A Holistic Human-Based Approach to Last-Mile Delivery: Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Logistics Strategies
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Methodological Approaches in Last-Mile Delivery Decision-Making
2.2. Sustainability Dimensions and Evaluation Criteria
2.3. Stakeholder Perspectives and Trade-Offs
2.4. Technological Solutions and Context-Specific Alternatives
2.5. Identified Gaps and Justification for Current Research
3. Methodology
3.1. The Fuzzy AHP Method
3.2. The EDAS Method
4. Case Study Analysis and Results
4.1. Case Study Description
4.1.1. Alternative Description
4.1.2. Criteria Description
4.1.3. Description of Stakeholders
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Results of Model Application—Delivery Person Perspective
4.2.2. Results of Model Application—Transport Company Perspective
4.2.3. Results of Model Application—Customer Perspective
4.2.4. Results of Model Application—Local Authorities’ Perspective
4.3. Sensitivity Analysis
5. Theoretical and Managerial Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Patella, S.M.; 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]
- Giuffrida, N.; Fajardo-Calderin, J.; Masegosa, A.D.; Werner, F.; Steudter, M.; Pilla, F. Optimization and Machine Learning Applied to Last-Mile Logistics: A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranieri, L.; Digiesi, S.; Silvestri, B.; Roccotelli, M. A Review of Last Mile Logistics Innovations in an Externalities Cost Reduction Vision. Sustainability 2018, 10, 782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahwa, A.; Jaller, M. Assessing the sustainability of last-mile distribution strategies to manage expedited shipping with dynamic and stochastic demand. Transp. Res. E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2025, 201, 104273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engesser, V.; Rombaut, E.; Vanhaverbeke, L.; Lebeau, P. Autonomous Delivery Solutions for Last-Mile Logistics Operations: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, E.; Syntetos, A.; van Woensel, T. Last mile logistics: Research trends and needs. IMA J. Manag. Math. 2022, 33, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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, Leiden, The Netherlands, 5–7 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, S.F.W.T.; Jin, X.; Singh 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]
- Guo, X.; Lujan Jaramillo, Y.J.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.; Claassen, G.D.H. On integrating crowdsourced delivery in last-mile logistics: A simulation study to quantify its feasibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrejić, M.; Pajić, V.; Kilibarda, M. Distribution Channel Selection Using FUCOM-ADAM: A Novel Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangkhiew, N.; Pornsing, C.; Ohmori, S.; Watanasungsuit, A. An Integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS for the Last Mile Delivery Mode Selection. Sci. Technol. Asia 2022, 27, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Pira, M.; Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Inturri, G.; Ignaccolo, M.; Pluchino, A. Integrating discrete choice models and agent-based models for ex-ante evaluation of stakeholder policy acceptability in urban freight transport. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 64, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, N.A.T.; Dang, T.T.; Hsu, H.P. Evaluating Sustainable Last-Mile Delivery (LMD) in B2C E-Commerce Using Two-Stage Fuzzy MCDM Approach: A Case Study from Vietnam. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 146050–146067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pourmohammadreza, N.; Akbari Jokar, M.R. A Novel Two-Phase Approach for Optimization of the Last-Mile Delivery Problem with Service Options. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Büyüközkan, G.; Uztürk, D. Smart Last Mile Delivery Solution Selection for Cities. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, WCE, London, UK, 3–5 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Szmelter-Jarosz, A.; Rześny-Cieplińska, J. Priorities of Urban Transport System Stakeholders According to Crowd Logistics Solutions in City Areas. A Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Švadlenka, L.; Simić, V.; Dobrodolac, M.; Lazarević, D.; Todorović, G. Picture Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Sustainable Last-Mile Delivery. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 209393–209414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simić, V.; Lazarević, D.; Dobrodolac, M. Picture fuzzy WASPAS method for selecting last-mile delivery mode: A case study of Belgrade. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2021, 13, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Delle Site, P.; Le Pira, M.; Carrocci, C.S. Planning with stakeholders: Analysing alternative off-hour delivery solutions via an interactive multi-criteria approach. Res. Transp. Econ. 2019, 73, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melkonyan, A.; Gruchmann, T.; Lohmar, F.; Kamath, V.; Spinler, S. Sustainability assessment of last-mile logistics and distribution strategies: The case of local food networks. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228, 107746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez, J.N.; Natalia Sobrino, N.; Vassallo, J.M. Considering the city context in weighting sustainability criteria for last-mile logistics solutions. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2025, 28, 380–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.N.; Chung, Y.C.; Wibowo, F.D.; Dang, T.T.; Nguyen, N.A.T. Sustainable Last-Mile Delivery Solution Evaluation in the Context of a Developing Country: A Novel OPA–Fuzzy MARCOS Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garus, A.; Alonso, B.; Alonso Raposo, M.; Grosso, M.; Krause, J.; Mourtzouchou, A.; Ciuffo, B. Last-mile delivery by automated droids. Sustainability assessment on a real-world case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 79, 103728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Harrington, T.S.; Singh Srai, J.; Kumar, M.; Wohlrab, J. Identifying design criteria for urban system ‘last-mile’ solutions—A multi-stakeholder perspective. Prod. Plan. Control 2016, 27, 456–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljohani, K.; Thompson, R.G. A Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of the Most Suitable and Sustainable Delivery Fleet for Freight Consolidation Policies in the Inner-City Area. Sustainability 2019, 11, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rześny-Cieplińska, J.; Szmelter-Jarosz, A. Assessment of the Crowd Logistics Solutions—The Stakeholders’ Analysis Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, S. Industry Acceptance of Alternative Delivery Methods for Last Mile Distribution. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Polytechnic de Cataluña, Barcelona, Spain, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Wątróbski, J.; Małecki, K.; Kijewska, K.; Iwan, S.; Karczmarczyk, A.; Thompson, R.G. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980; p. 287. [Google Scholar]
- Ecer, F. Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2018, 24, 615–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holecek, P.; Talašová, J. A free software tool implementing the fuzzy AHP method. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Mathematical Methods in Economics, Liberec, Czech Republic, 6–9 September 2016; Volume 6, pp. 266–271. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.M.; Chin, K.S. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A logarithmic fuzzy preference programming methodology. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2011, 52, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wind, Y.; Saaty, T.L. Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag. Sci. 1980, 26, 641–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Olfat, L.; Turskis, Z. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica 2015, 26, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torkayesh, A.E.; Deveci, M.; Karagoz, S.; Antucheviciene, J. A state-of-the-art survey of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS): Developments and applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 221, 119724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilin, V.; Veličković, M.; Garunović, N.; Simić, D. Last-mile delivery with electric vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and e-scooters and e-bikes. J. Road Traffic Eng. 2023, 69, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. As E-Bikes Surge, We Need to Address Both the Opportunities and Challenges. Available online: https://itdp.org/2025/03/04/e-bikes-surge-we-need-to-address-both-opportunities-and-challenges-stmagazine-36/ (accessed on 20 June 2025).
- Ceccato, R.; Gastaldi, M. Last mile distribution using cargo bikes: A simulation study in Padova. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2023, 90, 1–11. Available online: https://www.istiee.unict.it/sites/default/files/files/ET_2023_90_3.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2025). [CrossRef]
- Llorca, C.; Moeckel, R. Assesment of the potential of cargo bikes and electrification for last-mile parcel delivery by means of simulation of urban freight flows. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2021, 13, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalakopoulou, K.; Vann Yaroson, E.; Chatziioannou, I. Decoding cargo bikes’ potential to be a sustainable last-mile delivery mode: An operations management perspective. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2025, 48, 712–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritzer, P.; Geischberger, J.; Adeniran, I.O.; Thaller, C. Traffic impact on last mile parcel delivery with cargo bikes. Transp. Res. Procedia 2023, 72, 3656–3663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabić-Miletić, S. Autonomous vehicles as an essential component of industry 4.0 for meeting last-mile logistics requirements. J. Ind. Intell. 2023, 1, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadić, S. Inicijative city logistike za centralne urbane zone. Teh. Menadžment 2019, 69, 585–594. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
- Borghetti, F.; Caballini, C.; Carboni, A.; Grossato, G.; Maja, R.; Barabino, B. The Use of Drones for Last-Mile Delivery: A Numerical Case Study in Milan, Italy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Transport Forum. How Urban Delivery Vehicles can Boost Electric Mobility. © OECD/ITF 2020. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/urban-delivery-vehicles-boost-electric-mobility.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2025).
- Ranjan Behera, G.; Anand Babu, D.; Patil, P.N. A Review on Design of an Electric Trolley. United Int. J. Res. Technol. 2021, 2, 108–111. [Google Scholar]
- Corti, F.; D’Alpaos, C.; Greco, L. Multicriteria evaluation of sustainability in last-mile logistics: A review. Valori E Valutazioni 2024, 36, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadić, S.; Zečević, S.; Krstić, M. Održivost inicijativa city logistike. In Proceedings of the LOGIC, 3rd Logistics International Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, 25–27 May 2017. (In Serbian). [Google Scholar]
- Tadić, S.; Zečević, S.; Krstić, M. Assessment of the political city logistics initiatives sustainability. Transp. Res. Procedia 2018, 30, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S. A hybrid approach integrating affinity diagram, AHP, and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Appl. Math. Model. 2012, 36, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inoue, Y.; Hashimoto, M. Significance of face-to-face service quality in last mile delivery for e-commerce platforms. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2023, 21, 100885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izadkhah, A.; Subramanyam, A.; Lainez-Aguirre, J.M.; Pinto, J.M.; Gounaris, C.E. Quantifying the impact of delivery day flexibility on last-mile delivery costs. Digit. Chem. Eng. 2022, 5, 100057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolb, C.; Xie, L. Security and Safety in Urban Environments: Evaluating Threats and Risks of Autonomous Last-Mile Delivery Robots. In Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security; AFECOMP 2024, Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Ceccarelli, A., Trapp, M., Bondavalli, A., Schoitsch, E., Gallina, B., Bitsch, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 14989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wehrle, R.; Gast, J.; Wiens, M.; Schultmann, F. On the influence of infrastructure availability on companies decisions toward modal shift and relocation of falicities. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2023, 19, 100818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadić, S. Integrated City Logistics Solutions Performance Modelling. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2014. (In Serbian). [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Maravić, A.; Andrejić, M.; Pajić, V. Strategic Optimization of Parcel Distribution in E-Commerce: A Comprehensive Analysis of Logistic Flows and Vehicle Selection Using SWARA-WASPAS Methods. Int. J. Knowl. Innov. Stud. 2024, 2, 190–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maravić, A.; Pajić, V.; Andrejić, M. Evaluating the Role of Couriers in E-commerce Delivery: A Performance-Based Ranking Model for Optimising Logistics Efficiency. J. Organ. Technol. Entrep. 2025, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakalamić, M.; Pajić, V.; Andrejić, M. Exploring the Attitudes of Couriers in Crowdsourced Delivery Systems: A Study on Operational Challenges and Platform Dynamics. J. Urban Dev. Manag. 2024, 3, 288–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozoderović, J.; Andrejić, M.; Pajić, V. Strategic Selection of Crowd Logistics Platforms: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach. Mechatron. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2024, 3, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ref. | Problem/Focus | Method(s) | Key Criteria | Stakeholder(s) | Alternatives |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[11] | Mode selection for LML | FAHP, FTOPSIS | Cost, environment, convenience | Customers | Home delivery, collection points |
[12] | Ex-ante freight policy evaluation | Discrete choice & ABM | Stakeholder preferences, policy acceptance | Authorities, businesses, citizens | Urban freight policy options |
[13] | Context-based sustainability evaluation | Expert-based weighting | TBL | Policy experts | European cities |
[14] | Sustainable B2C LML evaluation | FAHP, FWASPAS | Cost, service, technical, social, environment | Experts | 13 delivery providers (Vietnam) |
[15] | Multi-stakeholder last-mile criteria | Interviews, case studies | Delivery performance, satisfaction | Industry, consumers, institutions | Transit chain elements |
[16] | Sustainable urban delivery fleets | FAHP, PROMETHEE | Custom per stakeholder | Logistics Service Providers, authorities, citizens | Cargo bikes, eco-fleets |
[17] | Urban goods distribution measures | AHP, DEMATEL | Implementation, environment | Authorities, carriers | 5 measure types |
[18] | Crowd logistics assessment | AHP | TBL, ethics, cooperation | Mixed public and private | Various crowd logistics models |
[19] | Off-hour delivery solutions planning | Interviews, MAMCA | Acceptance, urban impact, cost, feasibility | Authorities, providers, receivers, residents | Off-hour delivery, urban consolidation center, standard delivery |
[20] | Sustainability of LML | System dynamics, MCDA | Emissions, cost, jobs, energy use | Cooperatives, providers, consumers | Click & collect, home delivery, crowd logistics |
[21] | Sustainable delivery tech selection | Picture Fuzzy | TBL, technical | Experts, managers | Drones, lockers, robots |
[22] | LML mode comparison | FWASPAS | TBL, technical | Experts | Drones, Autonomous Vehicles, postomats |
[23] | Smart LML evaluation | SWOT, DEMATEL-VIKOR | Cost, traceability, training, barriers | Experts | Smart lockers, electric vehicles |
[24] | Service option optimization | SWARA, COCOSO | Availability, disaster resilience | Experts, customers | Pick-up points |
[25] | Real-world LML sustainability | MAVT | Operational, TBL | Experts, Joint Research Centre | EURO Light Commercial Vehicles (LCV), droids |
[26] | Electric van analysis | PROMETHEE II, FTOPSIS | Performance, battery, price | Urban freight stakeholders | Electric van types |
[27] | LML in developing context | OPA, FMARCOS | TBL, traceability | Experts, managers | Green, autonomous, crowdsourcing |
[28] | Stakeholder priorities for crowd logistics | AHP, DEMATEL, interviews | TBL, network/ethics | Broad mix | Crowd logistics |
[29] | Adoption potential of new methods | Composite Aggregation Method, Survey | Reliability, environment, scalability | Shippers, citizens, city authorities | Electric LCVs, robots |
Linguistic Term | Triangular Fuzzy Number |
---|---|
Absolutely preferable (AP) | (8,9,10) |
Very preferable (VP) | (7,8,9) |
Strongly preferable (SP) | (6,7,8) |
Pretty preferable (PP) | (5,6,7) |
Quite preferable (QP) | (4,5,6) |
Moderately preferable (MP) | (3,4,5) |
Remotely preferable (RP) | (2,3,4) |
Barely preferable (BP) | (1,2,3) |
Equally important (EI) | (1,1,2) |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | VP | SP | QP | MP | QP | SP | QP | SP |
C2 | 1 | PP | MP | QP | RP | QP | MP | EI | |
C3 | 1 | RP | QP | MP | QP | QP | BP | ||
C4 | 1 | SP | PP | MP | MP | VP | |||
C5 | 1 | RP | MP | RP | BP | ||||
C6 | 1 | QP | MP | MP | |||||
C7 | 1 | QP | RP | ||||||
C8 | 1 | QP | |||||||
C9 | 1 |
Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weights | 0.372 | 0.167 | 0.123667 | 0.1285 | 0.06 | 0.058667 | 0.036333 | 0.0305 | 0.023333 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
A2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 6 |
A3 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 3 |
A4 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 4 |
A5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
A6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AV | 4.00 | 3.17 | 3.17 | 5.17 | 6.67 | 6.17 | 6.33 | 6.67 | 5.67 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.24 |
A2 | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
A3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.00 |
A4 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
A5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.35 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.20 | 0.41 |
A6 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.00 |
A2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.00 |
A3 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.47 |
A4 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 0.00 | 0.29 |
A5 | 0.75 | 0.58 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.00 |
Alternatives | SP | SN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.35 | 0.01 |
A2 | 0.50 | 0.03 |
A3 | 0.03 | 0.42 |
A4 | 0.08 | 0.15 |
A5 | 0.07 | 0.50 |
A6 | 0.11 | 0.03 |
Alternatives | NSP | NSN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.69 | 0.98 |
A2 | 1.00 | 0.95 |
A3 | 0.06 | 0.15 |
A4 | 0.17 | 0.70 |
A5 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.23 | 0.93 |
Alternatives | AS | Ranking |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.83 | 2 |
A2 | 0.97 | 1 |
A3 | 0.10 | 5 |
A4 | 0.44 | 4 |
A5 | 0.07 | 6 |
A6 | 0.58 | 3 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | SP | VP | PP | QP | QP | VP | SP | SP |
C2 | 1 | MP | MP | RP | RP | BP | BP | RP | |
C3 | 1 | BP | RP | RP | BP | RP | QP | ||
C4 | 1 | PP | QP | PP | PP | SP | |||
C5 | 1 | QP | SP | PP | SP | ||||
C6 | 1 | PP | SP | PP | |||||
C7 | 1 | MP | MP | ||||||
C8 | 1 | MP | |||||||
C9 | 1 |
Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weights | 0.395 | 0.1365 | 0.101167 | 0.132167 | 0.090667 | 0.063667 | 0.037667 | 0.027167 | 0.016 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 |
A2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 6 |
A3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 3 |
A4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 4 |
A5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
A6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AV | 3.50 | 3.17 | 3.33 | 7.00 | 6.83 | 6.83 | 6.17 | 6.67 | 5.67 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.24 |
A2 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
A3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 |
A4 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
A5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.41 |
A6 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.00 |
A2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.00 |
A3 | 0.43 | 0.58 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.47 |
A4 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.29 |
A5 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.00 |
Alternatives | SP | SN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.28 | 0.01 |
A2 | 0.45 | 0.05 |
A3 | 0.05 | 0.35 |
A4 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
A5 | 0.04 | 0.45 |
A6 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
Alternatives | NSP | NSN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.62 | 0.97 |
A2 | 1.00 | 0.89 |
A3 | 0.12 | 0.23 |
A4 | 0.22 | 0.83 |
A5 | 0.08 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.16 | 0.86 |
Alternatives | AS | Ranking |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.79 | 2 |
A2 | 0.94 | 1 |
A3 | 0.17 | 5 |
A4 | 0.53 | 3 |
A5 | 0.04 | 6 |
A6 | 0.51 | 4 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | QP | PP | RP | RP | RP | QP | RP | QP |
C2 | 1 | QP | MP | MP | MP | QP | PP | SP | |
C3 | 1 | RP | RP | BP | BP | RP | MP | ||
C4 | 1 | PP | QP | SP | SP | SP | |||
C5 | 1 | QP | PP | SP | SP | ||||
C6 | 1 | PP | PP | SP | |||||
C7 | 1 | QP | MP | ||||||
C8 | 1 | MP | |||||||
C9 | 1 |
Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weights | 0.20916 | 0.26952 | 0.11638 | 0.15723 | 0.09869 | 0.06999 | 0.03729 | 0.02279 | 0.01895 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
A2 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
A3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 5 |
A4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 |
A5 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 8 |
A6 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AV | 5.5 | 3.17 | 3.33 | 8.00 | 6.83 | 6.83 | 6.17 | 7.67 | 6.00 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 |
A2 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
A3 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.32 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.00 |
A4 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 |
A5 | 0.45 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.33 |
A6 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.00 |
A2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.00 |
A3 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 |
A4 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.33 |
A5 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.00 |
Alternatives | SP | SN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.28 | 0.05 |
A2 | 0.42 | 0.11 |
A3 | 0.12 | 0.44 |
A4 | 0.32 | 0.04 |
A5 | 0.17 | 0.45 |
A6 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
Alternatives | NSP | NSN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.67 | 0.89 |
A2 | 1.00 | 0.76 |
A3 | 0.28 | 0.03 |
A4 | 0.76 | 0.91 |
A5 | 0.40 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.11 | 0.73 |
Alternatives | AS | Ranking |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.78 | 3 |
A2 | 0.88 | 1 |
A3 | 0.15 | 6 |
A4 | 0.83 | 2 |
A5 | 0.20 | 5 |
A6 | 0.42 | 4 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | PP | QP | PP | PP | PP | QP | PP | QP |
C2 | 1 | PP | QP | QP | QP | PP | QP | QP | |
C3 | 1 | MP | MP | MP | QP | QP | QP | ||
C4 | 1 | PP | QP | QP | QP | PP | |||
C5 | 1 | MP | MP | RP | MP | ||||
C6 | 1 | QP | QP | SP | |||||
C7 | 1 | QP | QP | ||||||
C8 | 1 | QP | |||||||
C9 | 1 |
Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weights | 0.338 | 0.218333 | 0.135833 | 0.109833 | 0.063 | 0.055167 | 0.036167 | 0.026333 | 0.017333 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 7 |
A2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
A3 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 3 |
A4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 4 |
A5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
A6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AV | 3.83 | 3.17 | 3.17 | 7.00 | 6.83 | 6.83 | 6.50 | 6.83 | 5.67 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.23 |
A2 | 0.74 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
A3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.00 |
A4 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
A5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.41 |
A6 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
Alternatives/Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
A2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
A3 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.47 |
A4 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.00 | 0.29 |
A5 | 0.83 | 0.58 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
Alternatives | SP | SN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.31 | 0.01 |
A2 | 0.50 | 0.04 |
A3 | 0.04 | 0.41 |
A4 | 0.10 | 0.04 |
A5 | 0.03 | 0.53 |
A6 | 0.10 | 0.05 |
Alternatives | NSP | NSN |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.62 | 0.98 |
A2 | 1.00 | 0.93 |
A3 | 0.08 | 0.23 |
A4 | 0.20 | 0.93 |
A5 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
A6 | 0.19 | 0.91 |
Alternatives | AS | Ranking |
---|---|---|
A1 | 0.80 | 2 |
A2 | 0.97 | 1 |
A3 | 0.15 | 5 |
A4 | 0.56 | 3 |
A5 | 0.03 | 6 |
A6 | 0.55 | 4 |
Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario 1 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 |
Scenario 2 | 0.11638 | 0.09869 | 0.06999 | 0.03729 | 0.26952 | 0.20916 | 0.02279 | 0.15723 | 0.01895 |
Scenario 3 | 0.11638 | 0.09869 | 0.26952 | 0.06999 | 0.03729 | 0.02279 | 0.20916 | 0.01895 | 0.15723 |
Scenario 4 | 0.15723 | 0.26952 | 0.11638 | 0.20916 | 0.09869 | 0.06999 | 0.03729 | 0.02279 | 0.01895 |
Alternative | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Delivery Person Perspective | A1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
A2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
A3 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | |
A4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
A5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | |
A6 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Transport Company Perspective | A1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
A2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
A3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | |
A4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
A5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | |
A6 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
Customer Perspective | A1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
A2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
A3 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | |
A4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
A5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
A6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Local Authorities’ Perspective | A1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
A2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
A3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
A4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
A5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
A6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
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. |
© 2025 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
Maravić, A.; Pajić, V.; Andrejić, M. A Holistic Human-Based Approach to Last-Mile Delivery: Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Logistics Strategies. Logistics 2025, 9, 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040135
Maravić A, Pajić V, Andrejić M. A Holistic Human-Based Approach to Last-Mile Delivery: Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Logistics Strategies. Logistics. 2025; 9(4):135. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040135
Chicago/Turabian StyleMaravić, Aleksa, Vukašin Pajić, and Milan Andrejić. 2025. "A Holistic Human-Based Approach to Last-Mile Delivery: Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Logistics Strategies" Logistics 9, no. 4: 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040135
APA StyleMaravić, A., Pajić, V., & Andrejić, M. (2025). A Holistic Human-Based Approach to Last-Mile Delivery: Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Logistics Strategies. Logistics, 9(4), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040135