4.6 Article

Modeling Stakeholders Openness to Sustainable Logistics Measures Using a Data Analysis Approach

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr10061096

关键词

sustainable city logistics measures; urban freight movement; city logistics modelling; city stakeholders

资金

  1. University of Gdansk, Faculty of Economics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article examines the attitudes of recipients/businesses in the neighboring agglomerations of Gdansk and Gdynia towards selected city logistics measures, and finds that the difficulty of implementing a measure and the size of the business affect the openness towards new logistics solutions.
The last mile constitutes the most expensive and difficult part of the supply chain. This fact results from the density of buildings and from traffic congestion. The implemented programs that aim at increasing the effectiveness of city logistics do not always bring about the expected results, the reason being the lack of consultations with stakeholders prior to their implementation. Such consultations could help to recognize the expectations, aims and fears of each of the agent/actor groups using the urban space. The purpose of this article is to recognize the attitude of one of the groups of stakeholders (recipients/businesses located in the area) in the Polish neighboring agglomerations of Gdansk and Gdynia, towards chosen city logistic measures. The research consisted in searching for a correlation between the attitude towards a particular city logistics measure and the size of the business, as well as between the attitude towards the given city logistics measure and the difficulty of its implementation. The results showed that there is a relationship between the difficulty of implementing a given city logistics measure and the tendency to implement it and that the number of employees influence the tendency towards openness to the new logistics measures; the bigger the enterprise, the greater the openness to new logistic solutions.

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