Advertisement

Interactions among stakeholders in the processes of city logistics: a systematic review of the literature

  • Priscila Pereira Suzart de CarvalhoEmail author
  • Ricardo de Araújo Kalid
  • Jorge Laureano Moya Rodríguez
  • Sandro Breval Santiago
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present a systematic review of the literature on urban logistics and its stakeholders and identify future research directions. In order to discuss the main contributions and trends of this theme, a combination of bibliometric analysis techniques, semantic and content and a technological prospection were performed. Through the evaluation of a sample group of seventy one articles, it was possible to trace paths and understand content approaches, identifying advantages, limitations and conditions for the good development of city logistics and its agents. Based on these findings, the low evidence of how effectively each of the stakeholders influencing the activities of city logistics stands out, since your heterogeneity and conflict of interest are singled out as the cause of the difficulty of this deployment. It is important to note that from the technological prospection was possible to identify the state of innovation on the world stage in the area studied.

Keywords

City logistics Stakeholders Systematic review of the literature Technological prospection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abedinnia, H., Glock, C. H., Grosse, E. H., & Schneider, M. (2017). Machine scheduling problems in production: A tertiary study. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 111, 403–416.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aditjandra, P. T., & Zunder, T. H. (2018). Exploring the relationship between urban freight demand and the purchasing behaviour of a University. European Transport Research Review, 10(1), 1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0273-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, N., van Duin, R., & Tavasszy, L. (2014). Ontology-based multi-agent system for urban freight transportation. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(2), 133–153.  https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.920696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anand, N., Yang, M., Van Duin, J. H. R., & Tavasszy, L. (2012). GenCLOn: An ontology for city logistics. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(15), 11944–11960.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, S., Allen, J., & Browne, M. (2005). Urban logistics—How can it meet policy makers’ sustainability objectives? Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1 SPEC. IS), 71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballantyne, E. E. F., Lindholm, M., & Whiteing, A. (2013). A comparative study of urban freight transport planning: Addressing stakeholder needs. Journal of Transport Geography, 32, 93–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Behrends, S., Lindholm, M., & Woxenius, J. (2008). The impact of urban freight transport: A definition of sustainability from an actor’s perspective. Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(6), 693–713.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802493247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellegarda, J. R. (2000). Exploiting latent sematic information in statistical language modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(8), 1279–1296.  https://doi.org/10.1109/5.880084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjerkan, K. Y., Sund, A. B., & Nordtømme, M. E. (2014). Stakeholder responses to measures green and efficient urban freight. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 11, 32–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Björklund, M. (2011). Influence from the business environment on environmental purchasing—Drivers and hinders of purchasing green transportation services. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(1), 11–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Björklund, M., Abrahamsson, M., & Johansson, H. (2017). Critical factors for viable business models for urban consolidation centres. Research in Transportation Economics, 64, 36–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgatti, S. (2002). NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  13. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  14. Braga, G. M. (1974). Informação, ciência, política científica: o pensamento de Derek de Solla Price. Ciência da Informação, 3(2), 155–177.Google Scholar
  15. Cagliano, A. C., De Marco, A., Mangano, G., & Zenezini, G. (2017). Levers of logistics service providers’ efficiency in urban distribution. Operations Management Research, 10(3–4), 104–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-017-0125-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Çalişkan, A., Kalkan, M., & Ozturkoglu, Y. (2017). City logistics: Problems and recovery proposals. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 26(2), 145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLSM.2017.081497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carnevalli, J. A., & Miguel, P. C. (2008). Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFD-Types of research, difficulties and benefits. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 737–754.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carvalho, M. M., Fleury, A., & Lopes, A. P. (2013). An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(7), 1418–1437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2012.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chanut, O., & Paché, G. (2012). Integrating 3PL in urban logistics organization. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 10(2), 16–28.Google Scholar
  20. Chhetri, P., Kam, B., Hung Lau, K., Corbitt, B., & Cheong, F. (2017). Improving service responsiveness and delivery efficiency of retail networks: A case study of Melbourne. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 45(3), 271–291.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-07-2016-0117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crainic, T. G., Ricciardi, N., & Storchi, G. (2009). Models for evaluating and planning city logistics systems. Transportation Science, 43(4), 432–454.  https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1090.0279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Culnan, M. J., O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatma, J. A. (1990). Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972–1984: A cocitation analysis. Journal of The American Society For Information Science, 41(6), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. da Silva, J. F., Figueiredo, K. A., Carvalho, M., & de Medeiros, M. D. G. F. (2016). Produtos naturais para tratamento da leishmaniose: uma prospecção tecnológica. Revista Cubana de Farmácia, 50(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
  24. Dablanc, L. (2007). Goods transport in large European cities: Difficult to organize, difficult to modernize. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(3), 280–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Org.Google Scholar
  26. De Brucker, K., MacHaris, C., & Verbeke, A. (2013). Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 224(1), 122–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.02.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ehmke, J. F., & Campbell, A. M. (2014). Customer acceptance mechanisms for home deliveries in metropolitan areas. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(1), 193–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.08.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Estrada, M., & Roca-Riu, M. (2017). Stakeholder’s profitability of carrier-led consolidation strategies in urban goods distribution. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 104, 165–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fachin, O. (2006). Fundamentos da metodologia (5th ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva, Org.Google Scholar
  30. Fancello, G., Paddeu, D., & Fadda, P. (2017). Investigating last food mile deliveries: A case study approach to identify needs of food delivery demand. Research in Transportation Economics, 65, 56–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gammelgaard, B. (2015). The emergence of city logistics: The case of Copenhagen’s Citylogistik-kbh. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 45(4), 333–351.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gammelgaard, B., Andersen, C. B. G., & Figueroa, M. (2017). Improving urban freight governance and stakeholder management: A social systems approach combined with relationship platforms and value co-creation. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 24, 17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gatta, V., & Marcucci, E. (2016). Stakeholder-specific data acquisition and urban freight policy evaluation: evidence, implications and new suggestions. Transport Reviews, 36(5), 585–609.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1126385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.12.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal, 331(7524), 1064–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hajduk, S. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of publications on city logistics in international scientific literature. Procedia Engineering, 182, 282–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harrington, T. S., Singhai, J., Kumar, M., & Wohlrab, J. (2016). Identifying design criteria for urban system last-mile solutions—A multi-stakeholder perspective. Production Planning and Control, 27(6), 456–476.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1147099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holguín-Veras, J., & Sánchez-Díaz, I. (2016). Freight demand management and the potential of receiver-led consolidation programs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 84, 109–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holguín-Veras, J., Silas, M., Polimeni, J., & Cruz, B. (2007). An investigation on the effectiveness of joint receiver-carrier policies to increase truck traffic in the off-peak hours. Part I: The behavior of receivers. Networks and Spatial Economics, 7(3), 277–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-006-9002-7.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holguín-Veras, J., Silas, M., Polimeni, J., & Cruz, B. (2008). An investigation on the effectiveness of joint receiver-carrier policies to increase truck traffic in the off-peak hours. Part II: The behavior of carriers. Networks and Spatial Economics, 8(4), 327–354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-006-9011-6.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holguín-Veras, J., Wang, Q., Xu, N., Ozbay, K., Cetin, M., & Polimeni, J. (2006). The impacts of time of day pricing on the behavior of freight carriers in a congested urban area: Implications to road pricing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(9), 744–766.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holguín-Veras, J., Xu, N., de Jong, G., & Maurer, H. (2011). An experimental economics investigation of shipper-carrier interactions in the choice of mode and shipment size in freight transport. Networks and Spatial Economics, 11(3), 509–532.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-009-9107-x.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Homrich, A. S., Galvão, G., Abadia, L. G., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). The circular economy umbrella: Trends and gaps on integrating pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 525–543.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. IBGE. (2011). Sinopse do censo demográfico: 2010. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.Google Scholar
  45. Janjevic, M., & Ndiaye, A. (2017). Investigating the theoretical cost-relationships of urban consolidation centres for their users. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 102, 98–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jayne, M. (2012). Mayors and urban governance: Discursive power, identity and local politics. Social and Cultural Geography, 13(1), 29–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.635800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jiao, W., & Boons, F. (2014). Toward a research agenda for policy intervention and facilitation to enhance industrial symbiosis based on a comprehensive literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 67, 14–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johansson, H., & Björklund, M. (2017). Urban consolidation centres: retail stores’ demands for UCC services. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 47(7), 646–662.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2017-0114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kazemi, N., Modak, N. M., & Govindan, K. (2018). A review of reverse logistics and closed loop supply chain management studies published in IJPR: A bibliometric and content analysis. International Journal of Production Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1471244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kedia, A., Kusumastuti, D., & Nicholson, A. (2017). Acceptability of collection and delivery points from consumers’ perspective: A qualitative case study of Christchurch city. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 5(4), 587–595.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lagorio, A., Pinto, R., & Golini, R. (2017). Urban Logistics Ecosystem: A system of system framework for stakeholders in urban freight transport projects. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 7284–7289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Le Pira, M., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Pluchino, A., & Rapisarda, A. (2016). Modelling stakeholder participation in transport planning. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(3), 230–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Le Pira, M., Inturri, G., Ignaccolo, M., Pluchino, A., & Rapisarda, A. (2017a). Finding shared decisions in stakeholder networks: An agent-based approach. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 466, 277–287.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.09.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Le Pira, M., Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., & Pluchino, A. (2017b). Towards a decision-support procedure to foster stakeholder involvement and acceptability of urban freight transport policies. European Transport Research Review, 9(4), 54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0268-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindholm, M. (2013). Urban freight transport from a local authority perspective—A literature review. European Transport \ Trasporti Europei. Issue 54, Paper n° 3, ISSN 1825–3997.Google Scholar
  57. Lindholm, M., & Behrends, S. (2012). Challenges in urban freight transport planning—A review in the Baltic Sea Region. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindholm, M. E., & Blinge, M. (2014). Assessing knowledge and awareness of the sustainable urban freight transport among Swedish local authority policy planners. Transport Policy, 32, 124–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lindholma, M., & Browneb, M. (2013). Local authority cooperation with urban freight stakeholders: A comparison of partnership approaches. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 13(1), 20–38.Google Scholar
  60. Loos, M. J., Merino, E., & Rodriguez, C. M. T. (2016). Mapping the state of the art of ergonomics within logistics. Scientometrics, 109(1), 85–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1960-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Machado Filho, H. (2018). Glossário de termos do Objetivo de Desenvolvimento Sustentável 11: Tornar as cidades e os assentamentos humanos inclusivos, seguros, resilientes e sustentáveis. Organização das Nações Unidas no Brasil. Recuperado de http://www.br.undp.org/content/brazil/pt/home/library/ods/glossario-ods-11.html. Accessed 30 May 2018.
  62. Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Macharis, C., & Milan, L. (2015). Transition through dialogue: A stakeholder based decision process for cities: The case of city distribution. Habitat International, 45(P2), 82–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Macharis, C., Milan, L., & Verlinde, S. (2014). A stakeholder-based multicriteria evaluation framework for city distribution. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 11, 75–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Maggi, E., & Vallino, E. (2016). Understanding urban mobility and the impact of public policies: The role of the agent-based models. Research in Transportation Economics, 55, 50–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Manier, H., Manier, M.-A., & Al Chami, Z. (2016). Shippers’ collaboration in city logistics. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(12), 1880–1885.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Manzano dos Santos, E., & Sánchez-Díaz, I. (2016). Exploring carriers’ perceptions about city logistics initiatives. Transportation Research Record, 2547(1), 66–73.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2547-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marconi, M., & Lakatos, E. (2010). Técnicas de pesquisa: planejamento e execução de pesquisas, amostragens e técnicas de pesquisa, elaboração, análise e interpretação de dados (7th ed.). São Paulo: Atlas, Org.Google Scholar
  69. Marcucci, E., & Gatta, V. (2012). Dissecting preference heterogeneity in consumer stated choices. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(1), 331–339.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Marcucci, E., & Gatta, V. (2017). Investigating the potential for off-hour deliveries in the city of Rome: Retailers’ perceptions and stated reactions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 102, 142–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Marciani, M., & Cossu, P. (2017a). Measuring the effects of an urban freight policy package defined via a collaborative governance model. Research in Transportation Economics, 65, 3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., & Scaccia, L. (2015). Urban freight, parking and pricing policies: An evaluation from a transport providers’ perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74, 239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Marcucci, E., Le Pira, M., Gatta, V., Inturri, G., Ignaccolo, M., & Pluchino, A. (2017b). Simulating participatory urban freight transport policy-making: Accounting for heterogeneous stakeholders’ preferences and interaction effects. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 103, 69–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2014). Current options for the valorization of food manufacturing waste: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 28–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.10.051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Molette, P., & Landré, A. (2007). Tropes v 8.4.4. Paris, Lisbon: Acetic, Cyberlex.Google Scholar
  76. Muñuzuri, J., Larrañeta, J., Onieva, L., & Cortés, P. (2005). Solutions applicable by local administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities, 22(1), 15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2004.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nordtømme, M. E., Andersen, J., Sund, A. B., Roche-Cerasi, I., Levin, T., Eidhammer, O., et al. (2015). Green urban distribution: Evaluation of adapted measures for the city of Oslo. International Journal of Transport Economics, 42(1), 61–85.Google Scholar
  79. Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A., Ibeas, A., & Moura, J. L. (2016). Urban freight transport and city logistics policies: Indications from Rome, Barcelona, and Santander. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(6), 552–566.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2015.1014778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Oliveira, L. K., Barraza, B., Bertocini, B. V., Isler, C. A., Pires, D. R., Madalon, E. C. N., et al. (2018). An overview of problems and solutions for urban freight transport in Brazilian cities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4), 1233.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. ONU (Organização das Nações Unidas). (2017). Nueva Agenda Urbana. Recuperado 4 de agosto de 2018, de http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-Spanish.pdf.
  82. Österle, I., Aditjandra, P. T., Vaghi, C., Grea, G., & Zunder, T. H. (2015). The role of a structured stakeholder consultation process within the establishment of a sustainable urban supply chain. Supply Chain Management, 20(3), 284–299.  https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-05-2014-0149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Paddeu, D. (2017). The Bristol-Bath Urban freight Consolidation Centre from the perspective of its users. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 5(3), 483–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Paddeu, D., Fancello, G., & Fadda, P. (2017). An experimental customer satisfaction index to evaluate the performance of city logistics services. Transport, 32(3), 262–271.  https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1146998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pan, S., Giannikas, V., Han, Y., Grover-Silva, E., & Qiao, B. (2017). Using customer-related data to enhance e-grocery home delivery. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(9), 1917–1933.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2016-0432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Periódicos Capes. ([s.d.]). Tutorial de acesso. Recuperado 5 de agosto de 2018, de https://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br/images/documents/JournalCitationReports(JCR)-Guiadeuso-03.10.2017.pdf
  87. PNUD (Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento). (2016). Desenvolvimento sustentável nas cidades é essencial para maior alcance da Agenda 2030. Recuperado 4 de agosto de 2018, de http://www.br.undp.org/content/brazil/pt/home/presscenter/articles/2016/10/21/desenvolvimento-sustent-vel-nas-cidades-essencial-para-maior-alcance-da-agenda-2030.html.
  88. PNUD (Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento). (2018). Objetivo 11: Cidades e Comunidades Sustentáveis.Google Scholar
  89. Prasad, S., & Tata, J. (2005). Publication patterns concerning the role of teams/groups in the information systems literature from 1990 to 1999. Information & Management, 42(8), 1137–1148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501–518.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802199202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.Google Scholar
  92. Puckett, S. M., Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Collins, A. (2007). Design and development of a stated choice experiment for interdependent agents: Accounting for interactions between buyers and sellers of urban freight services. Transportation, 34(4), 429–451.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9114-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Quak, H. J., & De Koster, M. B. M. (2009). Delivering goods in urban areas: How to deal with urban policy restrictions and the environment. Transportation Science, 43(2), 211–227.  https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1080.0235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ramos-Rodrígue, A.-R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rose, W. J., Bell, J. E., Autry, C. W., & Cherry, C. R. (2017). Urban logistics: Establishing key concepts and building a conceptual framework for future research. Transportation Journal, 56(4), 357–394.  https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.56.4.0357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rose, W. J., Mollenkopf, D. A., Autry, C. W., & Bell, J. E. (2016). Exploring urban institutional pressures on logistics service providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 46(2), 153–176.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-03-2015-0068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ruiz, J. (2006). Metodologia científica: Guia para eficiência nos estudos (6th ed.). São Paulo: Atlas, Org.Google Scholar
  98. Saavedra, Y. M. B., Iritani, D. R., Pavan, A. L. R., & Ometto, A. R. (2018). Theoretical contribution of industrial ecology to circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1514–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schildt, H. A. (2002). SITKIS: Software for bibliometric data management and analysis v0.6.1. Helsinki: Institute of Strategy and International Business.Google Scholar
  100. SCOPUS. (2017). Scopus: Content Coverage Guide. Elsevier. Recuperado 24 de abril de 2018, de https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf.
  101. Shekarian, E., Kazemi, N., Abdul-Rashid, S. H., & Olugu, E. U. (2017). Fuzzy inventory models: A comprehensive review. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 55, 588–621.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.01.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Silva, E. L., & Menezes, E. M. (2005). Metodologia da pesquisa e elaboração de dissertação (4th ed.). Florianopólis: UFSC, Org.Google Scholar
  103. Stathopoulos, A., Valeri, E., & Marcucci, E. (2012). Stakeholder reactions to urban freight policy innovation. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 34–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sung, J. H., Lee, J., Park, S. J., & Sim, C. S. (2016). Relationship of transportation noise and annoyance for two metropolitan cities in Korea: Population based study. PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0169035.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing and Management, 28(1), 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R. G., & Yamada, T. (2003). Predicting the effects of city logistics schemes. Transport Reviews, 23(4), 489–545.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640210163999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tukker, A. (2015). Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy—A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 76–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Valeri, E., Gatta, V., Teobaldelli, D., Polidori, P., Barratt, B., Fuzzi, S., et al. (2016). Modelling individual preferences for environmental policy drivers: Empirical evidence of Italian lifestyle changes using a latent class approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 65, 65–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vanti, N. A. P. (2002). Da bibliometria à webometria: uma exploração conceitual dos mecanismos utilizados para medir o registro da informação e a difusão do conhecimento. Ciência da Informação, 31(2), 369–379.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-19652002000200016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25(11), 1268–1281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wang, T. I., & Tsai, K. H. (2009). Interactive and dynamic review course composition system utilizing contextual semantic expansion and discrete particle swarm optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 9663–9673.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Weber, K. M. (2003). Transforming large socio-technical systems towards sustainability: On the role of users and future visions for the uptake of city logistics and combined heat and power generation. Innovation, 16(2), 155–176.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610304522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4%3c327:AID-ASI4%3e3.0.CO;2-W.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Zwald, M. L., Eyler, A., Goins, K. V., & Lemon, S. C. (2016). Multilevel analysis of municipal officials’ participation in land use policies supportive of active living: city and individual factors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30(4), 287–290.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117116639571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering Program, Polytechnic SchoolFederal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.University of AmazonasManausBrazil

Personalised recommendations