Next Article in Journal
Collaborative Optimization of Storage Location Assignment and Path Planning in Robotic Mobile Fulfillment Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
Data-Driven Public R&D Project Performance Evaluation: Results from China
Previous Article in Journal
Trilemma of Nordic–Baltic Forestry—How to Implement UN Sustainable Development Goals
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/su13105642
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Conceptual Model Based on the Activity System and Transportation System for Sustainable Urban Freight Transport

by
Demostenis Ramos Cassiano
1,*,
Bruno Vieira Bertoncini
1 and
Leise Kelli de Oliveira
2
1
Postgraduate Program in Transport Engineering, Transport, Traffic and Environment Research Group, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza 60455-760, Brazil
2
Department of Transportation and Geotechnical Engineering, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-010, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(10), 5642; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105642
Submission received: 30 March 2021 / Revised: 13 May 2021 / Accepted: 14 May 2021 / Published: 18 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Urban Freight Transport, City Logistics and Transportation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban freight transport (UFT) is simultaneously responsible for maintaining the urban lifestyle and the negative externalities impacting urban areas, necessitating strategies that promote sustainable urban freight transport (SUFT). In addition, the stakeholders and geographic factors involved in UFT impose specific concerns in the planning and operation stages of SUFT. Therefore, this paper proposes a model addressing sustainable last-mile delivery considering the relationship between the activity system, transportation system, and stakeholders involved in UFT. Based on the literature review, we identified UFT planning procedures to achieve SUFT. In a cyclical process, these procedures were considered on the proposed model, integrating freight transport planning with urban planning to develop SUFT and, consequently, sustainable cities.

1. Introduction

The importance of urban freight transport (UFT) to maintain the daily lives of city residents contrasts with the negative externalities of this system [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Considering this importance, UFT has been the object of studies by academics, technicians, and managers. The complexity of UFT is driven by factors such as technological, geographical, and cultural features, as well as the diversity of products, aggregation units, vehicle types, and stakeholders’ objectives and needs [3,4,7,8,9,10].
The growing volume of goods transported increases transport network use by freight vehicles [11,12], negatively impacting the urban environment. The reduction of these externalities and the improvement of mobility and quality of life make the inclusion of UFT in city strategic management necessary [13,14]. However, this inclusion has challenges, mainly related to stakeholders’ knowledge about the UFT phenomenon. Stakeholders know their own objectives; however, the interaction of their objectives with the objectives of other stakeholders is unknown. We assumed that understanding the relationship between UFT, the activity system, and the transportation system could improve the knowledge about the UFT phenomenon, creating a cooperative and collaborative environment involving all stakeholders to achieve SUFT. Therefore, the understanding of the UFT phenomenon still presents a research gap.
UFT is a dynamic phenomenon with specificities linked to characteristics, such as geographical and cultural factors. UFT dynamism is mainly related to economic and operational factors integrated into technological development (e.g., an intelligent transportation system). Geographic and cultural factors contribute to scenarios associated with UFT. In this way, business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) relationships are beyond UFT solutions [6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
Some of the externalities arising from the UFT operation are congestion, pollution—visual, noise, and air—decreased road safety, and infrastructure damage. Recently, the literature has focused on UFT solutions to mitigate externalities [1,2,3,4,5,22,23,24,25]. However, the UFT solution depends on understanding the phenomenon and an approach that covers its specificities.
UFT problems are intrinsically contained in the relationship between its operation and the city, represented by the relation between the urban activity system (AS) and the transportation system (TS). Understanding the UFT phenomenon drives the following research question: How are the urban AS and TS related to UFT?
In general, UFT literature focuses on vehicular routing to reduce delivery costs. However, in recent years, SUFT, the influence of the urban environment, and concern about the growth of e-commerce have become important in the literature. In this context, this paper presents a conceptual model addressing SUFT, considering the relationship among the AS, TS, and stakeholders involved in UFT to develop a holistic view of sustainable cities. The conceptual model was based on the literature identifying planning procedures for developing SUFT. The innovation is related to the integration of UFT planning in urban planning to develop sustainable cities. Understanding the UFT phenomenon from the relationship between AS and TS allows us to minimize the problems arising from the growing demands of stakeholders, including the operational innovations in the transport sector, and makes the sustainable urban planning process more efficient.
The conceptual approach contributes to improving the stakeholders’ knowledge about UFT, its externalities, challenges, and opportunities for a sustainable future, promoting a collaborative and participative environment for all stakeholders.
This paper has six sections, including the introduction. Section 2 describes the research method based on the literature review. The literature review to identify the evolution from city logistics measures to SUFT is presented in Section 3, showing the planning procedure and its interaction. Section 4 introduces and discusses the conceptual model. Section 5 discusses the advantages and limitations of the model presented in Section 4, and Section 6 shows the practical implications of the conceptual model and presents conclusions.

2. Research Method

The research method was based on a literature review to answer how the urban AS and TS relate to UFT. We used Google Scholar as a database and the following set of keywords (urban planning, last-mile deliveries, urban logistics, city logistics, UFT, sustainable logistics, and SUFT) to identify the current state of knowledge about UFT planning and how the literature relates UFT, AS, and TS.
We identified the main stages for proposing the UFT planning procedure from reading the articles and systematizing the knowledge. In addition, we associated a cyclical process among the stages of the planning procedure, creating the relationship between planning procedures. Finally, we distinguished how UFT is related to the AS and TS to propose a conceptual model that integrates both, including stakeholders’ objectives.

3. From City Logistics to SUFT—A Literature Review

City logistics seek to mitigate the UFT externalities by considering the concept of sustainable development [26]. In this sense, environmental, social, and economic development become objectives for SUFT. UFT complexity is the result of the goals and requirements of its stakeholders. UFT’s externalities result from its unbalanced consumption of resources caused by a lack of UFT planning and SUFT operation [2,3,4,5].
City logistics are measures to improve UFT efficiency, respond to customer demands, and reduce UFT externalities. [27,28]. To achieve SUFT, those involved in UFT planning need to (1) understand UFT by making a diagnosis of the local situation; (2) identify the stakeholders and their goals, (3) identify operational solutions addressed to UFT-related environmental impacts, (4) identify technological solutions and (5) last-mile solutions,(6) model these measures to evaluate their impacts, (7) propose a business model to enhance the operational, economic, and social feasibility, and, finally, (8) implement an urban freight public policy based on the results of this procedure. These steps are presented in Table 1.
Understanding UFT is the first city logistics procedure. The recognition of the UFT process allows for identifying gaps and related measures; for this, data is essential. According to Campagna et al. [35], the lack of data for a diagnosis of freight flows is one of the main obstacles to UFT planning, operational efficiency, and achieving SUFT. For Pattier and Routhier [80], the goods movements obtained from the establishment of driver surveys could describe the city’s vehicle flow. Allen et al. [81] presented the most common survey techniques, including stakeholders’ surveys. Oliveira [82] proposed a framework with UFT data. With technological advancements, floating car data became typical to identify delivery routes’ [8]. In addition, UFT diagnosis could be obtained from GPS data [83], mobile applications [84], and big data [85], among others. Allen et al. [86] pointed out the main gaps in the data collection, such as vehicle activity, supply chain, freight and logistics infrastructure, loading and unloading operations, and the data about non-road modes.
The identification of stakeholders and their relationships is considered in procedure 2. In this way, recognizing the stakeholders’ heterogeneity is a meaningful way to include them in all stages of the planning process by sharing a continuous flow of information and preserving the specifics of their perceptions. Alho et al. [10] analyzed the stakeholders’ heterogeneity and proposed a framework to represent the UFT phenomenon and its interactions in all stages of the planning process by sharing a continuous flow of information. The stakeholders’ perceptions of freight policies were analyzed by Amaya et al. [37] in two Colombian cities. Considering carriers, receivers, and citizens, the authors showed a unique perspective from some solutions in a geographical area and a diverse perspective in other geographical locations, showing the importance of geographical attributes for city logistics measures. Oliveira and Oliveira [39] analyzed the perception of carriers, retailers, residents, and public managers for city logistics solutions in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. In general, carriers and local authorities had similar perceptions, while the retailers had opposite points of view. The residents had a positive perception, while the solution implied mobility improvements.
Procedures 3 through 5 address city logistics measures. Procedure 3 focuses on operational solutions, such as off-peak delivery, off-night delivery, and unloading bays, to reduce environmental impacts [2]. The operational solutions improve freight mobility and reduce delivery time and emissions [87,88,89]. Unloading bays are the most common solution for SUFT [90], contributing to improved mobility [91]. Establishment data could support unloading bay analysis [91], while operational tests could show off-peak delivery or off-night delivery benefits.
Procedure 4 focuses on technological solutions based on the intelligent transportation system (ITS). The ITS provides real-time information to support vehicle routing and scheduling procedures [92] and vehicle movements [93]. The ITS classification in freight transport was shown in Gattuso and Pellicano [94], while Crainic et al. [16] evaluated freight ITS. Małeckia et al. [51] showed that ITS could contribute to mitigating UFT-related environmental impacts. ITS, information and communication technology, the internet of things, big data, and artificial intelligence could contribute to SUFT [49]. Technological solutions, such as parcel boxes, delivery boxes, collection and delivery points, or lockers related to last-mile deliveries, have been developed in recent years. Electric vehicles and autonomous driving vehicles also add to the technological solutions, an essential step to SUFT [53].
Procedure 5 considers last-mile solutions. The growth of e-commerce has directly affected the evolution of last-mile deliveries, mainly home deliveries. Dispersed urban deliveries increase the environmental impact, challenging the logistical process of companies for deliveries within a short time window. Pickup points, parcel lockers, click-and-collect systems, or the collection and delivery points [95] are solutions that are becoming necessary to reduce last-mile delivery times in urban densified areas. Janjevic and Winkenbach [60] proposed a framework that characterized the last-mile solution, showing the variables influencing the last-mile strategy’s choice. Oliveira et al. [95] presented a theoretical basis concerning the collection and delivery points and evaluated the importance of accessibility to these points to reduce home delivery times. The last-mile solution addressing the HORECA (hotellerie-restaurant-café) sector is essential for optimizing the logistics operation [62]. Literature concerning last-mile deliveries is vast and considers on-demand deliveries [38,58,59,96], electric vehicles [63,64,65,66,67,97,98], and cargo bicycles [64,65,66,68,99].
On-demand deliveries are increasing with digital platforms, which require instant deliveries [100]. Bjørgen et al. [58] evaluated the impacts of e-grocery shopping and how city municipalities integrate urbanization and digitalization in sustainable urban planning to improve freight mobility. Founded on the sharing economy, crowd logistics is another last-mile solution related to on-demand deliveries [96]. Rai et al. [96] identified crowd logistics initiatives and the respective stakeholders involved. Many on-demand deliveries could negatively impact fuel consumption and emissions due to the vehicle type used [31,101]. While electric vehicles reduce fuel consumption and emissions, cargo bicycles reduce travel time and emissions [99,102]. The cargo bicycle is a simple and cheap last-mile solution, while electric vehicles have challenges such as battery life, a sustainable energy source, and vehicle cost [63].
Since the UFT problems have been characterized, the modeling is essential to evaluate the local context’s impacts. Procedure 6 considers UFT modeling. Most of the literature brings some approach addressed to measure UFT impacts and evaluate freight policies. As an essential part of the UFT planning process, the modeling needs to support ex ante assessment of freight policies considering the planning horizon and all stakeholders. Most UFT modeling approaches focus on freight demand [7], delivery routes [8], and ex ante evaluation [72,103]. Considering the stakeholders, Kaszubowski [104] proposed a method for local authorities to evaluate UFT. Comi et al. [7] proposed a methodology-based four-step model considering land use transport interaction (LUTI) and AS. Since UFT is dynamic, the four-step method cannot identify this dynamism, despite LUTI and AS inclusion. For this reason, the holistic view is essential for UFT modeling, mainly in the evaluation of city logistics measures.
Procedure 7 deals with a business model, i.e., how the company can create, deliver, and capture financial, social, cultural, and environmental value [18]. Quak et al. [20] discussed the business factors for city logistics measures by analyzing the business model for the Bentobox. For Björklund et al. [19], the business model related to UFT is complex due to business factors and social factors. Still, the complexity of UFT does not allow for the design of a standard business model, which depends on the city’s characteristics.
To identify the feasibility of the solution, procedure 8 focuses on urban freight public policies, which consider all planning steps to propose freight policies evaluated by indicators to verify the achievement of the goals proposed. A public policy effectively addresses common problems identified in a participatory process [105]. Policymakers seek to balance UFT efficiency and environmental sustainability, but the conflicting objectives of stakeholders bring more complexity to this process [106]. Paddeu and Aditjandra [107] proposed a participatory approach to identify problems and related solutions in an engaging and easy process to develop public policies. As the measures depend on and change with the local characteristics, the freight policies need to be adapted to represent reality.
The understanding of planning procedures leads to a cyclical process, and its execution contributes to the development of UFT public policies, as presented in Figure 1.
Public policies must consider solutions with positive urban mobility impacts (from the perspective of public authorities) while contributing to new businesses (from the private sector’s perspective). Thus, the planning process must be results-oriented and monitored by indicators in a continuous monitoring and evaluation process to enhance sustainable freight mobility. However, the inclusion of UFT in public policies is a challenge for public authorities. A conceptual model to support knowledge about the UFT and its relation to the AS and TS could mitigate the challenges related to interactions among stakeholders and UFT’s objectives. This conceptual model is proposed in the next section.

4. A Conceptual Model for Sustainable Urban Freight Transport

Figure 2 presents the conceptual model for SUFT based on the AS and TS relationship in an urban area and its consequent impacts on UFT. UFT occurs in urban areas, which include AS and TS. The operation of UFT is influenced by environmental, economic, and social factors measured and evaluated by indicators. In addition, the impact measures (e.g., fuel consumption, tax, and travel time, among others) affect stakeholders’ opinions, which shift the operation to enhance the indicators’ improvements and, consequently, achieves SUFT and contributes to sustainable cities.
The relationship among AS, TS, impact measures, and stakeholders could promote SUFT. The impact measures are a way to quantify the effects of UFT on the urban environment and are directly related to the stakeholder’s objectives. For example, an e-consumer buys a product. This purchase takes place in the AS. The purchase generates a freight trip, which occurs in the TS, represented by the cargo flow. The cargo flow generates information flow, which will allow estimating the impact measures. Considering the impact measures, the stakeholders define strategies to achieve SUFT. These strategies change the AS and TS, influencing the UFT operation and, consequently, the impact measures. The impact measures are evaluated by indicators, as explained hereinafter. The impact measures allow for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the SUFT policies. The inclusion of new technologies and innovative solutions, such as crowd logistics [21,59,96], electric vehicles [55,57,63], and autonomous guided vehicles (AGV) [49,52,54], change the last-mile operation and have the potential to accelerate the benefits of SUFT.

4.1. Urban Area

The last-mile deliveries occur in urban areas. Retailers or individual consumers make a request that generates a demand on the AS and TS. According to Lopes et al. [108], the activities that occur in the city are essential for location decisions and mobility patterns.
Among the concepts for the AS in urban areas, Coppola and Nuzzolo [109] define it as a social and economic pipeline. Additionally, Arentze and Timmermans [110] describe the AS as personal needs or desires distributed in time and space. Thus, it is natural to understand that the AS includes those directly related to UFT, such as the shops [31,109,111]. However, e-commerce brings another virtual side for the AS, creating a direct link for the e-consumers. Therefore, the system activities are composed of the traditional retailers and e-consumers, requiring freight demand and freight trip demand in an urban freight system. The requirements of conventional retailers and e-consumers are different concerning time, area, and consumer relations, bringing complexity to the last-mile delivery.
The TS comprises products, transportation modes, and the transportation infrastructure, which allows freight mobility [112] to supply the freight demand and freight trip demand [113]. In particular, the transportation infrastructure system could improve UFT [3,114,115,116].
Freight demand is related to the AS. Freight trip demand is associated with the TS. Freight mobility and freight accessibility occur in the TS. Freight mobility is the way to move products to their final destination (retailers or e-consumers). Freight accessibility is a critical issue to achieve the final destination, and it depends on the availability of unloading bays and street connections.
In a simplified way, retailers or e-consumers request freight demand in an AS. Freight demand requires freight trip demand, which will occur in the TS. Freight mobility and freight accessibility could provide efficient last-mile delivery. However, e-commerce brings complexity to last-mile delivery [29,58,95] due to sparse deliveries in a geographic region. In addition, the delivery cost, delivery time, product availability, and travel distance, among others, could influence customer shopping behavior (traditional retailer or e-commerce). This cargo flow is directly affected by the desires of UFT stakeholders, as presented in the following subsection.

4.2. Stakeholders

The main stakeholders involved in UFT are those who request, dispatch, transport, and receive [23,31,117,118,119]. Table 2 details these stakeholders, their function, and objectives.
The UFT challenges are related to identifying the stakeholders and the relationships between them [120]. The harmony among the stakeholders becomes essential for the development of sustainability in the cities. The freight quality partnership (FQP) is one way for local authorities to include stakeholders in the discussion to develop sustainable freight solutions, enhancing the identification of success factors to satisfy stakeholders’ needs [121,122]. Kijewska and Jedliński [122] proposed the pyramid of stakeholders, which divides stakeholders into three groups: residents (demand for goods), businesses (market response for the order), and local authorities (responsible for implementing city logistics measures). An FQP involving these groups could enhance the maturity and durability of SUFT projects [122]. Lindholm [121] presented the way to establish FQP, considering the Gothenburg case. Bjørgen et al. [123] showed the criteria to ensure the stakeholders’ participation in a collaborative process.

4.3. Impact Measures

UFT planning needs to include the UFT impacts [124,125], which are crucial for evaluating the achievements of SUFT [62,119,120,126,127].
The most negative environmental impacts from UFT come from emissions and ineffective energy consumption [128,129,130,131]. The economic impacts are related to distribution cost [101], vehicle type [30], and infrastructure conditions [3]. The social impacts are related to traffic accidents [132].
Indicators could measure these impacts to evaluate the improvements in SUFT measures. The continuous evaluation identifies potential problems in SUFT measures for redesigning and correcting these problems. The involvement of stakeholders is crucial in this process.

5. Discussion

The proposed conceptual model seeks to holistically represent the relationship between UFT, AS, and TS, including the stakeholders’ objectives. Understanding the relationships among stakeholders focuses on one of the main difficulties in public and private urban planning efforts and in developing public policies due to the conflicting relationships among stakeholders.
A conceptual model may initially appear complex and without functionality. However, conceptual models summarize a system and provide an understanding of that system. In this case, the conceptual model brings knowledge about the UFT phenomenon, promoting a collaborative and participative environment for all stakeholders. Before thinking about technological innovations, it is essential to understand how cargo is generated, moves, and is connected with the city.
The conceptual model does not consider technological innovations since they can change the urban mobility pattern. Thus, providing knowledge about the current status quo of UFT is the primary purpose of this conceptual model. Solutions or measures to reduce environmental, economic, and social impacts need to be measured constantly by indicators, while also evaluating the impacts on stakeholders’ objectives. A results-oriented planning process integrating all stakeholders allows assessing each measure’s ability to change paradigms, operations, and behaviors.
The limitation to implementing the conceptual model is related to the multidisciplinary team, including all stakeholders. However, as stated by Russo and Comi [133], sustainability depends on monitoring and controlling all steps and costs involved in UFT operation. Thus, it is necessary to develop a governance environment addressing public and private interests [134] in promoting SUFT. In this way, the AS influences (and is influenced by) consumer behavior, which generates freight flows. TS transports the freight flows. As this process occurs many times each day, it is a cyclical and dynamic process that impacts the urban environment for many purposes. Understanding this phenomenon allows us to recognize that the cargo is not isolated in the transport system but is part of the population’s wishes and needs. Planning the freight transportation system includes understanding the behavior of stakeholders, their objectives, and thier future perspectives for the development of a sustainable world.

6. Practical Implications and Conclusions

The idea that UFT is fundamental to economic development and maintaining the urban lifestyle is widespread and contributes to the increase in congestion, accidents, and the emission of pollutants.
The purpose of this paper was to propose a conceptual model to plan UFT using a holistic view. This holistic approach makes clear the relationship between the AS and TS infrastructure (e.g., proximity to arterial roads, logistical corridors, and ports), land use characteristics (e.g., land costs and land use), sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., population density and number of workers), and protagonism of the stakeholders.
The UFT planning based on this holistic view supports urban planning at an operational, tactical, and strategic level. In addition, the stakeholders’ information contributes to collaborative UFT planning, balancing the stakeholders’ needs and UFT impacts. The spatial characteristics of the urban area could be a data source for the planning process. In addition to supporting UFT planning, the holistic approach encourages the participation by public managers and inspires a closer relationship with companies to promote SUFT through public policies and, consequently, to promote a sustainable future for cities.
For future works, we suggest proposing indicators to measure UFT impacts for an ongoing planning process. In addition, we suggest the evaluation of the proposed conceptual model through a case study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.R.C. and B.V.B.; methodology, D.R.C. and B.V.B.; validation, B.V.B. and L.K.d.O.; formal analysis, D.R.C.; investigation, D.R.C.; data curation, D.R.C.; writing—Original draft preparation, D.R.C.; writing—Review and editing, D.R.C., B.V.B. and L.K.d.O.; supervision, B.V.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, grant number 306629/2018-6; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, grant number 430082/2018-5; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, grant number 303171/2020-0, and the APC was funded by Universidade Federal do Ceará and Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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]
  2. De Oliveira, L.K.; Matos, B.A.; Dablanc, L.; Ribeiro, K.; Isa, S.S. Distribuição Urbana de Mercadorias e Planos de Mobilidade de Carga: Oportunidades para Municípios Brasileiros; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Holguín-Veras, J.; Leal, J.A.; Sánchez-Diaz, I.; Browne, M.; Wojtowicz, J. State of the art and practice of urban freight management. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 137, 360–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Holguín-Veras, J.; Leal, J.A.; Sanchez-Diaz, I.; Browne, M.; Wojtowicz, J. State of the art and practice of urban freight management Part II: Financial approaches, logistics, and demand management. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 137, 383–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lindholm, M.; Behrends, S. Challenges in urban freight transport planning—A review in the Baltic Sea Region. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 22, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ogden, K.W. Urban Goods Movement: A Guide to Policy and Planning; Ashgate Publishing Limited: Farnham, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  7. Comi, A.; Site, P.D.; Filippi, F.; Nuzzolo, A. Urban freight transport demand modelling: A state of the art. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2012, 51, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nuzzolo, A.; Comi, A.; Polimeni, A. Urban Freight Vehicle Flows: An Analysis of Freight Delivery Patterns through Floating Car Data. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 47, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Macharis, C.; Kin, B. The 4 A’s of Sustainable City Distribution: Innovative Solutions and Challenges ahead. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 11, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alho, A.; Bhavathrathan, B.; Stinson, M.; Gopalakrishnan, R.; Le, D.-T.; Ben-Akiva, M. A multi-scale agent-based modelling framework for urban freight distribution. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 27, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Muñoz-Villamizar, A.; Santos, J.; Montoya-Torres, J.R.; Velázquez-Martínez, J.C. Measuring environmental performance of urban freight transport systems: A case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nenni, M.E.; Sforza, A.; Sterle, C. Sustainability-based review of urban freight models. Soft Comput. 2019, 23, 2899–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kiba-Janiak, M. EU cities’ potentials for formulation and implementation of sustainable urban freight transport strategic plans. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. 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, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Feliu, J.G.; Ambrosini, C.; Routhier, J.L. New trends on urban goods movement: Modelling and simulation of e-commerce distribution. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2012, 50, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  16. Crainic, T.G.; Gendreau, M.; Potvin, J.-Y. Intelligent freight-transportation systems: Assessment and the contribution of operations research. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2009, 17, 541–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McKinnon, A.; Browne, M.; Piecyk, M.; Whiteing, A. Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W. Sustainable Business Models: A Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Björklund, 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]
  20. Quak, H.; Balm, S.; Posthumus, B. Evaluation of City Logistics Solutions with Business Model Analysis. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. 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]
  22. De Bakshi, N.; Tiwari, G.; Bolia, N.B. Influence of urban form on urban freight trip generation. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2020, 8, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Coulombel, N.; Dablanc, L.; Gardrat, M.; Koning, M. The environmental social cost of urban road freight: Evidence from the Paris region. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 63, 514–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Quak, H.; Lindholm, M.; Tavasszy, L.; Browne, M. From Freight Partnerships to City Logistics Living Labs–Giving Meaning to the Elusive Concept of Living Labs. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Anand, N.; Yang, M.; van Duin, J.; Tavasszy, L. GenCLOn: An ontology for city logistics. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 11944–11960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Anand, N.; Quak, H.; van Duin, R.; Tavasszy, L. City Logistics Modeling Efforts: Trends and Gaps—A Review. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Rodrigue, J.P. The Geography of Transport Systems; Routledge: New York, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. Taniguchi, E.; Thompson, R.G.; Yamada, T.; van Duin, R. City Logistics: Network Modelling and Intelligent Transport Systems; Emerald, Inc.: Bingley, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Allen, J.; Browne, M.W.; Cherrett, T. Investigating relationships between road freight transport, facility location, logistics management and urban form. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rai, H.B.; Van Lier, T.; Meers, D.; Macharis, C. An indicator approach to sustainable urban freight transport. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemak. Urban Sustain. 2017, 11, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cherrett, T.; Allen, J.; McLeod, F.; Maynard, S.; Hickford, A.; Browne, M. Understanding urban freight activity–key issues for freight planning. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Lindholm, M. A sustainable perspective on urban freight transport: Factors affecting local authorities in the planning procedures. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6205–6216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. McLeod, S.; Schapper, J.H.; Curtis, C.; Graham, G. Conceptualizing freight generation for transport and land use planning: A review and synthesis of the literature. Transp. Policy 2019, 74, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Campagna, A.; Stathacopoulos, A.; Persia, L.; Xenou, E. Data collection framework for understanding UFT within city logistics solutions. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 24, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lagorio, A.; Pinto, R.; Golini, R. Urban Logistics Ecosystem: A system of system framework for stakeholders in urban freight transport projects. IFAC PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 7284–7289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amaya, J.; Arellana, J.; Delgado-Lindeman, M. Stakeholders perceptions to sustainable urban freight policies in emerging markets. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 132, 329–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rai, H.B.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. Shipping outside the box. Environmental impact and stakeholder analysis of a crowd logistics platform in Belgium. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. de Oliveira, G.F.; de Oliveira, L.K. Stakeholder’s Perceptions of City Logistics: An Exploratory Study in Brazil. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Site, P.D.; 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]
  41. Van Rooijen, T.; Quak, H. City Logistics in the European CIVITAS Initiative. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Björklund, M.; Johansson, H. Urban consolidation centre—A literature review, categorisation, and a future research agenda. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018, 48, 745–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Browne, M.; Allen, J.; Nemoto, T.; Patier, D.; Visser, J. Reducing Social and Environmental Impacts of Urban Freight Transport: A Review of Some Major Cities. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Daniela, P.; Paolo, F.; Gianfranco, F.; Graham, P.; Miriam, R. Reduced Urban Traffic and Emissions within Urban Consolidation Centre Schemes: The Case of Bristol. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 3, 508–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Correia, V.D.A.; de Oliveira, L.K.; Guerra, A.L. Economical and Environmental Analysis of an Urban Consolidation Center for Belo Horizonte City (Brazil). Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 770–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Muñuzuri, J.; Larrañeta, J.; Onieva, L.; Cortés, P. Solutions applicable by local administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities 2005, 22, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Szmelter-Jarosz, A.; Rześny-Cieplińska, J. Priorities of Urban Transport System Stakeholders According to Crowd Logistics Solutions in City Areas. A Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 12, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Quak, H. Urban Freight Transport: The Challenge of Sustainability. In City Distribution and Urban Freight Transport: Multiple Perspectives; Macharis, C., Melo, S., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2011; pp. 37–55. [Google Scholar]
  49. Taniguchi, E.; Thompson, R.G.; Qureshi, A.G. Modelling city logistics using recent innovative technologies. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 46, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Huang, Y.; Ng, E.C.; Zhou, J.L.; Surawski, N.; Chan, E.F.; Hong, G. Eco-driving technology for sustainable road transport: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 596–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Małecki, K.; Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K. Influence of Intelligent Transportation Systems on Reduction of the Environmental Negative Impact of Urban Freight Transport Based on Szczecin Example. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Masood, K.; Zoppi, M.; Fremont, V.; Molfino, R. From Drive-by-Wire to Autonomous Vehicle: Urban Freight Vehicle Perspectives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pan, S.; Zhou, W.; Piramuthu, S.; Giannikas, V.; Chen, C. Smart city for sustainable urban freight logistics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 2079–2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Acheampong, R.A.; Cugurullo, F.; Gueriau, M.; Dusparic, I. Can autonomous vehicles enable sustainable mobility in future cities? Insights and policy challenges from user preferences over different urban transport options. Cities 2021, 112, 103134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Napoli, G.; Micari, S.; Dispenza, G.; Andaloro, L.; Antonucci, V.; Polimeni, A. Freight distribution with electric vehicles: A case study in Sicily. RES, infrastructures and vehicle routing. Transp. Eng. 2021, 3, 100047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Martins-Turner, K.; Grahle, A.; Nagel, K.; Göhlich, D. Electrification of Urban Freight Transport–a Case Study of the Food Retailing Industry. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 170, 757–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ewert, R.; Martins-Turner, K.; Thaller, C.; Nagel, K. Using a Route-based and Vehicle Type specific Range Constraint for Improving Vehicle Routing Problems with Electric Vehicles. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 52, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bjørgen, A.; Bjerkan, K.Y.; Hjelkrem, O.A. E-groceries: Sustainable last mile distribution in city planning. Res. Transp. Econ. 2019, 100805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dupljanin, D.; Mirkovic, M.; Dumnic, S.; Culibrk, D.; Milisavljevic, S.; Sarac, D. Urban Crowdsourced Last Mile Delivery: Mode of Transport Effects on Fleet Performance. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2019, 18, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Janjevic, M.; Winkenbach, M. Characterizing urban last-mile distribution strategies in mature and emerging e-commerce markets. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 133, 164–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Montecinos, J.; Ouhimmou, M.; Chauhan, S.; Paquet, M.; Gharbi, A. Transport carriers’ cooperation on the last-mile delivery in urban areas. Transportation 2020, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pronello, C.; Camusso, C.; Valentina, R. Last mile freight distribution and transport operators’ needs: Which targets and challenges? Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 888–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Baek, K.; Lee, H.; Chung, J.-H.; Kim, J. Electric scooter sharing: How do people value it as a last-mile transportation mode? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 90, 102642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bruzzone, F.; Cavallaro, F.; Nocera, S. The integration of passenger and freight transport for first-last mile operations. Transp. Policy 2021, 100, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Halldórsson, Á.; Wehner, J. Last-mile logistics fulfilment: A framework for energy efficiency. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2020, 37, 100481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chee, P.N.E.; Susilo, Y.O.; Wong, Y.D. Determinants of intention-to-use first-/last-mile automated bus service. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 139, 350–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Simoni, M.D.; Kutanoglu, E.; Claudel, C.G. Optimization and analysis of a robot-assisted last mile delivery system. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 142, 102049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stelwagen, R.E.; Slegers, P.M.; de Schutter, L.; van Leeuwen, E.S. A bottom-up approach to model the environmental impact of the last-mile in an urban food-system. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 958–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Venter, C.J. Measuring the quality of the first/last mile connection to public transport. Res. Transp. Econ. 2020, 83, 100949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. van Duin, J.; de Goffau, W.; Wiegmans, B.; Tavasszy, L.; Saes, M. Improving Home Delivery Efficiency by Using Principles of Address Intelligence for B2C Deliveries. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Danielis, R.; Rotaris, L.; Marcucci, E. Urban freight policies and distribution channels. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2010, 46, 114–146. [Google Scholar]
  72. Russo, F.; Comi, A. Urban Freight Transport Planning towards Green Goals: Synthetic Environmental Evidence from Tested Results. Sustainability 2016, 8, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Benjelloun, A.; Crainic, T.G.; Bigras, Y. Towards a taxonomy of City Logistics projects. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 6217–6228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Macário, R.; Galelo, A.; Martins, P.M. Business models in urban logistics. Ing. Desarro. 2008, 24, 77–96. [Google Scholar]
  75. Stathopoulos, A.; Valeri, E.; Marcucci, E. Stakeholder reactions to urban freight policy innovation. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 22, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Akgün, E.Z.; Monios, J.; Rye, T.; Fonzone, A. Influences on urban freight transport policy choice by local authorities. Transp. Policy 2019, 75, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Barnes, J.; Hayes, E.; Chatterton, T.; Longhurst, J. Policy disconnect: A critical review of UK air quality policy in relation to EU and LAQM responsibilities over the last 20 years. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 85, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Slovic, A.D.; Ribeiro, H. Policy instruments surrounding urban air quality: The cases of São Paulo, New York City and Paris. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 81, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhang, M.; Sun, M.; Bi, D.; Liu, T. Green Logistics Development Decision-Making: Factor Identification and Hierarchical Framework Construction. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 127897–127912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Patier, D.; Routhier, J.-L. How to Improve the Capture of Urban Goods Movement Data? In Transport Survey Methods: Keeping Up with a Changing World; Bonnel, P., Lee-Gosselin, M., Zmud, J., Madre, J.-L., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 251–287. [Google Scholar]
  81. Allen, J.; Browne, M.; Cherrett, T. Survey Techniques in Urban Freight Transport Studies. Transp. Rev. 2012, 32, 287–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. De Oliveira, L.K. Diagnóstico das vagas de carga e descarga para a distribuição urbana de mercadorias: Um estudo de caso em Belo Horizonte. J. Transp. Lit. 2014, 8, 178–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pluvinet, P.; González-Feliu, J.; Ambrosini, C. GPS Data Analysis for Understanding Urban Goods Movement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Kim, H.; Boyle, L.N.; Goodchild, A. A Mobile Application for Collecting Task Time Data for Value Stream Mapping of the Final 50 Feet of Urban Goods Delivery Processes. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2018, 62, 1808–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhao, P.; Liu, X.; Shi, W.; Jia, T.; Li, W.; Chen, M. An empirical study on the intra-urban goods movement patterns using logistics big data. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2018, 34, 1089–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Allen, J.; Ambrosini, C.; Browne, M.; Patier, D.; Routhier, J.-L.; Woodburn, A. Data Collection for Understanding Urban Goods Movement. In Happy City—How to Plan and Create the Best Livable Area for the People; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 71–89. [Google Scholar]
  87. Mousavi, K.; Khan, S.; Saiyed, S.; Amirjamshidi, G.; Roorda, M. Pilot Off-Peak Delivery Program in the Region of Peel. Sustainability 2020, 13, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Fu, J.; Jenelius, E. Transport efficiency of off-peak urban goods deliveries: A Stockholm pilot study. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2018, 6, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Holguín-Veras, J.; Ozbay, K.; Kornhauser, A.; Brom, M.A.; Iyer, S.; Yushimito, W.F.; Ukkusuri, S.; Allen, B.; Silas, M.A. Overall Impacts of Off-Hour Delivery Programs in New York City Metropolitan Area. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2011, 2238, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Johansen, B.G.; Eidhammer, O.; Małecki, K.; Konicki, W.; Thompson, R.G. Analysis of the environmental impacts of unloading bays based on cellular automata simulation. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alho, A.R.; Silva, J.D.A.E.; de Sousa, J.P.; Blanco, E. Improving mobility by optimizing the number, location and usage of loading/unloading bays for urban freight vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Taniguchi, E.; Shimamoto, H. Intelligent transportation system based dynamic vehicle routing and scheduling with variable travel times. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2004, 12, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hadavi, S.; Verlinde, S.; Verbeke, W.; Macharis, C.; Guns, T. Monitoring Urban-Freight Transport Based on GPS Trajectories of Heavy-Goods Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2018, 20, 3747–3758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gattuso, D.; Pellicanò, D.S. Advanced Methodological Researches Concerning ITS in Freight Transport. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 994–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. De Oliveira, L.K.; De Oliveira, R.L.M.; De Sousa, L.T.M.; Caliari, I.D.P.; Nascimento, C.D.O.L. Analysis of accessibility from collection and delivery points: Towards the sustainability of the e-commerce delivery. Urbe Rev. Bras. Gestão Urbana 2019, 11, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Rai, H.B.; Verlinde, S.; Merckx, J.; Macharis, C. Can the Crowd Deliver? Analysis of Crowd Logistics’ Types and Stakeholder Support. In City Logistics 3; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 89–108. [Google Scholar]
  97. Mirhedayatian, S.M.; Yan, S. A framework to evaluate policy options for supporting electric vehicles in urban freight transport. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 58, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Kijewski, D. Possibilities of Applying Electrically Powered Vehicles in Urban Freight Transport. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Conway, A.; Cheng, J.; Kamga, C.; Wan, D. Cargo cycles for local delivery in New York City: Performance and impacts. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2017, 24, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Dablanc, L.; Morganti, E.; Arvidsson, N.; Woxenius, J.; Browne, M.; Saidi, N. The rise of on-demand ‘Instant Deliveries’ in European cities. Supply Chain Forum: Int. J. 2017, 18, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Lin, J.; Zhou, W.; Du, L. Is on-demand same day package delivery service green? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 118–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Melo, S.; Baptista, P. Evaluating the impacts of using cargo cycles on urban logistics: Integrating traffic, environmental and operational boundaries. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2017, 9, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Gonzalez-Feliu, J. Costs and benefits of logistics pooling for urban freight distribution: Scenario simulation and assessment for strategic decision support. In Proceedings of the Seminario CREI, Rome, Italy, 24–25 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
  104. Kaszubowski, D. A Method for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Transport Models as a Tool for Improving the Delivery of Sustainable Urban Transport Policy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. de Oliveira, L.K.; França, J.G.d.C.B.; Nascimento, C.D.O.L.; de Oliveira, I.K.; Meira, L.H.; Rabay, L. Evaluating problems and measures for a sustainable urban freight transport in Brazilian historical cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 69, 102806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Le Pira, M.; Chao, T.; Li, S. Bricks or clicks? Consumer channel choice and its transport and environmental implications for the grocery market in Norway. Cities 2021, 110, 103046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Paddeu, D.; Aditjandra, P. Shaping Urban Freight Systems via a Participatory Approach to Inform Policy-Making. Sustainability 2020, 12, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Lopes, A.S.; Loureiro, C.F.G.; Van Wee, B. LUTI operational models review based on the proposition of an a priori ALUTI conceptual model. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 204–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Coppola, P.; Nuzzolo, A. Changing accessibility, dwelling price and the spatial distribution of socio-economic activities. Res. Transp. Econ. 2011, 31, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Arentze, T.A.; Timmermans, H.J. A need-based model of multi-day, multi-person activity generation. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2009, 43, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Comi, A. A modelling framework to forecast urban goods flows. Res. Transp. Econ. 2020, 80, 100827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ortuzar, J.D.; Willumsen, L.G. Modelling Transport; Willey: New Delhi, India, 2011; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  113. Cascetta, E. Transportation Systems Analysis: Models and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  114. Alho, A.R.; Silva, J.D.A.E. Analyzing the relation between land-use/urban freight operations and the need for dedicated infrastructure/enforcement–Application to the city of Lisbon. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 11, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Fuggini, C.; Bolletta, F. Identification of indicators, metrics and level of service for the resilience of transport critical infrastructure. Int. J. Sustain. Mater. Struct. Syst. 2020, 4, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Pokorny, P.; Drescher, J.; Pitera, K.; Jonsson, T. Accidents between freight vehicles and bicycles, with a focus on urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 999–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Behrends, S. Recent Developments in Urban Logistics Research–A Review of the Proceedings of the International Conference on City Logistics 2009–2013. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Lindholm, M. Urban freight transport from a local authority perspective—A literature review. Eur. Transp. Trasp. Eur. 2013, 54, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  119. Pisoni, E.; Christidis, P.; Thunis, P.; Trombetti, M. Evaluating the impact of “Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans” on urban background air quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kin, B.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. Sustainable urban freight transport in megacities in emerging markets. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 32, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lindholm, M. Successes and Failings of an Urban Freight Quality Partnership–The Story of the Gothenburg Local Freight Network. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Kijewska, K.; Jedliński, M. The Concept of Urban Freight Transport Projects Durability and Its Assessment within the Framework of a Freight Quality Partnership. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Bjørgen, A.; Fossheim, K.; Macharis, C. How to build stakeholder participation in collaborative urban freight planning. Cities 2021, 112, 103149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Pani, A.; Sahu, P.K.; Chandra, A.; Sarkar, A.K. Assessing the extent of modifiable areal unit problem in modelling freight (trip) generation: Relationship between zone design and model estimation results. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 80, 102524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Sánchez-Díaz, 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]
  126. Nathanail, E.; Adamos, G.; Gogas, M. A novel approach for assessing sustainable city logistics. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 1036–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Oskarbski, J.; Kaszubowski, D. Applying a Mesoscopic Transport Model to Analyse the Effects of Urban Freight Regulatory Measures on Transport Emissions—An Assessment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Bajec, P.; Tuljak-Suban, D.; Bajor, I. A Warehouse Social and Environmental Performance Metrics Framework. Promet Traffic Transp. 2020, 32, 513–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Cui, M.; Levinson, D. Internal and External Costs of Motor Vehicle Pollution. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2020, 2674, 498–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Franchini, M.; Mannucci, P.M. Mitigation of air pollution by greenness: A narrative review. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2018, 55, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Grondys, K. The impact of freight transport operations on the level of pollution in cities. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Muñoz-Villamizar, A.; Montoya-Torres, J.R.; Faulin, J. Impact of the use of electric vehicles in collaborative urban transport networks: A case study. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 50, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Russo, F.; Comi, A. City Characteristics and Urban Goods Movements: A Way to Environmental Transportation System in a Sustainable City. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Taniguchi, E. Concepts of City Logistics for Sustainable and Liveable Cities. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 05642 g001 550
Figure 1. The relationship between planning procedures.
Figure 1. The relationship between planning procedures.
Sustainability 13 05642 g001
Sustainability 13 05642 g002 550
Figure 2. A conceptual model for sustainable urban freight transport.
Figure 2. A conceptual model for sustainable urban freight transport.
Sustainability 13 05642 g002
Table
Table 1. Planning procedures and related literature to achieve SUFT.
Table 1. Planning procedures and related literature to achieve SUFT.
Planning ProceduresRelated Literature
(1) Understanding UFT[29,30,31,32,33,34,35]
(2) Stakeholders and their relations[10,33,36,37,38,39,40]
(3) Operational solutions addressed to environmental impacts[2,9,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]
(4) Technological solutions[16,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]
(5) Last-mile solutions[29,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]
(6) UFT modelling[2,7,8,15,27,70,71,72]
(7) Business model[19,20,73,74]
(8) Development of urban freight public policies[3,4,75,76,77,78,79]
Table
Table 2. Stakeholders: functions and objectives.
Table 2. Stakeholders: functions and objectives.
StakeholdersFunctionObjective
Who requestsRetailersOffer productsProfit from supplying products
E-consumersConsume productsMeet personal needs for products
Who dispatchesShippersSend the requested goods to receiversSend cargo to meet the receivers wishes
Who transportsCarriersTransport productsProfit by transporting goods
Who receivesRetailersContribute to economic developmentReceive products
E-consumers
Who promotesLocal authoritiesPromote a sustainable cityPromote a sustainable city, including UFT
Who residesResidentsReside in a sustainable city and consume the available productsLive in a city with livability and access to desired products
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cassiano, D.R.; Bertoncini, B.V.; de Oliveira, L.K. A Conceptual Model Based on the Activity System and Transportation System for Sustainable Urban Freight Transport. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5642. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105642

AMA Style

Cassiano DR, Bertoncini BV, de Oliveira LK. A Conceptual Model Based on the Activity System and Transportation System for Sustainable Urban Freight Transport. Sustainability. 2021; 13(10):5642. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105642

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cassiano, Demostenis Ramos, Bruno Vieira Bertoncini, and Leise Kelli de Oliveira. 2021. "A Conceptual Model Based on the Activity System and Transportation System for Sustainable Urban Freight Transport" Sustainability 13, no. 10: 5642. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105642

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop