An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Customers’ Intentions to Switch to Smart Lockers as a Trending Last-Mile Logistics Channel
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
2.2. Technology of Acceptance Model Theory (TAM)
3. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development
3.1. The Mediating Role of Attitude Factor of the Theory of Planned Behavior in the Relationship Between Technology of Acceptance Model and Customer Switching Intention
3.2. The Mediating Role of Perceived Behavioral Control Factor of the Theory of Planned Behavior on the Influence of Convenience and Privacy on Customer Switching Intention
3.3. The Developed Conceptual Framework
4. Sample and Data Collection
4.1. Sample Characteristics
4.2. Research Scales
4.3. Pilot Study Testing
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Analysis
5.2. Validity and Reliability Assessments
5.3. Hypotheses Testing
- H1: Perceived Ease of Use of smart lockers has a positive effect on customers’ attitude. Since the p-value is (0.000), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.248), a positive value, the hypothesis path PEU -> ATT will be accepted (Supported).
- H2: Perceived Ease of Use of smart lockers has a positive effect on switching intention. Since the p-value is (0.016), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.130), a positive value, the hypothesis path PEU -> SI will be accepted (Supported).
- H3: Perceived Usefulness of using smart lockers has a positive effect on customers’ attitude. Since the p-value is (0.000), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.651), a positive value, the hypothesis path PU -> ATT will be accepted (Supported).
- H4: Perceived Usefulness of smart lockers has a positive effect on switching intention. Since the p-value is (0.000), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.262), a positive value, the hypothesis path PU -> SI will be accepted (Supported).
- H5: A positive attitude toward smart lockers significantly and positively influences customers’ intention to switch to sustainable last-mile delivery options utilizing smart lockers. Since the p-value is (0.471), which is greater than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.048), a low positive value, the hypothesis path ATT -> SI will be rejected (Not Supported), and this effect will be statistically negligible.
- H6: The effect of Perceived Ease of Use on switching intention is positively mediated by customers’ attitude. Since the p-value is (0.496), which is greater than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.012), a low positive value, the hypothesis path PEU -> ATT -> SI will be rejected (Not supported), and this effect will be statistically negligible.
- H7: The effect of Perceived Usefulness on switching intention is positively mediated by customers’ attitude. Since p-value is (0.474), which is greater than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.032), a low positive value, the hypothesis path PU -> ATT -> SI will be rejected (Not supported), and this effect will be statistically negligible.
- H8: The convenience of smart lockers has a positive effect on customers’ Perceived Behavioral Control. Since the p-value is (0.000), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.816), a positive value, the hypothesis path CON -> PBC will be accepted (Supported).
- H9: The convenience of smart lockers has a positive effect on switching intention. Since the p-value is (0.001), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and (0.198), a positive value, the hypothesis path CON -> SI will be accepted (Supported).
- H10: Privacy positively affects customers’ Perceived Behavioral Control. Since the p-value is (0.015), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.086), a positive value, the hypothesis path PRI -> PBC will be accepted (Supported).
- H11: Privacy of smart lockers has a positive effect on switching intention. Since the p-value is (0.001), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and (0.076), a positive value, the hypothesis path PRI -> SI will be accepted (Supported).
- H12: Perceived Behavioral Control regarding smart lockers significantly and positively influences customers’ intention to switch to sustainable last-mile delivery options that utilize them. Since the p-value is (0.000), which is less than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.274), a positive value, the hypothesis path PBC -> SI will be accepted (Supported).
- H13: The effect of Convenience on switching intention is positively mediated by customers’ Perceived Behavioral Control. Since p-value is (0.000), which is lower than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.223), a positive value, the hypothesis path CON -> PBC -> SI will be accepted (supported).
- H14: The effect of Privacy on switching intention is positively mediated by customers’ Perceived Behavioral Control. Since the p-value is (0.058), which is greater than the sig level of 0.05, and the coefficient value is (0.023), a low positive value, the hypothesis path PRI -> PBC -> SI will be rejected (Not supported), and this effect will be statistically negligible.
6. Discussion and Analysis
7. Conclusions and Further Research
7.1. Conclusion and Findings
7.2. Academic Implications
7.3. Managerial Implications
7.4. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| SEM | Structural Equation Modeling |
| TPB | Theory of Planned Behavior |
| TAM | Technology od Acceptance Model Theory |
| TRA | Theory of Reasoned Action |
| ICT | Information and Communication Technology |
| PU | Perceived Usefulness |
| PEU | Perceived Ease of Use |
| ATT | Attitude |
| CON | Convenience |
| PRI | Privacy |
| PBC | Perceived Behavioral Control |
| SI | Switching Intention |
Appendix A. Scale Constructs
| Variables | Measurement Items | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude (Mediating) | Paying for an eco-friendly delivery is a responsibility. | [39] |
| Paying for an eco-friendly delivery is pro-environmental behavior. | ||
| Paying for an eco-friendly delivery is very positive. | ||
| Using smart lockers is interesting. | ||
| Perceived Ease of Use (IV) | Using Parcel Locker would not require much mental effort. | [49,89] |
| Learning to use the parcel locker would be easy for me. | ||
| I will find it easy to receive packages from delivery lockers | ||
| I can use delivery lockers and receive packages if someone shows me or gives in-structions on how to do it first | ||
| Perceived Usefulness (IV) | Using the parcel locker would make it easier to pick up the package. | [49,105] |
| Using the parcel locker would improve my online shopping experience. | ||
| Overall, using the parcel locker is an advantageous | ||
| Smart lockers can help provide faster deliveries. | ||
| Delivery lockers can provide greater flexibility in delivery hours | ||
| Delivery lockers can reduce the delivery cost by eliminating the human component in the process | ||
| Delivery lockers can have external benefits, such as a reduction in truck traffic in urban areas and associated air pollution | ||
| Perceived Behav-ioral Control (Mediating) | Users feel that using Smart Locker helps to pick up goods quickly at any time. | [41,42] |
| Users are confident in using smart lockers as an eco-friendly delivery rather than a regular delivery. | ||
| Users feel that using Smart Locker has a positive impact on the environment and society. | ||
| I am confident that I can protect the environment by purchasing products online via green delivery | ||
| Users find the pick-up experience with Smart Locker more enjoyable. | ||
| Convenience (IV) | Using smart lockers allows me to collect parcels at my convenience. | [39,41] |
| Smart lockers allocate sufficient time for me to collect my parcels. | ||
| I feel that my interaction with smart lockers does not require a lot of effort | ||
| The location of the smart lockers will influence my choice of pick-up | ||
| Privacy (IV) | Using smart lockers can keep my personal information confidential. | [39,41] |
| Using smart lockers does not lead to a loss of privacy for me because my personal information would be treated confidentially. | ||
| I feel my information is safe when using smart lockers. | ||
| I can control my personal information when using smart lockers. | ||
| Switching Intention (DV) | I intend to use smart lockers to receive parcels for my next online purchase. | [41] |
| I will prefer using smart lockers for my orders whenever the option is available | ||
| I would recommend smart lockers to my friends. | ||
| I would say positive things about smart lockers to my friends. |
References
- Li, T. A SWOT analysis of China’s air cargo sector in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2020, 88, 101875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sigala, M. Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, J.; Diao, Z.; Zanini, M.T. Business-to-business marketing responses to COVID-19 crisis: A business process perspective. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Ryu, J.S.; Fortenberry, S.; Warrington, P. Understanding omnichannel shopping behaviors: Incorporating channel integration into the theory of reasoned action. J. Consum. Sci. 2023, 8, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haddad, S.S.; Nasib, N.F. The role of online platforms in enhancing logistics activity performance: Case study—Salla platform: KSA. In Cases on International Business Logistics in the Middle East; Abdelbary, I., Haddad, S., Elkady, G., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 186–203. [Google Scholar]
- Qian, X.; Shen, L.; Wang, Y.; Lin, J.; Jin, Z.; Ge, Y.; Haddad, S.S.G. Stability Analysis of Maritime Logistics Alliance based on Blockchain. Transp. Policy 2025, 163, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Sultan, M.; Kramberger, T.; Barakat, M.; Ali, A. Barriers to Applying Last-Mile Logistics in the Egyptian Market: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tongkachok, K.; Elkady, G.; Haddad, S. Effective role of artificial intelligence and chatbots in marketing strategies for decision making for online customers. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2022, 20, 1150–1165. [Google Scholar]
- Alharbi, A.; Cantarelli, C.; Brint, A. Crowd Models for Last Mile Delivery in an Emerging Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccato, R.; Gastaldi, M. Last mile distribution using cargo bikes: A simulation study in padova. Eur. Transp.-Trasp. Eur. 2023, 90, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahr, M. Determining locations and layouts for parcel lockers to support supply chain viability at the last mile. Omega 2022, 113, 102721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Lemke, J. Analysis of Parcel Lockers’ Efficiency as the Last Mile Delivery Solution—The Results of the Research in Poland. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 644–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quan, N.H.; Binh, N.T.; Ly, B.T. Impact of smart locker use on customer satisfaction of online shoppers in Vietnam. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ranjbari, A.; Diehl, C.; Chiara, G.D.; Goodchild, A. Do parcel lockers reduce delivery times? Evidence from the field. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2023, 172, 103070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haddad, S.; Kamal, S. Enhancing the downstream supply chain of Egyptian national companies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Management and Industrial Engineering (ICMIE), Bucharest, Romania, 14–16 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Roszak, M.; Sawik, B.; Stańdo, J.; Baum, E. E-Learning as a Factor Optimizing the Amount of Work Time Devoted to Preparing an Exam for Medical Program Students during the COVID-19 Epidemic Situation. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, J.; Osman, M.C.; Hellström, D.; Vakulenko, Y. Customer expectations of unattended grocery delivery services: Mapping forms and determinants. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2021, 50, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macioszek, E. First and Last Mile Delivery—Problems and Issues. In Transport Systems Theory and Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 147–154. [Google Scholar]
- Vyt, D.; Jara, M.; Mevel, O.; Morvan, T.; Morvan, N. The impact of convenience in a click and collect retail setting: A consum-er-based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 248, 108491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, D.H.; de Leeuw, S.; Dullaert, W.; Foubert, B.P.J. What is the right delivery option for you? Consumer preferences for delivery attributes in online retailing. J. Bus. Logist. 2019, 40, 299–321. [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]
- Mangano, G.; Zenezini, G. The Value Proposition of innovative Last mile delivery services from the perspective of local re-tailers. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2019, 52, 2590–2595. [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. 2017, 61, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konstantakopoulos, G.D.; Gayialis, S.; Kechagias, E. Vehicle routing problem and related algorithms for logistics distribution: A literature review and classification. Oper. Res. 2022, 22, 2033–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewedairo, K.; Chhetri, P.; Jie, F. Estimating transportation network impedance to last-mile delivery a case study of Maribyrnong City in melbourne. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 110–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ITF. Urban Logistics Hubs: Summary and Conclusions (ITF Roundtable Reports); OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Behnke, M. Recent Trends in Last Mile Delivery: Impacts of Fast Fulfillment, Parcel Lockers, Electric or Autonomous Vehicles, and More. In Logistics Management; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 141–156. [Google Scholar]
- Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Ng, L.; Wong, Y. An investigation of customers’ intention to use self-collection services for last-mile delivery. Transp. Policy 2018, 66, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosca, E.; Rusca, F.V.; Rosca, M.; Rusca, A. Performance Analysis of Automated Parcel Lockers in Urban Delivery: Combined Agent-Based–Monte Carlo Simulation Approach. Logistics 2024, 8, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asdecker, B. Building the E-Commerce Supply Chain of the Future: What Influences Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Places of Delivery on the Last-Mile. Logistics 2021, 5, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, M.; Zhao, L.; Kong, N.; Campy, K.; Xu, G.; Zhu, G.; Cao, X.; Wang, S. Understanding consumers’ behavior to adopt self-service parcel services for last-mile delivery. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tommasetti, A.; Singer, P.; Troisi, O.; Maione, G. Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (ETPB): Investigating Customers’ Perception of Restaurants’ Sustainability by Testing a Structural Equation Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, B.; Taylor, D.; Strick, S. Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on willingness to purchase. Int. J. Wine Res. 2009, 1, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Modi, A. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.; Anderson, D.; Dunne, M.; Nguyen, H. Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Health Professionals’ Attitudes toward Identification of Female Victims of Domestic Violence. Health 2015, 7, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, C.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsai, Y.-T.; Tiwasing, P. Customers’ Intention to Adopt Smart Lockers in Last-Mile Delivery Service: A Multi-Theory Perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Chen, M. Consumers’ Adopt Intention for Contactless Delivery during COVID-19: An Extended Perspective on The Theory of Planned Behavior. SHS Web Conf. 2023, 155, 03008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Ma, F.; Wong, Y.D. The determinants of customers’ intention to use smart lockers for last-mile deliveries. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 49, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kader, M.S.; Rashaduzzaman, M.; Huang, X.; Kim, S. Influencing factors toward e-shoppers’ adoption of green last-mile delivery. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2022, 51, 220–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hua, L.; Wang, S. Antecedents of Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Energy-Efficient Appliances: An Empirical Study Based on the Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Park, E.; Kwon, S.; del Pobil, A.P. Antecedents of Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Telecommunication Services: Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Technology Acceptance. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11345–11359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitrea, I.; Zenezini, G.; De Marco, A.; Ottaviani, F.M.; Delmastro, T.; Botta, C. Estimating e-Consumers’ Attitude Towards Parcel Locker Usage. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual International Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2020), Virtual, 13–17 August 2020; pp. 1731–1736. [Google Scholar]
- Granic, A. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2014, 13, 457–471. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, V.; Amaral, A.; Fontes, T. Sustainable Urban Last-Mile Logistics: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, P.; Popp, B. Last-Mile Delivery Methods in E-Commerce: Does Perceived Sustainability Matter for Consumer Acceptance and Usage? Sustainability 2022, 14, 16437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dayal, E.; Khuntia, L.; Lakshay, L.; Buldeo Rai, H.; Pani, A. Behavioral intention to use parcel lockers in the last mile and underlying linkages with travel modal choice. Res. Transp. Econ. 2025, 111, 101568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Jiang, S.; Liu, B.; Li, X.; Yuan, X. Research on Antecedents of Residents’ Willingness to Cooperate in Urban Regeneration Projects: Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) Model. Buildings 2022, 12, 1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, T. A Literature Review on The Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022, 12, 2859–2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F.; Wong, Y.D.; Teo, C.C. An innovation diffusion perspective of e-consumers’ initial adoption of self-collection service via automated parcel station. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 237–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gundu, T. Smart Locker System Acceptance for Rural Last-Mile Delivery. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Multidisciplinary Information Technology and Engineering Conference (IMITEC), Kimberley, South Africa, 25–27 November 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Johar, M.G.M.; Awalluddin, J.A.A. The role of technology acceptance model in explaining effect on e-commerce application system. Int. J. Manag. Inf. Technol. (IJMIT) 2011, 3, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.-M.; Lin, H.-Y.; Sun, S.-Y.; Hsu, M.-H. Understanding customers’ loyalty intentions towards online shopping: An integration of technology acceptance model and fairness theory. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2009, 28, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathieson, K. Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christina, Y.; Yasa, N. Application of theory of planned behavior to study online booking behavior. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2021, 5, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Chen, M. Predicting Online Shopping Intention: The Theory of Planned Behavior and Live E-Commerce. SHS Web Conf. 2023, 155, 02008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, S.K.; Shekhar, V.; Lassar, W.M.; Chen, T. Customer engagement behaviors: The role of service convenience, fairness and quality. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 44, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Z.; Morimoto, T.; Murayama, Y. Optimal Location Analysis of Delivery Parcel-Pickup Points Using AHP and Network Huff Model: A Case Study of Shiweitang Sub-District in Guangzhou City, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontaine, P.; Minner, S.; Schiffer, M. Smart and sustainable city logistics: Design, consolidation, and regulation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2023, 307, 1071–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akeb, H.; Moncef, B.; Durand, B. Building a collaborative solution in dense urban city settings to enhance parcel delivery: An effective crowd model in Paris. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 119, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barua, R.S.; Rigotti, N.A.; Benowitz, N.L.; Cummings, K.M.; Jazayeri, M.A.; Morris, P.B.; Ratchford, E.V.; Sarna, L.; Stecker, E.C.; Wiggins, B.S. 2018 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Tobacco Cessation Treatment: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. JACC 2018, 72, 3332–3365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Lin, X.; Wu, L.; Zhang, W. Effective Multi-Query Expansions: Collaborative Deep Networks for Robust Landmark Retrieval. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2017, 26, 1393–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özkara, B.; Ozmen, M.; Kim, J. Exploring the relationship between information satisfaction and flow in the context of consumers’ online search. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 844–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidwell, B.; Jewell, R. An Examination of Perceived Behavioral Control: Internal and External Influences on Intention. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyet, N.; Nguyen, T.; Chung, T.; Manh, N.; Nguyen, H.; Thuy, T.; Nguyen, C.; Hung, M. Customer switching intention from home delivery to smart locker delivery: Evidence from Vietnam. Innov. Mark. 2024, 20, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosnjak, M.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. The Theory of Planned Behavior: Selected Recent Advances and Applications. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 352–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alharahsheh, H.; Pius, A. A Review of key paradigms: Positivism vs. interpretivism. Int. J. Manag. Inf. Technol. 2019, 2, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, A.H.; Elrouby, H.; Haddad, S. The Role of Continuous Improvement Process in Optimizing the Warehouse Operations: A Case study on a German Automotive Company. J. Logist. Inf. Serv. Sci. 2022, 9, 169–196. [Google Scholar]
- Dawadi, S.; Shrestha, S.; Giri, R.A. Mixed-Methods Research: A Discussion on its Types, Challenges, and Criticisms. J. Stud. Educ. 2021, 2, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaprak, Ü.; Kılıç, F.; Okumus, A. Is the COVID-19 Pandemic Strong Enough to Change the Online Order Delivery Methods? Changes in the Relationship Between Attitude and Behavior Towards Order Delivery by Drone. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 169, 120829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKim, C.A. The value of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2015, 11, 202–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammouti, B.; Aichouch, I.; Kachbou, Y.; Azzaoui, K.; Touzani, R. Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on UMI using Scopus database and VOS viewer from 1987–2024. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2025, 16, 548–561. [Google Scholar]
- Haddad, S. The status of leather supply chain in Egypt: An exploratory study for the INNOLEA project. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Materials and Systems (ICAMS), Bucharest, Romania, 18–20 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Militaru, G.; Barbu, A.; Deselnicu, D.C.; Haddad, S. An Overview of The Existing Gap Between The Romanian University Educational Offers Focused On Entrepreneurship And The Maritime Cruise Industry. Int. Bus. Logist. 2023, 3, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degtiar, I.; Rose, S. A Review of Generalizability and Transportability. Annu. Rev. Stat. Its Appl. 2022, 10, 501–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekaran, U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Business Approach; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ahlers, L.A.; Simon, K.B.; Toth, K.E.; Wark, K.C. Online data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic: An examination of opportunities and challenges. J. Res. Pract. 2021, 17, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
- Reips, U.-D. Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Exp. Psychol. 2002, 49, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bless, H.; Fiedler, K. Mood and the regulation of information processing and behavior. In Hearts and Minds: Affective Influences on Social Cognition and Behaviour; Psychology Press: East Sussex, UK, 2006; pp. 65–84. [Google Scholar]
- Edelsbrunner, P.; Simonsmeier, B.; Schneider, M. The Reliability, But Not the Cronbach’s Alpha, of Knowledge Tests Matters: Response to Zitzmann and Orona (2025). Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2025, 37, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbera, J.; Naibert, N.; Komperda, R.; Pentecost, T. Clarity on Cronbach’s Alpha Use. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 1779–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.; Ray, S.; St, C. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Stein, C.; Morris, N.; Nock, N. Structural Equation Modeling. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012, 850, 495–512. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, B.; Brown, T.; Onsman, A. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australas. J. Paramed. 2010, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaleb, M.; Yaslioglu, M. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for Social and Behavioral Sciences Studies: Steps, Sequence and Explanation. J. Bus. Manag. Econ. Res. 2024, 6, 69–108. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Haddad, S.S.; El-Desouky, Z.I.; Ahmed, A.S.; Negi, S. The impact of COVID-19 on the pharmaceutical supply chain in Egypt: The case of Pharco Group. In Cases on International Business Logistics in the Middle East; Abdelbary, I., Haddad, S., Elkady, G., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 92–109. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Siahaan, E.; Amalia Fachrudin, K.; Sibarani, M.; Muda, I. Evaluating customer perceived value of housing based on location factor and economic value. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2019, 17, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njoku, A.; Mouloudj, K.; Bouarar, A.C.; Evans, M.A.; Asanza, D.M.; Mouloudj, S.; Bouarar, A. Intentions to Create Green Start-Ups for Collection of Unwanted Drugs: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Erokhin, V.; Mouloudj, K.; Bouarar, A.C.; Mouloudj, S.; Gao, T. Investigating Farmers’ Intentions to Reduce Water Waste through Water-Smart Farming Technologies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kock, N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment is a simple remedy. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 3, 394–405. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rucker, D.D.; Preacher, K.J.; Tormala, B.L.; Petty, R.E. Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Soc. Personal Psychol. Compass 2011, 5, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cioc, M.M.; Popa, Ș.C.; Olariu, A.A.; Popa, C.F.; Nica, C.-B. Behavioral Intentions to Use Energy Efficiency Smart Solutions under the Impact of Social Influence: An Extended TAM Approach. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nitzl, C. The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development. J. Account. Lit. 2016, 37, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Chen, M.; Yu, S. Factors Influencing Consumer Willingness to Use AI-Driven Autonomous Taxis. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- An, H.S.; Park, A.; Song, J.M.; Chung, C. Consumers’ adoption of parcel locker service: Protection and technology perspectives. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2144096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

| Control Variables | Criteria | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 18–24 | 123 | 24% |
| 25–34 | 89 | 17.3% | |
| 35–44 | 172 | 33.5% | |
| 45–54 | 110 | 21.4% | |
| 55–64 | 19 | 3.7% | |
| Gender | Female | 305 | 59.5% |
| Male | 208 | 40.5% | |
| Occupation Status | Student | 111 | 21.6% |
| Employed | 330 | 64.3% | |
| Unemployed | 27 | 5.3% | |
| Housewife | 43 | 8.4% | |
| Other | 2 | 0.4% | |
| City | Alexandria | 395 | 77% |
| Cairo | 100 | 19.4% | |
| Giza | 8 | 1.6% | |
| Other | 10 | 1.95% | |
| The frequency of online shopping per month | 1–2 times | 130 | 25.3% |
| 3–5 times | 172 | 33.5% | |
| 6–10 times | 139 | 27.1% | |
| More than 10 times | 60 | 11.8% | |
| Not an online shopper | 12 | 2.3% | |
| Failed attempts from March to August, 2025 | 0 | 307 | 59.84% |
| 1–2 times | 149 | 29% | |
| 3–4 times | 32 | 6.23% | |
| 5 or more times | 15 | 2.92% | |
| Not an online shopper | 10 | 1.94% | |
| The experience of online purchase, in-store pickup | Yes, I have purchased online and received products physically | 302 | 58.9% |
| No, I have never purchased online | 15 | 2.9% | |
| I have purchased online, but did not receive the product physically | 196 | 38.2% | |
| Preferred products for smart locker pickup | Clothing and fashion items | 207 | 40.4% |
| Electronics | 114 | 22.2% | |
| Books, media, and stationery | 36 | 7% | |
| Health and beauty products | 119 | 23.2% | |
| Groceries or packaged food | 35 | 6.8% | |
| Other | 2 | 0.38% | |
| E-commerce delivery choice | Yes, I would prefer smart lockers | 315 | 61.4% |
| No, I would prefer traditional home delivery | 21 | 4.1% | |
| I have no preference/Both are fine | 168 | 32.7% | |
| I am not sure | 9 | 1.8% | |
| Preferred Location for Smart Lockers | Near my home | 333 | 64.9% |
| Near my workplace or university | 51 | 9.9% | |
| Inside shopping malls | 75 | 14.6% | |
| At supermarkets or grocery stores | 31 | 6% | |
| At gas stations | 23 | 4.5% |
| Constructs/Items | Factor Loadings | KMO | Bartlett’s Test p-Value | Cronbach Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Ease of Use | 0.817 | 0.000 | 0.868 | |
| PEU1 | 0.824 | |||
| PEU2 | 0.870 | |||
| PEU3 | 0.865 | |||
| PEU4 | 0.830 | |||
| Perceived Usefulness | 0.895 | 0.000 | 0.920 | |
| PU1 | 0.808 | |||
| PU2 | 0.786 | |||
| PU3 | 0.889 | |||
| PU4 | 0.814 | |||
| PU5 | 0.869 | |||
| PU6 | 0.723 | |||
| PU7 | 0.863 | |||
| Attitude | 0.829 | 0.000 | 0.907 | |
| ATT1 | 0.851 | |||
| ATT2 | 0.931 | |||
| ATT3 | 0.915 | |||
| ATT4 | 0.847 | |||
| Convenience | 0.734 | 0.000 | 0.801 | |
| CON1 | 0.857 | |||
| CON2 | 0.842 | |||
| CON3 | 0.774 | |||
| CON4 | 0.699 | |||
| Privacy | 0.825 | 0.000 | 0.916 | |
| PRI1 | 0.858 | |||
| PRI2 | 0.943 | |||
| PRI3 | 0.908 | |||
| PRI4 | 0.868 | |||
| Perceived Behavioral Control | 0.828 | 0.000 | 0.905 | |
| PBC1 | 0.903 | |||
| PBC2 | 0.896 | |||
| PBC3 | 0.912 | |||
| PBC4 | 0.873 | |||
| PBC5 | 0.687 | |||
| Switching Intention | 0.726 | 0.000 | 0.913 | |
| SI1 | 0.868 | |||
| SI2 | 0.888 | |||
| SI3 | 0.933 | |||
| SI4 | 0.882 |
| Constructs | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived Ease of Use | 0.848 | 0.898 |
| Perceived Usefulness | 0.916 | 0.933 |
| Attitude | 0.897 | 0.928 |
| Convenience | 0.812 | 0.888 |
| Privacy | 0.923 | 0.945 |
| Perceived Behavioral Control | 0.914 | 0.936 |
| Switching Intention | 0.892 | 0.925 |
| Item-Total Statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | Scale Mean if Item Deleted | Scale Variance if Item Deleted | Corrected Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted |
| PEU1 | 129.100 | 456.695 | 0.744 | 0.976 |
| PEU2 | 128.893 | 453.975 | 0.790 | 0.976 |
| PEU3 | 129.073 | 454.498 | 0.719 | 0.976 |
| PEU4 | 128.760 | 458.976 | 0.737 | 0.976 |
| PU1 | 129.093 | 456.421 | 0.735 | 0.976 |
| PU2 | 129.040 | 454.911 | 0.751 | 0.976 |
| PU3 | 128.847 | 451.996 | 0.810 | 0.976 |
| PU4 | 128.813 | 458.260 | 0.707 | 0.976 |
| PU5 | 128.760 | 455.177 | 0.779 | 0.976 |
| PU6 | 128.860 | 458.161 | 0.685 | 0.976 |
| PU7 | 128.747 | 453.949 | 0.783 | 0.976 |
| ATT1 | 128.900 | 454.909 | 0.733 | 0.976 |
| ATT2 | 128.720 | 456.404 | 0.796 | 0.976 |
| ATT3 | 128.787 | 455.458 | 0.777 | 0.976 |
| ATT4 | 128.747 | 456.110 | 0.809 | 0.976 |
| CON1 | 128.887 | 457.725 | 0.794 | 0.976 |
| CON2 | 128.827 | 454.909 | 0.823 | 0.976 |
| CON3 | 129.027 | 462.550 | 0.587 | 0.977 |
| CON4 | 129.087 | 464.979 | 0.515 | 0.977 |
| PRI1 | 129.053 | 458.829 | 0.661 | 0.977 |
| PRI2 | 129.093 | 456.058 | 0.771 | 0.976 |
| PRI3 | 129.060 | 458.164 | 0.705 | 0.976 |
| PRI4 | 129.140 | 456.457 | 0.733 | 0.976 |
| PBC1 | 128.773 | 456.525 | 0.780 | 0.976 |
| PBC2 | 128.800 | 456.349 | 0.762 | 0.976 |
| PBC3 | 128.793 | 454.863 | 0.831 | 0.976 |
| PBC4 | 128.753 | 456.952 | 0.743 | 0.976 |
| PBC5 | 129.120 | 456.442 | 0.690 | 0.976 |
| SI1 | 129.020 | 456.114 | 0.775 | 0.976 |
| SI2 | 129.107 | 455.385 | 0.756 | 0.976 |
| SI3 | 128.953 | 456.689 | 0.828 | 0.976 |
| SI4 | 128.847 | 455.822 | 0.819 | 0.976 |
| Items | Factor Loadings | AVE |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived Ease of Use | ||
| PEU1 | 0.835 | 0.687 |
| PEU2 | 0.853 | |
| PEU3 | 0.772 | |
| PEU4 | 0.854 | |
| Perceived Usefulness | ||
| PU1 | 0.723 | 0.667 |
| PU2 | 0.795 | |
| PU3 | 0.875 | |
| PU4 | 0.833 | |
| PU5 | 0.841 | |
| PU6 | 0.790 | |
| PU7 | 0.848 | |
| Attitude | ||
| ATT1 | 0.848 | 0.764 |
| ATT2 | 0.897 | |
| ATT3 | 0.896 | |
| ATT4 | 0.854 | |
| Convenience | ||
| CON1 | 0.896 | 0.728 |
| CON2 | 0.894 | |
| CON3 | 0.762 | |
| Privacy | ||
| PRI1 | 0.873 | 0.812 |
| PRI2 | 0.922 | |
| PRI3 | 0.907 | |
| PRI4 | 0.901 | |
| Perceived Behavioral Control | ||
| PBC1 | 0.878 | 0.745 |
| PBC2 | 0.887 | |
| PBC3 | 0.899 | |
| PBC4 | 0.874 | |
| PBC5 | 0.772 | |
| Switching Intention | ||
| SI1 | 0.868 | 0.757 |
| SI2 | 0.819 | |
| SI3 | 0.910 | |
| SI4 | 0.880 | |
| Items | Estimated Model |
|---|---|
| Chi-square | 1632.063 |
| Number of observations | 513.000 |
| Degrees of freedom | 413.000 |
| p value | 0.000 |
| ChiSqr/df | 3.952 |
| RMSEA | 0.076 |
| RMSEA LOW 90% CI | 0.072 |
| RMSEA HIGH 90% CI | 0.080 |
| GFI | 0.797 |
| AGFI | 0.756 |
| SRMR | 0.043 |
| NFI | 0.892 |
| TLI | 0.907 |
| CFI | 0.917 |
| Items | VIF | Items | VIF | Items | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT1 | 2.246 | PEU1 | 1.934 | PU1 | 1.904 |
| ATT2 | 2.895 | PEU2 | 2.074 | PU2 | 2.271 |
| ATT3 | 2.897 | PEU3 | 1.635 | PU3 | 3.173 |
| ATT4 | 2.234 | PEU4 | 2.098 | PU4 | 2.524 |
| CON1 | 2.267 | PRI1 | 2.686 | PU5 | 2.724 |
| CON2 | 2.219 | PRI2 | 3.804 | PU6 | 2.092 |
| CON3 | 1.462 | PRI3 | 3.275 | PU7 | 2.819 |
| PBC1 | 2.873 | PRI4 | 3.204 | ||
| PBC2 | 3.180 | SI1 | 2.356 | ||
| PBC3 | 3.404 | SI2 | 2.007 | ||
| PBC4 | 2.910 | SI3 | 3.256 | ||
| PBC5 | 1.727 | SI4 | 2.724 |
| Paths | VIF |
|---|---|
| ATT -> SI | 5.504 |
| CON -> PBC | 1.416 |
| CON -> SI | 5.031 |
| PBC -> SI | 5.970 |
| PEU -> ATT | 4.167 |
| PEU -> SI | 4.719 |
| PRI -> PBC | 1.416 |
| PRI -> SI | 1.491 |
| PU -> ATT | 4.167 |
| PU -> SI | 6.828 |
| ATT | CON | PBC | PEU | PRI | PU | SI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | |||||||
| CON | 0.948 | ||||||
| PBC | 0.960 | 0.992 | |||||
| PEU | 0.930 | 0.974 | 0.922 | ||||
| PRI | 0.583 | 0.626 | 0.574 | 0.597 | |||
| PU | 0.955 | 0.978 | 0.928 | 0.989 | 0.596 | ||
| SI | 0.914 | 0.984 | 0.945 | 0.943 | 0.624 | 0.949 |
| Hypotheses | Paths | Coefficient | T Statistics | p-Values | Type of Path | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | PEU -> ATT | 0.248 | 3.487 | 0.000 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H2 | PEU -> SI | 0.130 | 2.405 | 0.016 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H3 | PU -> ATT | 0.651 | 8.998 | 0.000 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H4 | PU -> SI | 0.262 | 3.924 | 0.000 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H5 | ATT -> SI | 0.048 | 0.722 | 0.471 | Direct | Not Supported/Rejected |
| H6 | PEU -> ATT -> SI | 0.012 | 0.681 | 0.496 | Indirect | Not Supported/Rejected |
| H7 | PU -> ATT -> SI | 0.032 | 0.716 | 0.474 | Indirect | Not Supported/Rejected |
| H8 | CON -> PBC | 0.816 | 27.714 | 0.000 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H9 | CON -> SI | 0.198 | 3.200 | 0.001 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H10 | PRI -> PBC | 0.086 | 2.435 | 0.015 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H11 | PRI -> SI | 0.076 | 3.232 | 0.001 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H12 | PBC -> SI | 0.274 | 3.632 | 0.000 | Direct | Supported/Accepted |
| H13 | CON -> PBC -> SI | 0.223 | 3.620 | 0.000 | Indirect | Supported/Accepted |
| H14 | PRI -> PBC -> SI | 0.023 | 1.896 | 0.058 | Indirect | Not Supported/Rejected |
| Paths | Coefficient | T Statistics | p-Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| age -> SI | −0.012 | 0.511 | 0.609 |
| ATT -> SI | 0.053 | 0.783 | 0.433 |
| CON -> PBC | 0.822 | 27.269 | 0.000 |
| CON -> SI | 0.170 | 2.615 | 0.009 |
| gender -> SI | 0.028 | 0.693 | 0.488 |
| PBC -> SI | 0.290 | 3.817 | 0.000 |
| PEU -> ATT | 0.248 | 3.486 | 0.000 |
| PEU -> SI | 0.138 | 2.556 | 0.011 |
| PRI -> PBC | 0.069 | 1.987 | 0.047 |
| PRI -> SI | 0.071 | 2.996 | 0.003 |
| PU -> ATT | 0.651 | 8.998 | 0.000 |
| PU -> SI | 0.269 | 4.020 | 0.000 |
| CON -> PBC -> SI | 0.238 | 3.786 | 0.000 |
| PRI -> PBC -> SI | 0.020 | 1.660 | 0.097 |
| PEU -> ATT -> SI | 0.013 | 0.739 | 0.460 |
| PU -> ATT -> SI | 0.034 | 0.777 | 0.437 |
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
ElSemary, M.; Eman, N.; Deselnicu, D.C.; Haddad, S.S.G. An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Customers’ Intentions to Switch to Smart Lockers as a Trending Last-Mile Logistics Channel. Logistics 2025, 9, 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040177
ElSemary M, Eman N, Deselnicu DC, Haddad SSG. An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Customers’ Intentions to Switch to Smart Lockers as a Trending Last-Mile Logistics Channel. Logistics. 2025; 9(4):177. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040177
Chicago/Turabian StyleElSemary, Mona, Nada Eman, Dana Corina Deselnicu, and Sandra Samy George Haddad. 2025. "An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Customers’ Intentions to Switch to Smart Lockers as a Trending Last-Mile Logistics Channel" Logistics 9, no. 4: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040177
APA StyleElSemary, M., Eman, N., Deselnicu, D. C., & Haddad, S. S. G. (2025). An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Customers’ Intentions to Switch to Smart Lockers as a Trending Last-Mile Logistics Channel. Logistics, 9(4), 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9040177

