4.6 Article

Optimizing Urban Distribution Routes for Perishable Foods Considering Carbon Emission Reduction

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 11, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11164387

关键词

low carbon; urban distribution; perishable foods; route optimization; cost

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71572058]
  2. Ministry of education of Humanities and Social Science project [17YJC630230]
  3. China Scholarship Council - Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing demand for urban distribution increases the number of transportation vehicles which intensifies the congestion of urban traffic and leads to a lot of carbon emissions. This paper focuses on carbon emission reduction in urban distribution, taking perishable foods as the object. It carries out optimization analysis of urban distribution routes to explore the impact of low carbon policy on urban distribution routes planning. On the basis of analysis of the cost components and corresponding constraints of urban distribution, two optimization models of urban distribution routes with and without carbon emissions cost are constructed. Fuel quantity related to cost and carbon emissions in the model is calculated based on traffic speed, vehicle fuel quantity and passable time period of distribution. Then an improved algorithm which combines genetic algorithm and tabu search algorithm is designed to solve models. Moreover, an analysis of the influence of carbon tax price is also carried out. It is concluded that in the process of urban distribution based on the actual network information, path optimization considering the low carbon factor can effectively reduce the distribution process of CO2, and reduce the total cost of the enterprise and society, thus achieving greater social benefits at a lower cost. In addition, the government can encourage low-carbon distribution by rationally adjusting the price of carbon tax to achieve a higher social benefit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据