Assessing the benefits of urban consolidation centres: an overview based on a systematic literature review

IF 9.5 1区 工程技术 Q1 TRANSPORTATION
{"title":"Assessing the benefits of urban consolidation centres: an overview based on a systematic literature review","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/01441647.2024.2348639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Urban consolidation centres (UCC) have often been highlighted as a solution to reducing freight vehicle kilometres, emissions, and congestion in urban areas. However, previous studies have presented vastly different results regarding the environmental and social benefits when UCCs are implemented. Therefore, this study aims to provide an overview of research on the sustainability assessment of UCCs, to describe dominant themes, and identify why assessments differ. A systematic literature review approach employing a content analysis was used to create the overview and identify the dominant themes in the quantification of the sustainability benefits of UCCs. As a complement, a cross-case analysis was applied to compare the results and to identify underlying differences between the studies. The content analysis revealed three dominant themes, relating to: (i) modelling aspects, (ii) different UCC set-ups, and (iii) the different performance measurements applied. Furthermore, improved consolidation is often described as the largest environmental benefit of implementing UCCs but our results show that the largest benefit can be found in switching to more environmentally friendly vehicles. However, the cross-case analysis revealed difficulties in determining the benefits of implementing UCCs because the assessment of benefits differ vastly between studies. These differences can be explained by the different scope of the system and whether or not other measures were implemented alongside a UCC. This review also highlights seven important gaps in the research that can be used to guide future research, such as a lack of methodological diversity, since most studies employ mathematical modelling, as well as a lack of transparency regarding input and output data. This is a barrier when evaluating the benefits of introducing UCCs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48197,"journal":{"name":"Transport Reviews","volume":"44 5","pages":"Pages 972-991"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transport Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S0144164724000138","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Urban consolidation centres (UCC) have often been highlighted as a solution to reducing freight vehicle kilometres, emissions, and congestion in urban areas. However, previous studies have presented vastly different results regarding the environmental and social benefits when UCCs are implemented. Therefore, this study aims to provide an overview of research on the sustainability assessment of UCCs, to describe dominant themes, and identify why assessments differ. A systematic literature review approach employing a content analysis was used to create the overview and identify the dominant themes in the quantification of the sustainability benefits of UCCs. As a complement, a cross-case analysis was applied to compare the results and to identify underlying differences between the studies. The content analysis revealed three dominant themes, relating to: (i) modelling aspects, (ii) different UCC set-ups, and (iii) the different performance measurements applied. Furthermore, improved consolidation is often described as the largest environmental benefit of implementing UCCs but our results show that the largest benefit can be found in switching to more environmentally friendly vehicles. However, the cross-case analysis revealed difficulties in determining the benefits of implementing UCCs because the assessment of benefits differ vastly between studies. These differences can be explained by the different scope of the system and whether or not other measures were implemented alongside a UCC. This review also highlights seven important gaps in the research that can be used to guide future research, such as a lack of methodological diversity, since most studies employ mathematical modelling, as well as a lack of transparency regarding input and output data. This is a barrier when evaluating the benefits of introducing UCCs.

评估城市综合中心的效益:基于系统文献综述的概述
城市集运中心(UCC)经常被强调为减少城市地区货运车辆行驶公里数、排放和拥堵的一种解决方案。然而,以往的研究就实施 UCC 时的环境和社会效益得出了大相径庭的结果。因此,本研究旨在概述有关 UCC 可持续性评估的研究,描述主导主题,并找出评估结果不同的原因。本研究采用内容分析的系统性文献综述方法来创建概述,并确定 UCC 可持续发展效益量化方面的主导主题。作为补充,还进行了交叉分析,以比较研究结果并找出研究之间的潜在差异。内容分析揭示了三个主导主题,分别涉及(i) 建模方面,(ii) 不同的 UCC 设置,(iii) 应用的不同性能测量。此外,改善整合通常被描述为实施 UCC 的最大环境效益,但我们的结果表明,最大的效益来自于改用更环保的车辆。然而,交叉分析表明,由于不同研究对效益的评估大相径庭,因此很难确定实施统一配送中心的效益。造成这些差异的原因可能是系统的范围不同,以及是否在实施 UCC 的同时还实施了其他措施。本综述还强调了研究中存在的七个重要差距,这些差距可用于指导今后的研究工作,如研究方法缺乏多样性(因为大多数研究都采用数学模型),以及输入和输出数据缺乏透明度。这对评估引入统一计算中心的益处构成了障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transport Reviews
Transport Reviews TRANSPORTATION-
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
1.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Transport Reviews is an international journal that comprehensively covers all aspects of transportation. It offers authoritative and current research-based reviews on transportation-related topics, catering to a knowledgeable audience while also being accessible to a wide readership. Encouraging submissions from diverse disciplinary perspectives such as economics and engineering, as well as various subject areas like social issues and the environment, Transport Reviews welcomes contributions employing different methodological approaches, including modeling, qualitative methods, or mixed-methods. The reviews typically introduce new methodologies, analyses, innovative viewpoints, and original data, although they are not limited to research-based content.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信