–3 March 2016; Iwan, S., Thompson, R., Kijewska, K., Eds.; Volume 16, pp. 61–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bjorklund, M.; Abrahamsson, M.; Johansson, H. Critical factors for viable business models for urban consolidation centres. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 64, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cherrett, T.; Dickinson, J.; McLeod, F.; Sit, J.; Bailey, G.; Whittle, G. Logistics impacts of student online shopping-Evaluating delivery consolidation to halls of residence. Transp. Res. Part C-Emerg. Technol. 2017, 78, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Estrada, M.; Roca-Riu, M. Stakeholder’s profitability of carrier-led consolidation strategies in urban goods distribution. Transp. Res. Part E-Logist. Transp. Rev. 2017, 104, 165–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerlain, C.; Renault, S.; Ferrero, F. Understanding Construction Logistics in Urban Areas and Lowering Its Environmental Impact: A Focus on Construction Consolidation Centres. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deng, Q.; Fang, X.; Lim, Y. Urban Consolidation Center or Peer-to-Peer Platform? The Solution to Urban Last-Mile Delivery. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2021, 30, 997–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paddeu, D. The Bristol-Bath Urban freight Consolidation Centre from the perspective of its users. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2017, 5, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paddeu, D.; Fancello, G.; Fadda, P. An Experimental Customer Satisfaction Index to Evaluate the Performance of City Logistics Services. Transport 2017, 32, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Carvalho, N.; Vieira, J.; da Fonseca, P.; Dulebenets, M. A Multi-Criteria Structure for Sustainable Implementation of Urban Distribution Centers in Historical Cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paddeu, D.; Parkhurst, G.; Fancello, G.; Fadda, P.; Ricci, M. Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Urban Freight Consolidation Schemes: Drivers and Barriers to Implementation. Transport 2018, 33, 913–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johansson, H.; Bjorklund, M. Urban consolidation centres: Retail stores’ demands for UCC services. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2017, 47, 646–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dalla Chiara, G.; Cheah, L. Data stories from urban loading bays. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2017, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kijewska, K.; Iwan, S. Analysis of the functioning of urban deliveries in the city centre and its environmental impact based on Szczecin example. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on City Logistics, Tenerife, Spain, 17–19 June 2015; Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R., Eds.; Volume 12, pp. 739–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hesse, M. Logistics: Situating flows in a spatial context. Geogr. Compass 2020, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalla Chiara, G.; Cheah, L.; Azevedo, C.; Ben-Akiva, M. A Policy-Sensitive Model of Parking Choice for Commercial Vehicles in Urban Areas. Transp. Sci. 2020, 54, 606–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diana, M.; Pirra, M.; Woodcock, A. Freight distribution in urban areas: A method to select the most important loading and unloading areas and a survey tool to investigate related demand patterns. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rincon-Garcia, N.; Waterson, B.; Cherrett, T.; Salazar-Arrieta, F. A metaheuristic for the time-dependent vehicle routing problem considering driving hours regulations—An application in city logistics. Transp. Res. Part A-Policy Pract. 2020, 137, 429–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cerrone, C.; Cerulli, R.; Sciomachen, A. Grocery distribution plans in urban networks with street crossing penalties. Networks 2021, 78, 248–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, D.; Wu, P. E-Commerce Logistics Path Optimization Based on a Hybrid Genetic Algorithm. Complexity 2021, 2021, 5591811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.; Bae, K. In-Depth Learning Layout and Path Optimization of Energy Service Urban Distribution Sites under e-Commerce Environment. Complexity 2021, 2021, 6665610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, S.; Giannikas, V.; Han, Y.; Grover-Silva, E.; Qiao, B. Using customer-related data to enhance e-grocery home delivery. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 1917–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de la Torre, R.; Corlu, C.; Faulin, J.; Onggo, B.; Juan, A. Simulation, Optimization, and Machine Learning in Sustainable Transportation Systems: Models and Applications. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perboli, G.; Rosano, M. A Taxonomic Analysis of Smart City Projects in North America and Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giusti, R.; Iorfida, C.; Li, Y.; Manerba, D.; Musso, S.; Perboli, G.; Tadei, R.; Yuan, S. Sustainable and De-Stressed International Supply-Chains Through the SYNCHRO-NET Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gutierrez-Franco, E.; Mejia-Argueta, C.; Rabelo, L. Data-Driven Methodology to Support Long-Lasting Logistics and Decision Making for Urban Last-Mile Operations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mkansi, M.; de Leeuw, S.; Amosun, O. Mobile application supported urban-township e-grocery distribution. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019, 50, 26–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Kervenoael, R.; Schwob, A.; Chandra, C. E-retailers and the engagement of delivery workers in urban last-mile delivery for sustainable logistics value creation: Leveraging legitimate concerns under time-based marketing promise. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 54, 102016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munoz-Villamizar, A.; Solano-Charris, E.; Reyes-Rubiano, L.; Faulin, J. Measuring Disruptions in Last-Mile Delivery Operations. Logistics 2021, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleophas, C.; Cottrill, C.; Ehmke, J.; Tierney, K. Collaborative urban transportation: Recent advances in theory and practice. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 273, 801–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehmann, J.; Frehe, V.; Teuteberg, F. Crowd Logistics—A Literature Review and Maturity Model. In Proceedings of the Innovations and Strategies for Logistics and Supply Chains: Technologies, Business Models and Risk Management. Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL); Kersten, W., Blecker, T., Ringle, C.M., Eds.; epubli GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2015; Volume 20, pp. 117–145. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.; Pan, S. Using the Crowd of Taxis to Last Mile Delivery in E-Commerce: A methodological research. In Proceedings of the Service Orientation in Holonic and Multi-Agent Manufacturing, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–7 October 2016; Borangiu, T., Trentesaux, D., Thomas, A., McFarlane, D., Eds.; Volume 640, pp. 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Nigro, M.; Patella, S.; Serafini, S. Public Transport-Based Crowdshipping for Sustainable City Logistics: Assessing Economic and Environmental Impacts. Sustainability 2019, 11, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Nigro, M.; Serafini, S. Sustainable urban freight transport adopting public transport-based crowdshipping for B2C deliveries. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2019, 11, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seghezzi, A.; Mangiaracina, R.; Tumino, A.; Perego, A. ’Pony express’ crowdsourcing logistics for last-mile delivery in B2C e-commerce: An economic analysis. Int. J.-Logist.-Res. Appl. 2021, 24, 456–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Jaramillo, Y.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.; Claassen, G. On integrating crowdsourced delivery in last-mile logistics: A simulation study to quantify its feasibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rzesny-Cieplinska, J.; Szmelter-Jarosz, A. Assessment of the Crowd Logistics Solutions-The Stakeholders’ Analysis Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Villa, R.; Monzon, A. A Metro-Based System as Sustainable Alternative for Urban Logistics in the Era of E-Commerce. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beirigo, B.; Schulte, F.; Negenborn, R. Integrating People and Freight Transportation Using Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Compartments. In Proceedings of the 15th IFAC Symposium on Control in Transportation Systems CTS 2018, Savona, Italy, 6–8 June 2018; Volume 51, pp. 392–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, G.; Guo, D.; Shi, J.; Qin, Y. Planning City-Wide Package Distribution Using Crowdsourced Public Transportation Systems. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 1234–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Duin, R.; Wiegmans, B.; Tavasszy, L.; Hendriks, B.; He, Y. Evaluating new participative city logistics concepts: The case of cargo hitching. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference “Green Cities–Green Logistics for Greener Cities”, Szczecin, Poland, 13–14 September 2018; Iwan, S., Thompson, R., Kijewska, K., Eds.; Volume 39, pp. 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kin, B.; Ambra, T.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. Tackling Fragmented Last Mile Deliveries to Nanostores by Utilizing Spare Transportation Capacity-A Simulation Study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zissis, D.; Aktas, E.; Bourlakis, M. Collaboration in urban distribution of online grocery orders. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 1196–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Enochsson, L.; Palgan, Y.; Plepys, A.; Mont, O. Impacts of the Sharing Economy on Urban Sustainability: The Perceptions of Municipal Governments and Sharing Organisations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | Concept | Country | Method 1 | Env. | Eco. | Soc. |
[17] | Practices | Australia | C, S | |||
[4] | Practices, Challenges | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ | |
[29] | Challenges | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[18] | Practices | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[35] | Channels | Norway | S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[28] | Omnichannel, Challenges | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[30] | Challenges | T | ||||
[20] | Practices | Belgium | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[31] | Challenges | Europe | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[37] | Channels | Brazil | S | ✓ | ||
[16] | Practices | Brazil | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[23] | Packaging | T | ✓ | |||
[33] | Research community, Channels | T | ✓ | |||
[36] | Channels | China | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[21] | Practices | Indonesia | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[5] | Channels | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[15] | Channels | France | M | ✓ | ||
[26] | Challenges | Poland | C, M | ✓ | ||
[14] | Research community, Channels | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[19] | Practices | Sweden | C, M | |||
[27] | Omnichannel, Challenges | T | ||||
[34] | Channels | England | M | ✓ | ||
[24] | Packaging | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[25] | Practices | Spain | C, M | ✓ | ||
[32] | Research community, Channels | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[38] | Omnichannel | Singapore | M, S | ✓ | ||
[22] | Packaging | China | C, M, S | ✓ |
Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | Concept | Country | Method 1 | Env. | Eco. | Soc. |
[4] | Parcel locker, Other | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ | |
[51] | Parcel locker | Brazil | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[52] | Parcel locker | Belgium | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[28] | Parcel locker | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[30] | Other | T | ||||
[57] | Delivery attributes | Norway | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[31] | Night delivery | Europe | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[56] | Off-peak delivery | Brazil | C, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[37] | Parcel locker | Brazil | S | ✓ | ||
[16] | Off-peak delivery | Brazil | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[41] | CDP | Brazil | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[58] | Delivery attributes | Brazil | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[36] | Delivery attributes | China | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[47] | CDP | Germany | S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[39] | Parcel locker, Other | T | ||||
[45] | Parcel locker | Italy | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[42] | CDP | New Zealand | C, M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[50] | Off-peak delivery, Parcel locker | Poland | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[40] | Parcel locker | Australia | C | ✓ | ||
[55] | 24/7 delivery | Serbia | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[43] | Parcel locker | Poland | S | ✓ | ||
[26] | Parcel locker | Poland | C, M | ✓ | ||
[46] | Parcel locker | Poland | S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[54] | Off-peak delivery | Canada | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[44] | Parcel locker | Italy | C, S | ✓ | ||
[48] | CDP | Finland, Netherlands | C, T, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[49] | Parcel locker | S | ✓ | |||
[27] | Parcel locker, Other | T | ||||
[53] | Parcel locker | Germany | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[14] | Parcel locker, CDP, Other | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[32] | Parcel locker, CDP, Night delivery, Other | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[29] | CDP, Off-hours delivery | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | Concept | Country | Method 1 | Env. | Eco. | Soc. |
[66] | E-vehicle | C, T | ✓ | |||
[52] | Cargo bike | Belgium | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[29] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, AV | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[18] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[28] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, Drone, AV | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[30] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, Drone, AV | T | ||||
[65] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike | Italy | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[31] | E-vehicle | Europe | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[60] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, AV | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[61] | E-vehicle | USA | M | ✓ | ||
[39] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, Drone, AV | T | ||||
[67] | E-vehicle | Poland | C | ✓ | ||
[62] | E-vehicle | Germany | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[69] | Cargo bike | Poland | C | ✓ | ✓ | |
[59] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, Drone, AV | T | ✓ | ✓ | ||
[27] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, Drone, AV | T | ||||
[70] | Cargo bike, Drone | Spain | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[68] | E-vehicle | Slovakia | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[64] | E-vehicle | Italy | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[24] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[63] | E-vehicle | Europe | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[53] | Cargo bike | Germany | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[50] | Cargo bike | Poland | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[14] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, Drone | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[32] | E-vehicle, Cargo bike, Drone, AV | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | Concept | Country | Method 1 | Env. | Eco. | Soc. |
[4] | Parking | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ | |
[73] | UCC | Sweden, Italy, Netherlands | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[28] | Parking | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[74] | UCC | England | C, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[83] | Parking | Singapore | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[80] | UCC | Brazil | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[31] | UCC, Parking, Road, Micro-depot | Europe | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[56] | UCC, Parking, Road | Brazil | C, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[16] | Parking, Road | Brazil | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[77] | UCC | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[75] | UCC | Spain | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[76] | UCC | Luxembourg, France, Spain, Italy | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[47] | Micro-depot | Germany | S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[85] | UCC, Sprawl | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[82] | UCC | Sweden | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[84] | Parking | Poland | C | ✓ | ||
[50] | Parking, Road | Poland | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[71] | UCC | Belgium | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[78] | UCC | England | C, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[79] | UCC | England | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[81] | UCC | England, Italy | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[44] | Parking, Road | Italy | C, S | ✓ | ||
[48] | Micro-depot | Finland, Netherlands | C, T, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[49] | UCC, Parking, Road | S | ✓ | |||
[27] | UCC | T | ||||
[24] | UCC, Road, Sprawl | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[72] | UCC | England, Netherlands | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[14] | Parking, UCC | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[32] | UCC, Parking | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[29] | UCC, Sprawl, Parking | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[68] | UCC | Slovakia | M | ✓ | ✓ |
Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | Concept | Country | Method 1 | Env. | Eco. | Soc. |
[29] | Parking optimisation, Technology, Routing | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[28] | Technology | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[89] | Routing | Italy | M | ✓ | ||
[86] | Parking optimisation | Singapore | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[98] | Technology | Singapore | C | ✓ | ✓ | |
[93] | Technology | T | ✓ | ✓ | ||
[31] | Routing | Europe | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[87] | Parking optimisation | Italy | C, M | |||
[95] | Technology | Europe, Asia | C | ✓ | ✓ | |
[96] | Technology | Colombia | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[97] | Technology | South Africa | C | ✓ | ✓ | |
[99] | Technology | USA, Colombia, Spain | M | ✓ | ||
[92] | Technology | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ||
[94] | Technology | Europe, Canada, USA | T | |||
[44] | Technology | Italy | C, S | ✓ | ||
[88] | Routing | Europe | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[49] | Technology | S | ✓ | |||
[27] | Technology | T | ||||
[24] | Technology | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[91] | Routing | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[90] | Routing | M | ✓ | |||
[14] | Routing | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[32] | Technology, Routing | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[50] | Routing, Technology | Poland | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[4] | Technology | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ |
Dimension | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ref. | Concept | Country | Method 1 | Env. | Eco. | Soc. |
[4] | Crowdsourcing, Collab. | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ | |
[27] | Crowdsourcing, Collab., People/Freight | T | ||||
[100] | Crowdsourcing, Collab., People/Freight | T | ✓ | |||
[24] | People/Freight | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[102] | Crowdsourcing | China | M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[103] | Crowdsourcing | Italy | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[104] | Crowdsourcing | Italy | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[105] | Crowdsourcing | Italy | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[106] | Crowdsourcing | Netherlands | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | |
[18] | Crowdsourcing | England | C, T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[107] | Crowdsourcing | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[30] | Crowdsourcing, People/Freight | T | ||||
[108] | People/Freight | Spain | C, M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[109] | People/Freight | USA | M | ✓ | ||
[110] | People/Freight | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[28] | Collaboration | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[111] | People/Freight | Netherlands | C, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[112] | Collaboration | Belgium | M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[113] | Collaboration | England | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | |
[114] | Collaboration | Netherlands, Canada | C | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[49] | Collaboration | S | ✓ | |||
[50] | Collaboration | Poland | M, S | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
[29] | Crowdsourcing, Collab., People/Freight | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[14] | Crowdsourcing, Collab. | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[32] | Crowdsourcing, Collab., People/Freight | T | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Type | Solution | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|---|
Vehicular solutions | Electric vehicle | • Reduces operational and environmental costs [61,62,63,64,65] • Battery suitable [62,67,68] | • High investment and infrastructural needs [18,28,63,66] |
Cargo bike | • Reduces congestion, noise, pollution [52,53,65,69] | • Needs adequate road infrastructure and policies [28,69] • Speed, load, and terrain limitations [28,69] • Lower number of deliveries per hour [65] • No consensus regarding operational costs reductions [52,53,65] | |
Autonomous vehicle | • High future potential [59] | • Uncertain benefits and applicability [27,59] | |
Drone | • General consumers’ acceptance [70] | • Needs infrastructural investments [28] | |
Operational solutions | Off-peak delivery | • Reduces fuel consumption, GHG and other pollutants emissions [54,55] • General consumers’ acceptance [55,56] • Faster deliveries [54] • No noise complaints [54] | • Non-consensual acceptance among stakeholders [16,50,56] • Increased service times [54] |
Omnichannel | • Enhance customer experience [27] • Increase customer base [27] | • Additional operational complexity [27,28] • High cost [28] • Not well perceived by consumers [38] | |
Technological systems | • Reduces vehicle use, route length and duration, congestion, accidents, environmental costs, re-deliveries, operational costs, cooperation problems [27,28,88,92,95,96,97,98] | ||
Parking-related measures | • Reduces congestion, air pollution, accidents, delivery costs, illegal parking [86] | • Non-consensual acceptance among stakeholders [16,44,49,50,56] | |
Road-related measures | • General stakeholders’ acceptance [16,44,49,56] • More efficient resource utilisation [24] | ||
Organisational solutions | People/Freight transport | • Reduces congestion, accidents, noise, pollutant emissions, operational costs [24,108,109,111] • Efficient operation and business model [24,110,111] • Low passenger impact [110] • New job opportunities [111] | • Requires extra transshipment costs, handling equipment and labour tasks [24] |
Horizontal collaboration | • Reduces the number of vehicles, route length and duration, lead time [4,27,112,113] • Increases resource utilisation efficiency [4,27] • Additional revenue source [112] • General stakeholders’ acceptance [49,114] | • Difficult coordination [28] | |
UCC | • Reduces noise, accidents, congestion, fuel consumption, pollutant emissions, costs for carriers [71,72,75,76] • General stakeholders’ acceptance [56,78,79] | • Not economically viable [71,72,73] • Dependent on large scale operation [73,75,77] | |
Parcel locker | • Reduces fuel consumption, trip length and duration, external and internal costs, re-deliveries [4,26,28,42,51,52] • General consumer’s acceptance [37,42,43,45,46,47] • General stakeholder’s acceptance [44,49,50] | • Potential generation of more external costs (e.g., noise, emissions) [52,53] • Should have 24 h accessibility [43,45,46] • Should be placed in frequently visited commercial sites [37,42,43,44] | |
Crowdsourcing | • Reduces pollutant emissions, operational costs [103,105] • General willingness-to-use [104] • Additional income source for citizens [105] | • Needs a large number of crowdshippers [27,106] • Potential social inequalities [18] |
Method 1 | Dimension | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster | Articles | C | M | T | S | Env. | Eco. | Soc. |
(i) | 27 | 30% | 41% | 44% | 26% | 70% | 44% | 59% |
(ii) | 32 | 31% | 41% | 28% | 50% | 56% | 75% | 81% |
(iii) | 25 | 28% | 40% | 48% | 8% | 84% | 76% | 52% |
(iv) | 31 | 48% | 23% | 32% | 35% | 77% | 94% | 81% |
(v) | 25 | 32% | 40% | 36% | 16% | 56% | 84% | 56% |
(vi) | 25 | 28% | 48% | 40% | 24% | 68% | 88% | 72% |
TOTAL | 102 | 38% | 51% | 22% | 29% | 71% | 74% | 64% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Silva, V.; Amaral, A.; Fontes, T. Sustainable Urban Last-Mile Logistics: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032285
Silva V, Amaral A, Fontes T. Sustainable Urban Last-Mile Logistics: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032285
Chicago/Turabian StyleSilva, Vasco, António Amaral, and Tânia Fontes. 2023. "Sustainable Urban Last-Mile Logistics: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032285
APA StyleSilva, V., Amaral, A., & Fontes, T. (2023). Sustainable Urban Last-Mile Logistics: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 15(3), 2285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032285