Advertisement

A Multistakeholders Multicriteria Decision Support Platform for Assessing Urban Freight Transport Measures

  • Eftihia NathanailEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 36)

Abstract

Urban road freight transportation significantly affects the quality of life in urban areas. City logistics constitute a major component in the urban economy, and when smartly implemented they may contribute in the city sustainability and livability by alleviating traffic congestion and mitigating emissions and noise impacts. The present research aims at deepening the knowledge and understanding of urban freight transportation (UFT), and enabling guidance provision for selecting and implementing effective and sustainable policies and measures in a city. This is seen from the prism of an integrated evaluation framework, which has been developed for city logistics policies and measures. The framework assesses the complexity of UFT systems, through selected performance indicators, taking into account divergent stakeholder interests, conflicting business models and operations. Evaluation components are formulated in a hierarchical process; sustainability disciplines (economy and energy, environment, transportation and mobility, society), applicability enablers (policy and measure maturity, social acceptance and user uptake), criteria and indicators, capturing the lifecycle impact of the policies and measures. An index is estimated and reflects each evaluation component and stakeholder category; the overall performance of the policy and measure for the city is depicted in the Logistics Sustainability Index.

Keywords

Freight transportation City logistics Smart solutions Multicriteria evaluation Decision making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the NOVELOG project and has been funded within the European Commission’s H2020 Programme. This paper expresses the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the European Commission. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained in this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    European Communities: Urban Freight Transport and Logistics. An overview of the European research and policy (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Korver, W., Stemerding, M., Van Egmond, P., Wefering, F.: CIVITAS Guide for The Urban Transport Professionals: Results and lessons of long-term evaluation of the CIVITAS initiative, CIVITAS, Delft (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Commission: “White paper – Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system”, European Commission, Brussels (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campanai, M.: SUGAR: Round Table Best Practices in Urban logistics solutions in Italy: ICT & Organizational Models. First Good Practices Round Table, Athens, Greece, June 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Commission: Action Plan for Urban Mobility (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Commission: Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility – A call to action on urban logistics. Brussels, 17 December 2013. SWD, 524 final (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Consultation of the Horizon 2020 Advisory Groups, Response of the Transport Advisory Group (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patton, M.Q.: How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. SAGE Publications Inc., Saint Paul (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graindorge, T., Breuil, D.: Evaluation of the urban freight transportation (UFT) projects. In: Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balm, S., Browne, M., Leonardi, J., Quak, H.: Developing an evaluation framework for innovative urban and interurban freight transport solutions. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 125, 386–397 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CITYLOG, Final Report D0.4. Sustainability and efficiency of city logistics (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ENCLOSE, Deliverable 5.1. Cross-evaluation of energy efficient, sustainable urban logistics measures in the ENCLOSE towns. Evaluation and policy tools (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    SMILE, SMILE Deliverable 5.3. Post evaluation and definition of actions plans (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    BESTUFS, Deliverable 5.2. Quantification of Urban Freight Transport Effects II (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    BESTFACT, Deliverable 3.1. Best Practice Factory for Freight Transport in Europe (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C-LIEGE, Final publishable report: Clean Last mile transport and logistics management for smart and efficient local Governments in Europe (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    FREILOT, Urban Freight Energy Efficiency Pilot – Deliverable 4.1. Evaluation methodology and plan (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    CITYLAB, Deliverable 5.1. Definition of necessary indicators for evaluation (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nathanail, E., Gogas, M., Papoutsis, K.: Multi-stakeholder assessment of smart solution in urban-interurban freight transportation interfaces. In: 7th International Congress on Transportation Research (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nathanail, E., Adamos, G., Gogas, M.: A novel framework for assessing sustainable urban logistics. In: 14th World Conference on Transport Research, Shanghai, China (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cellura, M., Longo, S., Mistretta, M.: The energy and environmental impacts of Italian households consumptions: an input output approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 3897–3908 (2011)  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.025
  22. 22.
    Ciambrone, D.F.: Environmental Life Cycle Analysis. Lewis Publishers, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hunt, R.G., Franklin, W.E.: LCA how it came about personal reflections on the origin and the development of LCA in the USA. Int. J. LCA 1, 4–7 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Suh, S., Weidema, B.P., Pennington, D.W.: Life cycle assessment part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ. Int. 30, 701–720 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005
  25. 25.
    Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S.: Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91(1), 1–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G.J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Moriguchi, Y.: System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 657–664 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norris, G.: Integrating life cycle cost analysis in LCA. Int. J. LCA 6(2), 118–120 (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O.: Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States. Appl. Energy 150, 36–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitropoulos, L.K., Prevedouros, P.D.: Assessment of sustainability for transportation vehicles. Trans. Res. Rec. J. Trans. Res. Board 2344, 88–97 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kloepffer, W.: Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13(2), 89–95 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Finkbeiner, M., Schau, M.S., Lehmann, A., Traverso, M.: Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 2, 3309–3322 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ISO14040, Environmental Management life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ISO14044, Environmental Management life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Valdivia, S., Ugaya, C., Hildenbrand, J., Traverso, M., Mazijn, B., Sonnemann, G.: A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment – our contribution to Rio + 20. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1673–1685 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0529-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    NOVELOG, Deliverable D2.3. “Understanding Cities” Tool (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    NOVELOG, Deliverable D3.1. Integrated Assessment Framework for UFT Solutions (2016)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saaty, T.L.: Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nathanail, E.G., Gogas, M.A., Papoutsis, K.N.: Investigation of stakeholders’ view towards the introduction of ICT in supply chain using analytic hierarchy process. J. Traffic Logistics Eng. 2(2), 113–119 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Regmi, M.B., Hanaoka, S.: Application of analytic hierarchy process for location analysis of logistics centers in Laos. In: 91st TRB Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bunno, T., Idota, H., Ogawa, M., Tsuji, M., Miyoshi, H., Nakanishi, M.: Index of the diffusion of information technology among SMES: an AHP approach. In: The Proceedings of the 17th European Regional ITS Conference, Amsterdam, Holland (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yang, L., Zhang, Y.: Application of fuzzy-AHP method in the evaluation of logistics capability in e-commerce environment. In: 2010 International Conference on Communications and Intelligence Information Security (ICCIIS), pp. 228–231 (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cho, K.T.: Multicriteria decision methods: an attempt to evaluate and unify. Math. Comput. Model. 37, 1099–1119 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Klumpp, M., Witte, C., Zelewski, S.: Information and process requirements for electric mobility in last-mile-logistics. In: Information Technology in Environmental Engineering. Environmental Science and Engineering, pp 201–208 (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Aguiar, M.S., Lima, J.P., Lima, R.S.: Analysis of intermodal transportation alternatives using analytic hierarchy process in Brazilian manufacturing. In: 93rd TRB Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 12–16 January 2014Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Macharis, C., Milan, L., Verlinde, S.: A stakeholder-based multicriteria evaluation framework for city distribution. Procedia Res. Transp. Bus. Manage. 11, 75–84 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Macharis, C., Kin, B., Balm, S., Ploos van Amstel, W.: Multi-actor participatory decision-making in urban construction logistics. In: TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mitropoulos, L., Prevedouros, P., Nathanail, E.: Life-Cycle Assessment through a comprehensive sustainability framework: a case study of urban transportation vehicles. In: XXIVth World Road Congress in Mexico City (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nathanail, E., Papoutsis, K.: Towards a sustainable urban freight transport and urban distribution. J. Traffic Logistics Eng. 1(1), 58–63 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jeon, C.M., Amekudzi, A.A., Guensler, R.L.: Evaluating plan alternatives for transportation system sustainability: Atlanta metropolitan region. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 4, 227–247 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece

Personalised recommendations