Advertisement

Adaptability/Transferability in the City Logistics Measures Implementation

  • Kinga KijewskaEmail author
  • Stanisław Iwan
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)

Abstract

Urban freight transport is a part of a complex system comprising a considerable number of various participants, numerous limitations, fragmentation of goods flows, which decreases the transport effectiveness, pivotal connections in supply chains, and also the risk of conflicts between expectations of particular stakeholders. The problems require that a well-thought approach to implementation decision making should be applied. A prerequisite for a correctly implemented process of urban freight transport optimisation and rationalisation is an ex ante, in-depth analysis of the current situation and condition of a given urban system, a well performed assessment of obtained results and correct identification of goals for future actions. The paper is focused on the methodological assumptions for the implementation of the city logistics measures based on the adaptability and transferability approach. The major objective is to establish the general framework for this kind of activities.

Keywords

City logistics Urban freight transport Adaptability Transferability Implementation Development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The paper is a part of the research project NOVELOG, funded by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Programme for Research and Innovation under grant agreement No. 636626.

References

  1. 1.
    de Carvalho, J.M.C.: Systems theory, complexity and supply organizational models to 30 Erich City logistics: an approach. In: Taniguchi, E., Thomson, R.G. (eds.) Logistics Systems for Sustainable Cities, vol. 31, pp. 179–189. Elsevier, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iwan, S.: Adaptative approach to implementing good practices to support environmentally friendly urban freight transport management. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 151, 70–86 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    BESTUFS Project Homepage. http://www.bestufs.net. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  4. 4.
    C-LIEGE Project Homepage. http://www.c-liege.eu. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  5. 5.
    GRASS Project Homepage. http://grassproject.eu. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  6. 6.
    STRAIGHSOL Project Homepage. http://www.straightsol.eu. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  7. 7.
    SULPiTER Project Homepage. http://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/SULPiTER.html. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  8. 8.
    Low Carbon Logistics Project Homepage. http://lcl-project.eu. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  9. 9.
    Dablanc L.: City Logistics Best Practices: a handbook for Authorities. SUGAR Project, Bologna (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Panebianco, M., Zanarini, M.: City Ports Project. Interim Report, Transport Planning and Logistics Department, Regione Emilia-Romagna (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiba-Janiak, M.: Urban freight transport in city strategic planning, Research in Transportation Business & Management, vol. 24. Elsevier, 4–16 September 2017Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    http://novelog.eu. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  13. 13.
    Chmielewski, J.M.: Teoria urbanistyki w projektowaniu i planowaniu miast, Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warszawa (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R.G., Yamada, T.: Data collection for modelling, evaluating and benchmarking city logistics schemes. In: Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R.G. (eds.) Recent Advances in City Logistics. Elsevier, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iwan, S., Kijewska, K.: The integrated approach to adaptation of good practices in urban logistics based on the Szczecin example. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 125, 212–225 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iwan, S., Małecki, K.: Data flows in the integrated urban freight transport telematics system. In: Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 329. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kijewska, K., Małecki, K., Iwan, S.: Analysis of data needs and having for the integrated urban freight transport management system. In: Mikulski, J. (ed.) Challenge of Transport Telematics. TST 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 640, pp. 135–148. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kijewska, K., Iwan, S., Konicki, W., Kijewski, D.: Assessment of freight transport flows in the city centre based on the Szczecin example – methodological approach and results. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 24, 59–72 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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. 61, 104–117 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iwan, S.: Implementation of Good Practices in the Area of Urban Delivery Transport. Scientific Publishing House of Maritime University of Szczecin, Szczecin (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Witkowski, J., Kiba-Janiak, M.: Correlation between city logistics and quality of life as an assumption for referential model. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 39, 568–581 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macharis, C., de Witte, A., Ampe, J.: The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice. J. Adv. Transp. 43(2), 183–202 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Macharis, C., Lebeau, K., Turcksin, L.: Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use. Decis. Support Syst. 54, 610–620 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Macharis, C.: Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: the MAMCA method. In: Haezendonck, E. (ed.) Transport Project Evaluation. Extending the Social Cost–Benefit Approach, pp. 115–131. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iwan, S.: Implementation of telematics-based good practices to support urban freight transport systems, applying a city’s adaptability level. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 8(5), 531–551 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nathanail, E., Mitropoulos, L., Adamos, G., Gogas, M., Karakikes, I., Iwan, S., Kiba-Janiak, M., Kotowska, I., Kijewska, K., Jedliński, M., Korczak, J., Landowski, M., Maggi, E., Vallino, E., Morfoulaki, M., Chrysostomou, K.: Evaluation Tool, Deliverable D3.2, NOVELOG (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Engineering of TransportMaritime University of SzczecinSzczecinPoland

Personalised recommendations