Geometrical Parcel Locker Network Design with Consideration of Users’ Preferences as a Solution for Sustainable Last Mile Delivery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript entitled “Geometrical parcel locker network design with consideration of users’ preferences as a solution to reduce energy consumption”.

The overall manuscript is well presented with minor spelling or grammar mistakes. The introductory part is based on a references list comprising only 14 positions with self-citations, issued in general in between 2014 and 2022. The references list does not provide sufficient support for determining the actual status of the research in the field.

The general work is very interesting, as the geometric method for designing a network of parcel lockers is important for its development.  

Here are some issues concerning your paper:

1.       The first suggestion that comes to mind after reading the manuscript is related to the journal to which it was submitted. Authors should emphasize in the title, abstract and keywords how the research contributes to sustainability and sustainable development. Due to this lack, I do not recommend the article for publication in the Sustainability journal.

2.       Abstract: Not according to Sustainability Template. Please, clarify the methods, novelty, and contribution of the paper. Reduce it to 200 words and follow the style of structured abstracts (Background; Methods; Results; Conclusions).

3.       The overall scientific purpose of the article is stated clearly in the introduction and should also be underlined in the abstract. It should be reconsidered

4.       The Literature Review part is practically missing and only shown in the Introduction. The current state of the research is not shown and cited. The knowledge gap is unclear. There should be an explanation of the previous work done not only by the authors but other researchers in field of geometrical network design or parcel locker location.

5.       It is suggested that the discussion on the clusters associated to Figure 1 (p.2) to be more explicit (in terms of the colours used in Figure 1, which has no legend).

6.       It is not clear if there are any connections between the hypotheses and the clusters identified (Figure 1). It is kindly suggested to the author/s to consider the possibility to revise and reformulate the hypotheses after the identification of clusters. Also gap of knowledge is missing.

7.       The methodology part is missing in the manuscript. It only presents the survey part. It is strongly suggested to revise the Materials and Methods section – for improved logic and coherence of the research process: from objectives to methods (i.e., survey) to instruments (i.e., questionnaire); then research planning by stages. You should provide theoretical issues of geometrical network design here.

8.       Arguments for choosing the survey method should be provided.

9.       200 respondents took part in the survey (p.4, row 98): probably 200 was the size of the survey sample. Details about how this size was calculated should be provided. It is strongly suggested to discuss the issue of the sample representativeness.

10.    All Figures and Tables are very well presented and readable with appropriate citations in the main text.

11.    The Discussion on the obtained research results should be reconsidered. There is no information on the current new results and an attitude to the existing research, which could emphasize the importance of the work done. It is strongly recommended to highlight the original elements of the research described by the proposed paper in the field of sustainability.

12.    The Conclusion on the obtained research results should be reconsidered. Limitations and weaknesses of the research presented should be highlighted here. It is too short and laconic. Future research directions and the significance of the results of the research achieved are underlined and explained in conclusion part.

13.    References must be reconsidered. The list is too short and do not present what already has been done in the field. Self-citation should also be carefully considered.

Reviewer

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The article is based on the hypothesis analysis for using parcel lockers by walking and bicycle in Lubusz Voivodeship and recommends using a triangular network design. I have major concerns and there is no major contribution proposed for the general population. The topic is about reducing energy consumption and cost, however, there is no analysis given to show relevant fruitful results instead of recommendations to go by walking and bicycle to collect parcels.

1.       The hypothesis is considered based on certain conditions and for specific regions (Lubusz Voivodeship). I think the gender of users has an effect as considered in hypothesis 01.

2.       What is the role of higher education in not being willing to walk or bike? Is it significant enough to consider as an important hypothesis of the research work?

3.       How can you relate your research work considered a specific region with the other regions and how can it be extended to the general population? What are the limitations and assumptions expected in that case?

 

4.       What are the major contributions of this research? The parcel locker network is recommended to use a triangular network instead of a square one. I believe the research is only a survey-based hypothesis analysis for a particular region and a comparative analysis between square and triangular networks. 

English writing is required to improve. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper "Geometrical parcel locker network design with consideration of users’ preferences as a solution to reduce energy consumption" falls within the scope of the journal " Sustainability" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. A lot of core elements of one well-written and performed study is missing, so the paper needs major improvements.

My comments are as follows:

1) Clear aims, the main contributions, and novelty are missing in the abstract. 

2) The introduction section is very short, and should be extended.

3) In the introduction section the following tasks should be fulfilled: the introduction should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: What are the gaps in literature? What are the main aims of this article?"

4) Tables are not prepared according to official instructions for authors. Please correct it in the whole paper.

5) "The survey was conducted in March and April 2022. The questionnaire was sent out to people who shop via the Internet and use parcel locker delivery. The characteristics of 97 the 200 respondents were shown in Table 2". My question: Is this number enough to make the general and quality conclusion and confirm the hypothesis? Please elaborate on this task in the proper way.

6) What new brings your paper? I am very suspective from that aspect. Clear note and explain novelty.

7) The font in the Figures is not according to official instructions. Also, the figures need more explanations.

8) The concept of the last mile should be more explained in the context of your research. Please cite the following source: Švadlenka, L., Bošković, S., Jovčić, S., Simic, V., Kumar, S., & Zanne, M. (2023). Third-party logistics provider selection for sustainable last-mile delivery: A case study of E-shop in Belgrade. J. Urban Dev. Manag, 2(1), 1-13.

9) Conclusion section is poor and short. What is a summary of your contribution? What are the limitations of your study, practical implications, and future research? All these parameters should be properly elaborated in the discussion and conclusion section.

10) The number of used references is not enough, please extend it with at least ten more recently published papers. Among them cite the following: Kiptum, C. K., Bouraima, M. B., Stević, Ž., Okemwa, S., Birech, S., & Qiu, Y. J. (2022). Sustainable strategies for the successful operation of the bike-sharing system using an ordinal priority approach. Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 1(2), 43-50.

Jana, C., Dobrodolac, M., Simic, V., Pal, M., Sarkar, B., & Stević, Ž. (2023). Evaluation of sustainable strategies for urban parcel delivery: Linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy Choquet integral approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 126, 106811

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for adapting the text of the article to my recommendations. I strongly believe that the improvements introduced have a big impact on the transparency and logic of the presented research material. I wish you success in further research.

Regards,

Reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, you have improved your article to some extent. However, still, there are few major concerns.

1.       Cannot you make hypotheses generic and then use them to evaluate the Lubusz Voivodeship region?

2.       There is no interpretation of the hypothesis given in the discussion from a policy-making perspective e.g., if you found that age is important then what should you expect from the decision-makers or government?

 

3.       Similarly, what are your views about educated people from your results?

It seems good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made effort to properly correct the paper. All my suggestions have been adopted, so the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your help.

Best regards,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 
I don't have further comments. 

thanks

English looks good.