International Journal of Logistics Research and

Applications
A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cjol20

Considering the city context in weighting

sustainability criteria for last-mile logistics
solutions

Juan Nicolas Gonzalez, Natalia Sobrino & Jose Manuel Vassallo

To cite this article: Juan Nicolas Gonzalez, Natalia Sobrino & Jose Manuel Vassallo (03
Oct 2023): Considering the city context in weighting sustainability criteria for last-mile
logistics solutions, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, DOI:
10.1080/13675567.2023.2264788

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2264788

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 03 Oct 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1077

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjol20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2264788

Considering the city context in weighting sustainability criteria

for last-mile logistics solutions
Juan Nicolas Gonzalez , Natalia Sobrino and Jose Manuel Vassallo
Transport Research Centre – TRANSyT, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Last-mile Logistics (LML) solutions in cities have become a priority due to Received 26 April 2023
the increasing demand for products, changes in population consumption, Accepted 25 September
ai r quality challenges, population pressure, and economic downturns. 2023
There are many solutions to achieve a sustainable LML, as it depends
KEYWORDS
on the characteristics and goals of each city. This study develops a Last-mile logistics;
weighting framework incorporating expert judgments and the sustainability; multi-criteria;
contextual urban environment to identify the key criteria when multi-stakeholders;
evaluating sustainable LML solutions. The framework is applied in six weighting model; urban
European cities to examine how the sensitivity of the urban context context
influences the weights assigned to these criteria. By analysing the
variations in weights, the study aims to understand the impact of
contextual factors on the importance of different aspects of LML. We
found that social and environmental sustainability are essential criteria.
The urban context significantly influences the sustainability of different
solutions, as each city has its own priorities and challenges. The
methodology defined in this paper may contribute to helping
policymakers to promote sustainable LML.

1. Introduction
Urban logistics is playing an increasing role in cities due to several trends. First, according to pro-
jections by the United Nations (2018), the share of the world population living in urban areas is
expected to rise by 70% in 2050, corresponding to adding another 2.5 billion people to urban
areas. Second, changes in demand due to new technologies are increasing consumption (Rust
and Lemon 2001). Third, e-commerce, after the COVID-19 pandemic, has boomed as more people
demand online shopping (Lashgari and Shahab 2022). And fourth, the environmental impact of
urban freight is a growing concern as it is accountable for 25% of CO2 emissions related to
urban transport and 30–50% of other pollutants associated with transportation (ALICE 2015).
Therefore, public pressure is mounting to develop practical solutions to address these issues.
All these trends led to a growing interest from the public and private sectors in urban freight
logistics, also called Last-Mile Logistics (LML). As a result, cities around the world are looking
for sustainable LML solutions as an important part of their urban planning processes to address
impacts such as environmental pollution as well as distribution inefficiencies, which are becoming

CONTACT Juan Nicolas Gonzalez [email protected] Transport Research Centre – TRANSyT, Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Calle Profesor Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published
allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

increasingly relevant for stakeholders (suppliers, retailers, consumers/receivers, transport compa-

nies/transporters, local authorities, and citizens).
LML refers to the final part of the delivery process, in which goods are transported from a trans-
portation hub or distribution centre to the end customer (Slabinac 2015). It can include business-
to-consumer (B2C) or business-to-business (B2B) deliveries. It is considered the most complex and
costly part of the logistics process. Moreover, LML is a critical phase where customers require
reliable delivery, making it a key determinant of customer satisfaction and retention (Singh 2006).
European cities have already been evolving in this direction in recent years, with a growing num-
ber of initiatives, among which the CIVITAS (2021) initiative stands out. CIVITAS is a reference at
the European level. It has enabled local authorities to develop, test and roll out LML measures via a
range of projects (i.e. CITYLAB1, NOVELOG2, STRAIGHTSOL3 projects, and currently ULAADS4
and LEAD5 projects), where different sustainable LML solutions have been implemented and eval-
uated: cleaner vehicles, urban consolidation centres, collaborative urban logistics, optimisation of
transport management and routing, and innovations in public policies and infrastructure. The
LEAD project, which provided the data and information for this paper, progresses on these aspects
by validating strategies for shared-connected, low-emission logistics operations in six European
cities with different characteristics and business and urban planning challenges.
The efficacy of implementing these solutions is contingent on various factors, including the
unique characteristics of the city, the objectives of the stakeholders involved, and the capability
to attain sustainability across economic, social, and environmental domains. Conflicting sustainable
objectives and the different points of view of different stakeholder groups make choosing the most
appropriate policies for the city even more complex. Thus, the evaluation of LML solutions must
seek to balance the impacts from a sustainability point of view and align with the stakeholders’
needs and interests for the city.
To provide successful sustainable LML solutions, many researchers propose evaluating alterna-
tives using multi-criteria methods for decision-making involving quantitative and qualitative
aspects (Mardani, Jusoh, and Zavadskas 2015). In addition, such CIVITAS projects had provided
evaluation frameworks for LML. Evalog tool6 is an open platform based on the results obtained
from the NOVELOG project for assessing urban freight solutions by conducting multi-criteria
multi-stakeholders decision-making process.
As part of the LEAD project, the STAR Logistics Methodology was developed within the LEAD
Model Library (Tapia et al. 2022), as a specialised tool to assess the sustainability of different LML
solutions. This model is an adaptation and update of the STAR (Sustainability Tool for the Apprai-
sal of Road Projects) Model, created by Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015). The STAR
Logistics Methodology focuses on the LML field by providing a comprehensive framework for eval-
uating the sustainability aspects of LML solutions. The objective of the model is to provide a sus-
tainability rating for LML solutions compared to the baseline scenario to assist decision-makers in
selecting the most suitable option from the sustainability standpoint. The transferability of the
STAR Logistic Methodology is a key strength, as it can be applied to different spatial areas
where innovative logistics solutions are implemented. Multi-criteria methods use weights to assign
relative importance to criteria, facilitating structured evaluation and decision-making by consider-
ing several factors.
The present study goes beyond the state of the art by applying a weighting framework incorpor-
ating both experts’ preferences and the contextual urban situation of the city to assess the sustain-
ability of a certain LML solution. The novelty of the weighting methodology defined in the STAR
Logistic Model is that weights set by experts are adapted depending on how sensitive they are in the
urban context where the LML solution is developed.
This paper aims to investigate the impact of experts’ preferences and the sensitivity of the urban
context on the weights assigned to sustainable criteria in a weighting framework for last-mile logis-
tics solutions. The study compares the weight variations among six European cities: Madrid, The
Hague, Lyon, Budapest, Oslo, and Porto. Specifically, the present study addressed the following
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 3

research question: How do the inclusion of experts’ preferences and the sensitivity of the urban con-
text impact the value of the weights assigned to sustainability criteria? Urban context sensitivity for
a certain sustainability criterion refers to the current situation of a city that makes such a criterion
more or less important in that city compared to other cities. Although the main objective is not to
evaluate specific strategies implemented in these cities, the research sheds light on how the weights
change, providing insights for future evaluations and considering the dynamic nature of the urban
context.
The paper is structured as follows. Following the introduction in Section 1, Section 2 provides
a comprehensive literature review on the sustainability of LML. The review emphasises the key
aspects and underscores the significance of establishing accurate weights in Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making (MCDM) methods utilised in urban logistics. Section 3 describes the weighting
framework considering the urban context for the sustainability evaluation of last-mile logistics
solutions. Section 4 provides the case studies description and the main results. Finally, Section
5 contains the discussion, concluding remarks, limitations, and recommendations for further
research.

2. Literature review
2.1. Fostering sustainability in last mile logistics
Sustainability in LML refers to meeting the current needs of customers and businesses while
protecting the environment and ensuring social and economic well-being for future gener-
ations. According to Visser, Nemoto, and Browne (2014), the LML segment is recognised as
the most expensive and environmentally impactful phase of the overall logistics process. Sus-
tainability in LML actions includes minimising the environmental impact of transportation
and delivery, promoting economic growth, and ensuring that all members of society have
access to goods and services (Lyons and McDonald 2023). The economic sustainability of
last-mile logistics (LML) is influenced by delivery attributes such as cost and speed (Ignat
and Chankov 2020). Different delivery methods, including home delivery, reception boxes,
and collection-and-delivery points, offer advantages and disadvantages depending on the deliv-
ery attributes and the built environment (Garver et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2014). Environmental
impacts of LML focus on road freight transportation effects like air pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions, and traffic congestion (Ignat and Chankov 2020). Measures to reduce emissions
include adopting energy-efficient transportation modes, using cleaner vehicles, implementing
eco-driving practices, and promoting sustainable customer behaviours (Boggio-Marzet et al.
2021; Manerba, Mansini, and Zanotti 2018; Muñoz-Villamizar et al. 2019). The social impacts
of LML involve employee working conditions and the spillover effects on the population, such
as traffic congestion and noise pollution (Ignat and Chankov 2020). Addressing these impacts
requires considering factors like employee schedules, salaries, insurance, training, and the
population’s potential loss of time and living conditions (Ignat and Chankov 2020; Kim
et al. 2021).
As denoted by Gonzalez, Garrido, and Vassallo (2023), the stakeholders’ point of view is crucial
to achieving the sustainability of LML because sometimes there is no agreement on how to apply
these measures. To achieve sustainability in LML, logistics companies may adopt various strategies,
such as using alternative fuel vehicles, implementing efficient routing and scheduling, using inno-
vative technologies to optimise delivery, and promoting sustainable packaging and labelling (Lyons
and McDonald 2023). However, sustainability in LML can also be promoted through cooperation
models between private operators and public authorities or by encouraging more sustainable con-
sumption behaviour among users. It is important to note that sustainable LML is a multidimen-
sional concept that minimises the environmental impact and promotes social and economic
well-being.
4 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

As a consequence of that, to asses sustainability, different criteria should be considered, such as

(i) environmental impact, including criteria such as emissions, energy consumption, air pollution,
and use of resources; (ii) social impact, including criteria such as employment and quality of the
labour market, community engagement, and fair-trade practices; and (iii) economic impact, includ-
ing criteria such as cost efficiency, financial sustainability, and return on investment.

2.2. Weighting in multicriteria evaluation methods

Multicriteria evaluation methods intend to help decision-makers prioritise or select the best
alternative (solution) within a range of alternatives with different performances in a set of key
decision-making indicators. A key component of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods
is eliciting stakeholder preferences through scores and weights.
The literature is abundant with different MCDM methods and models applied in sustainability
engineering (Stojčić et al. 2019). Jamshidi et al. (2019) observed the extended use of methods
such as AHP and TOPSIS in the LML initiatives sector (Awasthi and Chauhan 2012; Janjevic,
Knoppen, and Winkenbach 2019a; Katsela and Pålsson 2019; Rao et al. 2015), but there exist
many others in combination with hybrid models, as an example, Tadić, Zečević, and Krstić
(2014) and Krstić et al. (2021) proposed a hybrid model integrating fuzzy Decision Making
Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), fuzzy analytic network process (FANP) and
VIKOR models for urban logistics strategy decision making or Watróbski et al. (2017) proposed
a hybrid method using PROMETHEE II and fuzzy TOPSIS for selecting electric freight vehicles
in Last-Mile Logistics.
Multi-criteria weights are used in decision-making processes to assign relative importance to
different criteria or factors. They are used to evaluate and compare different options or alternatives
based on a set of predefined criteria. The weights assign a numerical value or priority of values to
each criterion, indicating its relative importance in decision-making. Assigning weights to multiple
criteria is prevalent in logistics, engineering, and operations management. This approach is handy
for decision-making where the design or functioning of systems involves considering multiple fac-
tors (Stojčić et al. 2019). For example, in logistics, multi-criteria weights might be used to evaluate
different transportation options based on criteria such as cost, speed, environmental impact, and
safety (i.e. Awasthi, Chauhan, and Goyal 2011; Le Pira et al. 2017; Nathanail et al. 2018). The
weights would be assigned based on the relative importance of each criterion to the overall
decision-making process.
The literature review demonstrates limited knowledge of the link between experts’ views and the
urban context in LML solutions (Alvarez and Maheut 2022; Jamshidi et al. 2019). Apart from sta-
keholders’ preferences regarding LML solutions, LML policymaking takes place in various urban
contexts that differ in terms of geographic characteristics, social, cultural, legislation, economic
and other aspects. Some authors acknowledge that the implementation of LML solutions must con-
sider the specific characteristics of the urban area where it is being implemented (Alho and de
Abreu Silva 2015; Janjevic, Knoppen, and Winkenbach 2019b; Macário 2013). Hence, the present
study aims to analyse the importance of the city context in setting the weights of sustainability cri-
teria in last-mile logistics solutions, comparing several case studies.

3. The weighting framework: incorporating urban context in last-mile logistics

evaluation
This paper applies the weighting framework defined by the STAR Logistic Methodology, developed
for the LEAD project, using the principles for sustainability appraisal established by Bueno Cadena
and Vassallo Magro (2015). The STAR Logistics Methodology conducts an integrated impact
assessment of LML solutions from the sustainable perspective (economic, environmental, and
social). The novelty of the methodology is that sustainability KPIs are aggregated through a
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 5

multicriteria decision analysis whose weights are estimated in terms of both the urban context and
experts’ perspectives. In assigning weighting coefficients to the sustainability criteria in LML initiat-
ives, the REMBRANDT and Delphi methods are used to avoid inaccuracy and subjectivity. Section
3.1 includes the selected sustainable criteria for LML within the LEAD project, and Section 3.2
describes the weighting framework incorporating urban context and expert stakeholders’ opinions
for each criterion.

3.1. Selection of sustainable criteria

For each specific policy or project, sustainability criteria are set to characterise the well-known
sustainability triple bottom dimensions: economic efficiency, environmental preservation, and
social considerations. The criteria can be measured on either a quantitative or a qualitative
scale depending on their characteristics (Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro 2015; Vassallo
and Bueno 2021).
A multitude of criteria can be considered to evaluate LML sustainability. For the specific STAR
Logistics Methodology in the LEAD project, the work by Gonzalez, Garrido, and Vassallo (2023)
examined the criteria for achieving sustainable LML from the perspective of key stakeholders. Sub-
sequently, a consensus among all technical project partners was reached to establish the criteria,
utilising an initial list of indicators as a starting point. As a result, a total of 15 criteria were selected,
aligning with the triple bottom line of sustainability:

. Social criteria. Job creation, Quality of the jobs, and Neighbourhood quality of life criteria were
chosen. Working conditions in logistics are an important issue (Gaborieau 2012).
. Environmental criteria. Energy consumption, GHG emissions, NOx emissions, PM emissions, and
Noise pollution were chosen. Most research works highlight the importance of reducing pollutant
emissions concerns in LML (Bosona 2020; Patella et al. 2021).
. Economic criteria. Average delivery cost of the business model, Congestion, Urban storage &
parking space, Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) of the business models, Shop retail
benefits, Delivery time, and Delivery reliability within the time windows. Given the impact of
the economic dimension on all stakeholders (retailer, consumer, and logistic operator), in this
case, the number of criteria is higher than in the previous dimensions.

3.2. Weighting framework: adjusted weight per criterion

After selecting sustainability criteria for the sustainability assessment of last-mile logistics solutions,
this section describes the process of setting the weights of sustainability criteria to tackle the expert’s
preferences and the geographical and social context where the last-mile solution is implemented.
Following the methodology outlined by Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015), the Adjusted
Weights (AW) aimed at obtaining weighting coefficients are calculated on the basis of both consen-
sus-based comparative judgments based on expert opinions (Convergent Weights) and sensitivity
of sustainability criteria in the urban context (Severity Level).
AWi = CWi · SLi , (1)
where AWi – Adjusted Weight for criterion i; CWi – Convergent Weight for criterion i; SLi – Sever-
ity Level of criterion i.

3.2.1. Experts’ preferences: convergent weights

It is essential to involve LML experts with theoretical and practical backgrounds (consultants,
municipalities, logistic providers, researchers, etc.). This helps to create a connection between
6 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

theoretical approaches, current design practices, and the decision-making processes. Gühne-
mann, Laird, and Pearman (2012) suggested that decision-makers with relevant experience
should also take part in defining the weights assigned to each criterion. Bueno Cadena and Vas-
sallo Magro (2015) propose a four-step process based on the DELPHI and REMBRANDT
methods:

. Design a questionnaire including pairwise comparisons among sustainability criteria (see Sec-
tion 3.1).
. Select experts to complete the survey. For the weighting exercise to be considered trustworthy, it
is necessary to have at least thirty participants who responded.
. Survey each expert through a matrix of preferences using the REMBRANDT scale described by
Olson, Fliedner, and Currie (1995).
. Conduct a statistical test to evaluate the experts’ consensus level. Using R software runs a simu-
lation-based cross-validation technique to estimate this.

It should be underlined that the experts are asked for their general view regardless of the project
context so that the analysis can be applied homogeneously to different contexts.
To obtain the criteria weights defined by the experts, Olson, Fliedner, and Currie (1995) outlined
the following procedure. Firstly, the creation of a matrix of criteria comparisons, where d represents
the median importance of criterion i compared to criterion j, after getting the consensus. Secondly,
the creation of a matrix using the geometric scale values calculated by raising e. The preference ratio
(g) used in this process was ln, as recommended by Olson, Fliedner, and Currie (1995). Next, the
estimation of the geometric mean for each criterion i is conducted. Finally, a normalisation of each
criterion is made by dividing its geometric mean by the sum of all geometric means. This approach
allows to derive the criteria weights based on expert judgments and ensure a comprehensive evalu-
ation of the criteria.

3.2.2. Urban context: severity level index

The urban context recognises the sensitivity of the sustainability assessment to the city where the
LML solution will be implemented. To assess a city’s context, the Severity Level (SL) index is
defined as a composite index including both the Present Situation and Trend for the selected sus-
tainable criteria (see Section 3.1) in each urban context. For each criterion, the situation of the
urban context measured through a certain attribute (for instance, air quality performance) is com-
pared with the average of that attribute for a group of cities. Suppose such a city has a worse air
quality than the average of the cities in context, and their tendency in the near future is to continue
performing worse. In that case, a higher SL will be applied to such criterion compared to other cities
that are in average or better than the average.
As already mentioned above, the Severity Level considers both the Present situation and the
Trend. The Present situation compares the current value of the attribute for a specific city with
the average current value of that attribute for the group of cities. That analysis is adjusted to a
homogeneous scale from 0 to 5 points. When the attributes are qualitative, the score assigned
answers the question, Is the ‘context value’ Much better or moderately better (0)/Slightly better
(1)/Similar (2)/Slightly Worse (3), Moderately worse (4) / Much worse (5) than the ‘Average in
the Context’? This process allows us to contextualise the city’s environmental, economic, and
social performance by ‘benchmarking’ it against other cities with comparable characteristics.
For instance, continuing with the air quality criteria example, if a city has worse air quality
levels than the average of the cities in context, their value for the present situation will be
higher.
The Trend intends to measure whether a certain sustainability criterion is expected to
improve or worsen in the future in a specific city. Trends can be classified as ‘improving’,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 7

‘stable’, or ‘Worsening’ and allocates 0 points, 1, and 2 points, respectively. It answers the ques-
tion: Can the criterion improve/be stable/worsen in the future? For instance, if forecasts for the
future of the city’s air quality are poor in the case of air quality criteria, the value for Trend will
be 2.
Finally, the Severity Level Index is the sum of the Present situation plus the Trend. According to
Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015), the range can vary between 0 and 7, with 7 being the
most critical value for each criterion.

4. Application and results

4.1. Case studies
Reaching sustainability in last-mile logistics is a target for many cities worldwide. To demonstrate
the usefulness of the proposed weighting framework in Section 3, this study focuses on the context
of six European cities: Madrid, The Hague, Lyon, Budapest, Oslo, and Porto that are part of the
LEAD project and are assessing sustainable last-mile logistic solutions. Table 1 shows the main
attributes of each city.
With a population of 3.223 million inhabitants, Madrid is not only the capital of Spain but also
the most populous city in the country (Eurostat 2022a). The city is passionately committed to more
sustainable and innovative mobility. Since 2019 Madrid has implemented the 360 strategy (Ayun-
tamiento de Madrid 2023b) to reduce the city’s pollutant emissions to comply with the EU limits.
Among the different mobility measures Madrid implements, urban freight distribution plays a key
role. In fact, Madrid is an important logistic hub between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean TEN-
T corridors. A significant increase in freight transport has led to the development of the urban
freight distribution measures, including optimising the urban distribution of goods, providing tech-
nological solutions to enable a more sustainable delivery, and promoting micro hubs where freight
is delivered by e-cargo bikes. Madrid suffers from significant high pollution episodes (Romero et al.
2019), air pollution being one of the most challenging health risks for the population. The City
Council is enhancing air quality, such as implementing the Low Emissions Zone (LEZ) scheme
in 2018 (Gonzalez, Gomez, and Vassallo 2022).
The Hague, located in the Netherlands, is the third-largest city in the country, with a population
of 514,861 (Eurostat 2022a) and a high density of 6,500 inhabitants per square kilometre (Central
Bureu of Statistics 2017). Although the city boasts an extensive public transportation network to
serve its population, only 10% of the population uses public transport as their primary mode of
transport. In contrast, approximately 40% of the population prefers private cars (Netherlands Insti-
tute for Transport Policy Analysis 2019). This preference for private cars, combined with the fact

Table 1. Cities context.

City Population Sustainability Measures
Madrid 3.223 Implementation of the Madrid 360 Sustainable Mobility Plan (Ayuntamiento de Madrid 2023a) to
million reduce pollutant emissions, urban freight distribution measures, optimisation of freight
distribution, technological solutions, and promotion of e-cargo bikes. Low Emission Zone,
restrictions on polluting vehicles.
The 514,861 Low Emission Zone, restrictions on polluting vehicles, brownfield and greenfield urban
Hague development, support for crowd-shipping, experimentation with new freight distribution services
Lyon 513,275 Focus on establishing a calm and low-motorized environment, public space accessibility, and Low
Emission Zone implementation.
Budapest 1.75 million Implementation of protected and restricted zones to combat air pollution, reducing street-level
pollution, measures to protect public health
Oslo 634,293 Ambitious target of cutting CO2 emissions by 95% by 2030, focus on load capacity utilisation and
zero-emission lateral distributions.
Porto 214,349 Pressure from urban logistic operators, licensing challenges, emphasis on strategic locations, access
regulations to improve air quality
8 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

that trucks cover 5,000,000 kilometres and delivery vans cover 3,000,000 kilometres daily (all seg-
ments), has led to adverse effects such as traffic congestion, energy consumption, and noise and air
pollution. To address these issues, The Hague has implemented Low Emission Zones and restric-
tions on the most polluting vehicles (Hague 2022). Additionally, the city is planning brownfield
urban renovation and greenfield urban development to promote sustainable urban mobility,
including freight transport. The municipality is keen to support business models that improve
social cohesiveness, such as crowd-shipping (Balm 2022), and is experimenting with new freight
distribution services in this regard. These innovative developments will help create socially inclusive
settlements and new forms of sustainable urban mobility, which will, in turn, benefit the city by
reducing traffic congestion, energy consumption, and noise and air pollution.
Lyon is the third largest city in France, with a population of 513,275 (Eurostat 2022a). In the face
of the widespread background of car mobility, urban plans hope to establish a calm and low-
motorised environment (United Nations 2020). Another objective is to guarantee that people
have a more significant share in public places. Lyon Confluence (2019) blends commercial, econ-
omic, and cultural activity with residences and is bordered by some of the city’s most renowned
structures. Along with housing estates, the neighbourhood has both commercial and tertiary enter-
prises. In late 2016, a Low Emission Zone was implemented, where the environmental badge of the
vehicle governs the permission to enter.
Budapest, the capital of Hungary, has a population of 1.75 million inhabitants (Eurostat 2022a).
The city’s urban node plays a crucial role as an important logistic area that is affected by the Orient
East Med and Mediterranean TEN-T corridors. The area is home to approximately 20% of the
country’s population. However, new regulations have brought street-level air pollution to the fore-
front, and the city is taking measures to address this issue. Budapest has implemented 11 protected
zones and 15 restricted zones to combat air pollution (European Commission 2023). The protected
zones consist of historical or recreational green areas where vehicular traffic is not allowed, while
restricted zones are parts of the city where heavy-duty vehicles require entry permits. These
measures aim to reduce air pollution in the city and protect the health of its residents. Overall,
Budapest’s efforts to combat air pollution are a positive step towards creating a healthier and
more sustainable city. By implementing these measures, the city can continue to thrive as an impor-
tant logistic area while also promoting the well-being of its residents.
Oslo is Norway’s capital and most populous city, with 634,293 inhabitants (Eurostat 2022a).
Oslo, one of Europe’s fastest-growing cities, plans to cut CO2 emissions by 95% by 2030. As Euro-
pean Green Capital 2019, the city hopes to set an example for others. The city’s forthcoming Cli-
mate Strategy, presented by the City Government in August 2019 and adopted by the Oslo City
Council in October 2019, identifies city logistics as an important policy area for reduced emissions
(Ørving and Eidhammer 2019). It focuses on measures promoting greater utilisation of load
capacity and the establishment of collection centres for zero-emission lateral distributions.
Porto is the second-largest city in Portugal, with a population of 214,349 inhabitants (Eurostat
2022a). Following the growth of online shopping and the scarcity of suitable quality supply, there is
additional pressure from urban logistic operators looking for spaces close to Porto. A notorious
delay in the licensing process by the town council adds another challenge; there is a preference
for locations along strategic routes, proximity to the Airport, or proximity to Regional Supply Mar-
ket (Cushman & Wakefield 2022). As in many cities, to improve air quality inside cities, Acesso
Automóvel Condicionado is a Porto access regulation restricted to specific times and types of users.

4.2. Experts’ stakeholders’ preferences

According to the methodology designed by Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015), described in
Section 3.2.1, experts were asked to express graded comparative judgments among the different sus-
tainable criteria related to last-mile logistics through a pairwise comparison questionnaire without
knowledge of the urban context. Table 2 shows the pairwise comparison criteria. They compare the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 9

Table 2. REMBRANDT Criteria comparisons.

Code Criteria 1 Criteria 2
EN1 Energy consumption reduction GHG emissions reduction
EN2 Energy consumption reduction Air pollution reduction
EN3 Energy consumption reduction Noise pollution reduction
EN4 GHG emissions reduction Air pollution reduction
EN5 GHG emissions reduction Noise pollution reduction
EN6 Air pollution reduction Noise pollution reduction
SC1 Increasing job creation Improving the Quality of the jobs
SC2 Increasing job creation Improving neighbourhood quality of life
SC3 Improving the Quality of the jobs Improving neighbourhood quality of life
EC1 Reduction of delivery costs of last mile logistic services Reducing congestion in the streets of the city
EC2 Reduction of delivery costs of last mile logistic services Increasing availability of public space in the city centre
EC3 Reduction of delivery costs of last mile logistic services Increasing the profitability of logistic companies
EC4 Reduction of delivery costs of last mile logistic services Increasing shop/retail activity in the city centre
EC5 Reduction of delivery costs of last mile logistic services Making delivery times in logistics shorter
EC6 Reduction of delivery costs of last mile logistic services Improving the reliability of deliveries in logistics
EC7 Reducing congestion in the streets of the city Increasing availability of public space in the city centre
EC8 Reducing congestion in the streets of the city Increasing the profitability of logistic companies
EC9 Reducing congestion in the streets of the city Increasing shop/retail activity in the city centre
EC10 Reducing congestion in the streets of the city Making delivery times in logistics shorter
EC11 Reducing congestion in the streets of the city Improving the reliability of logistic deliveries
EC12 Increasing availability of public space in the city centre Increasing the profitability of logistic companies
EC13 Increasing availability of public space in the city centre Increasing shop/retail activity in the city centre
EC14 Increasing availability of public space in the city centre Making delivery times in logistics shorter
EC15 Increasing availability of public space in the city centre Improving the reliability of logistic deliveries
EC16 Increasing the profitability of logistic companies Increasing shop/retail activity in the city centre
EC17 Increasing the profitability of logistic companies Making delivery times in logistics shorter
EC18 Increasing the profitability of logistic companies Improving the reliability of logistic deliveries
EC19 Increasing shop/retail activity in the city centre Making delivery times in logistics shorter
EC20 Increasing shop/retail activity in the city centre Improving the reliability of logistic deliveries
EC21 Making delivery times in logistics shorter Improving the reliability of logistic deliveries

importance of different sustainability criteria based on a –8 (Very strong preference from Criteria 1
over Criteria 2) to +8 (Very strong preference from Criteria 2 over Criteria 1) scale known as the
REMBRANDT scale (Karbassi Yazdi and Abdi 2017; Olson, Fliedner, and Currie 1995). To evaluate
trade-offs, they need to clearly understand how the improvement of the deterioration of another
may counterbalance the improvement of one criterion. To help decision-makers understand
trade-offs between criteria, the questionnaire provided an example to show how to analyse pairwise
comparisons: ‘For each pairwise comparison of two social criteria, point out the one which, in your
opinion, is preferable for the society. If, for example, you select a strong preference for the increasing
job creation criteria over the improving quality of the jobs criteria; you are implicitly claiming that
creating more employment is more important for the society than improving the quality of the
jobs’. The survey form, including this example, and collected data can be accessed in the open
data set by Vassallo, Gonzalez, and Sobrino (2023).
The online survey was disseminated through LEAD partners’ contacts covering three main
groups of experts: (i) public authorities, (ii) logistics companies, and (iii) researchers and consult-
ants. A collaborative approach was employed in the survey data collection involving all project part-
ners. Each partner was responsible for distributing the survey to their respective contacts within
specific stakeholder groups, namely public authorities of the cities, logistics companies, academia,
and research institutions. By leveraging our project partners’ diverse networks and expertise, we
aimed to ensure a comprehensive and representative sample of expert opinions. This collaborative
effort facilitated data collection and fostered a multidimensional perspective by incorporating
inputs from various stakeholders involved in the last-mile logistics domain.
The survey was answered from May to the end of June 2022. A total of 54 valid surveys from
experts were obtained, well-distributed by years of experience in the logistics sector. More than
90% of participants were from European countries, with significant participation from Spain
10 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

Figure 1. Comparisons answer distribution (–8 Very strong preference from Criteria 1 over Criteria 2 to +8 Very strong preference
from Criteria 2 over Criteria 1): Economic Comparisons: Environmental Comparisons: Social Comparisons.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 11

(28%), Hungary (15%), and Belgium (9%). Around 30% of the representatives were from public
authorities, another 30% were from the academic and research community, and the remaining
came from the logistics industry, including logistics operators, shippers, and consultants. Concern-
ing the years of experience in LML, 35% of participants have more than 10 years, 28% between 5 and
10, 24% between 2 and 5, and only 13% less than 2 years.
Figure 1 displays the distribution of answers over the REMBRANDT scale for each comparison.
For instance, in Figure 1a, the EC1 comparison (Table 1) compares the reduction of delivery costs of
last mile logistic service (Criteria 1) with reducing congestion in the streets of the city (Criteria 2).
As can be observed, results leaning to the right (+6) show a strong preference of experts for redu-
cing congestion in the street (Criteria 2) over a reduction of delivery costs of last-mile logistic ser-
vice (Criteria 1).
At a glance, we can see which criteria the experts are leaning towards. However, as Bueno
Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015) denoted, a statistical test is required to assess the convergence
of opinion for a weighting process to be considered robust and valid. The test divided the data from
the experts’ survey into two equal-sized sections. This procedure was repeated 1,000, 10,000, and
100,000 times with randomly chosen groups. As a result, there was no difference in more than
92% of subsets for all comparisons. Consequently, convergence is accepted. Otherwise, it would
have been necessary to use the Delphi Method to find a convergence between experts; see Bueno
Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015) for more details about the methodology.
Applying the methodology described above, the weights for each sustainability criterion were
calculated and normalised. As shown in Figure 2, the most important criteria for the stakeholders
are: (i) increasing job creation within the social criteria, reducing energy consumption within the

Figure 2. Experts’ Weights for each criterion.

12 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

environmental criteria; and (iii) reducing delivery costs of last-mile logistic services for the econ-
omic criteria. Another insight of the analysis is that the social component is crucial for the experts.

4.3. Importance of urban context

Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015) methodology considers the urban context by calculating
the Severity Level Index, whose calculation was explained in Section 3.2.2. An attribute is selected
and measured for each sustainable criterion quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantitative attributes
were consulted in official reports or databases at the city or country level. Regarding qualitative cri-
teria, LEAD project representatives, which are project partners linked to each of the cities (each of
the six cities has at least one public authority as well as one logistic company linked to the city
among the project representatives) were asked to rate each criterion. For example, regarding the
qualitative criteria ‘urban and parking space’, the representatives asked: how important are the pro-
blems of urban and parking space in your city compared to cities with similar characteristics? 1. Not
at all important/2. Slightly important/3. Moderately important/ 4. Very important/ 5. Extremely
important. For ‘average delivery cost’ criteria: How are average delivery costs for last-mile logistics
in your city compared to other cities with similar characteristics? Much lower/ Lower/ About the
same/ Higher/ Much Higher. Table 3 shows the present situation (PS) and trends (T) for criteria
attributes of all cities and the average in the context of the six cities.
The Severity Level (SL) for each city was estimated by summing up the Present Situation (PS)
value and the Trend (T). As shown in Table 4, the SL is presented for each criterion and city.
For criteria where the attribute measured is numerical, PS was adjusted to a 0–5 scale, comparing
the numerical value of the attribute with the average in the context. Otherwise, when the attributes
are qualitative, PS was revealed directly for the city (see Section 3.2.2). At first glance, it is clear how
each city presents different concerns. That demonstrates the importance of considering the urban
context in the analysis.
For Madrid, the social component of sustainability is important since, compared to other cities,
the unemployment rate is the highest and the quality of the jobs the poorest among the cities con-
sidered. Moreover, the expected trends for those factors are not promising. In the rest of the cities,
the social component is not so sensitive, and trends are more stable.
As for the environmental component, there are different results among the cities. Madrid, Lyon,
and Porto consider energy consumption a criterion to be improved compared to the context. PM
and NOx emissions, surprisingly, have a medium importance among the cities, although for The
Hague, reduction of nitrous oxides is important. It is important to note that noise pollution
reduction is highly important for The Hague, Budapest, and Oslo. Although CO2 is included within
the criteria, it does not directly affect the local level, as climate change is global. For that reason, no
context weights were assigned to that criterion.
Different concerns are identified among the cities about the economic component. For example,
for Budapest, the average cost of delivering the business model is the most important one within the
economic criteria. Lyon, which maintains a medium severity level in the other criteria, reports con-
gestion as a significant issue for them. Madrid, Oslo, and Porto have a lack of storage space and
urban parking, and the situation is not improving in the future. Finally, Madrid considers retail
profits affected; hence this is an important criterion to consider.

4.4. Adjusted weights: A comparison between six European cities

From previous sections, we notice significant differences across cities because of the context. Those
differences are used to adjust the experts’ weights. Taking all together as described in Section 3.2,
Table 5 summarises the most relevant results of the adjusted weights for each city and criterion. The
comparison between all cities and each sustainability component shows the main results obtained
after applying the methodology defined by Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015). For this
Table 3. Present situation (PS) and trends (T) for criteria attributes of all cities and average in the context
Present Situation
Trends
Average in
Component Criteria Attributes Unit Madrid The Hague Lyon Budapest Oslo Porto Context
Social Job Creation Unemployment rate (%) – Region % 12.50% 4.40% 7.20% 3.30% 5.10% 6.90% 6.80%
level (2020) (Eurostat 2022b) Improving Improving Improving Stable Stable Stable
Quality of the Jobs OECD Better Life Index: Jobs – [0–10] 5.3 9.1 7.5 7.0 8.8 6.5 7.4
Country Level (2019) (OECD 2020) Stable Stable Worsening Worsening Stable Stable
Neighbours’ Citizens’ Satisfaction with living in [1–100] 84.20 94.70 95.80 86.20 97.10 97.30 92.55
Quality of Life the city [1–100] City Level (2019) Worsening Improving Improving Worsening Worsening Stable
(European Commission 2020)
Environmental Energy Share of renewable energy in gross % 9.50% 12.60% 9.20% 11.60% 28.70% 9.70% 13.55%
final energy consumption in

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

consumption Improving Improving Improving Stable Improving Improving
transport (%) – Country-level/
Context EU (2020)(Eurostat 2022c)
GHG emissions Global criteria - - - - - - –
Worsening Worsening Worsening Worsening Worsening Worsening

NOx emissions Annual means concentration of NO2 μg/m3 21.3 26.13 21.13 24.8 24.02 24.75 23.7
(μg/m3) – Mean across urban Improving Improving Improving Stable Improving Stable
stations – City level (2019)
(European Environment Agency
2020)
PM emissions Annual means concentration of 0–10 μg/m3 = Good/10– Good Good Moderate Moderate Good Good
PM2.5 (μg/m3) – Mean across 15 moderate/15–25 Stable Improving Improving Improving Improving Stable
urban stations – City level (2019) poor/25–35 very poor
(European Environment Agency
2021)
Noise pollution People exposed to day-evening- Number of people 36% 56% 63% 64% 74% 16% 52%
night average sound levels of ≥55 Improving Worsening Improving Worsening Stable Worsening
dB (%) – City level (2019)
(European Environment Agency
2020)
Economic Average delivery QUALITATIVEa [Much lower/Lower/About About the About the About the Higher About the About the
cost of the the same/Higher/Much same same same Worsening same same
business model higher] Stable Improving Worsening Worsening Worsening
Congestion Time lost per year in congestion – Hour/driver-year 41 59 66 69 46 52 55.5
(Hours) – City Level/Context Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Improving
average LEAD cities (2021)
(TomTom 2022)
QUALITATIVEb

13
(Continued)
 14
J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.
Table 3. Continued.
Present Situation
Trends
Average in
Component Criteria Attributes Unit Madrid The Hague Lyon Budapest Oslo Porto Context
Urban storage & [Not at all important/ Very Very Moderately Very Very Very
parking space Slightly important/ important important important important important important
Moderately important/ Stable Improving Improving Stable Worsening Worsening
Very important/
Extremely important]
Financial Internal QUALITATIVEc [Much lower/Lower/About Lower Lower Higher About the Lower Lower
Rate of Return the same/Higher/Much Worsening Improving Improving same Improving Stable
(FIRR) higher] Stable
Shop retail Retail Trade Turnover Index (2015 = Index 2015 = 100 121.3 121.1 126 166 131.8 127.7 132.3
benefits 100) Country-level/Context EU Worsening Improving Improving Stable Improving Improving
(2021) (Eurostat 2022d)
Delivery time QUALITATIVEd [Much lower/Lower/About About the About the About the About the About the About the
the same/Higher/Much same same same same same same
higher] Improving Improving Improving Stable Stable Stable
Delivery reliability Frequency with which shipments [1–5] 4.06 4.25 4.15 3.79 3.94 4.13 4.05
within the time reach consignee within schedule or Stable Worsening Stable Worsening Stable Improving
windows expected time. [1–5] – Country
level (2018) (The World Bank
2020)
a
How are average delivery costs for last mile logistics in your city compared to other cities with similar characteristics?
b
How important are the problems of urban and parking space in the city of your Living Lab compared to cities with similar characteristics?
c
Compared to other sectors of the local economy, the logistics sector’s return on investment in the Living Lab region is …
d
How long are average delivery times for last-mile logistics in your city compared to other cities with similar characteristics?
Table 4. Severity Level Index.
Madrid The Hague Lyon Budapest Oslo Porto

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

Component Criteria PS T SL PS T SL PS T SL PS T SL PS T SL PS T SL
Social Job Creation 5 0 5 1 0 1 3 0 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3
Quality of the Jobs 5 1 6 1 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 1 4
Neighbours’ Quality of Life 3 2 5 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 2 5 1 2 3 1 1 2
Environmental Energy consumption 5 0 5 3 0 3 5 0 5 3 1 4 1 0 1 5 0 5
GHG emissionsa 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3
NOx emissions 2 0 2 5 0 5 2 0 2 3 1 4 3 0 3 3 1 4
PM emissions 1 1 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 2
Noise pollution 1 0 1 4 2 6 4 0 4 4 2 6 5 1 6 1 2 3
Economic Average delivery cost of the business model 3 1 4 3 0 3 3 2 5 4 2 6 3 2 5 3 2 5
Congestion 1 1 2 4 1 5 5 1 6 5 0 5 2 1 3 2 0 2
Urban storage & parking space 4 1 5 4 0 4 3 0 3 4 0 4 4 2 6 4 2 6
Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) 2 2 4 2 0 2 4 0 4 3 0 3 2 0 2 2 1 3
Shop retail benefits 4 2 6 4 0 4 4 0 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 4 0 4
Delivery time 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 1 4 3 1 4
Delivery reliability within the time windows 3 1 4 3 2 5 3 1 4 3 2 5 3 1 4 3 0 3
PS: Present Situation, T: Trend and SL: Severity Level.
a
GHG emissions are a global criterion that is equally important for all cities.

15
16 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

Table 5. Adjusted Weight for each criterion and city.

Criteria Madrid The Hague Lyon Budapest Oslo Porto
Job Creation 207.1 41.42 124.26 82.84 82.84 124.26
Quality of the Jobs 175.74 58.58 117.16 117.16 58.58 117.16
Neighbourhood Quality of Life 146.45 29.29 29.29 146.45 87.87 58.58
Energy consumption 206.85 124.11 206.85 165.48 41.37 206.85
GHG emissions 78.18 78.18 78.18 78.18 78.18 78.18
NOx emissions 52.12 130.3 52.12 104.24 78.18 104.24
PM emissions 52.12 26.06 78.18 78.18 26.06 52.12
Noise pollution 6.51 39.06 26.04 39.06 39.06 19.53
Average delivery cost of the business model 115.8 86.85 144.75 173.7 144.75 144.75
Congestion 15.34 38.35 46.02 38.35 23.01 15.34
Urban storage & parking space 34.15 27.32 20.49 27.32 40.98 40.98
Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) 48.68 24.34 48.68 36.51 24.34 36.51
Shop retail benefits 73.02 48.68 48.68 12.17 36.51 48.68
Delivery time 38.67 38.67 38.67 38.67 51.56 51.56
Delivery reliability within the time windows 77.28 96.6 77.28 96.6 77.28 57.96

analysis, Adjusted Weights can vary between 0 and 290 (considering an SL of 7 and the highest
obtained Experts’ Weights in Section 5.1).
As shown in Table 5, Madrid stands out as the city whose adjusted weights for the different cri-
teria most closely match those defined by the experts (see Figure 2). Notably, Madrid is quite sen-
sitive to social criteria, especially in terms of job creation. The environmental component is also
significant, with energy consumption ranking particularly high. While the experts emphasised
other environmental criteria like GHG, NOx, and PM emissions, the city context resulted in a
higher weight for some economic components, such as the average delivery cost and the delivery
reliability within the time window. Reducing noise in Madrid is not as important as it is in other
cities, given the fact that noise does not appear to be a big problem in that city. Overall, the city
of Madrid is balanced to implement last-mile solutions which have a positive impact on job creation
and their quality, reduction of energy consumption and reduction of delivery costs.
The Hague situation places greater emphasis on the environmental component rather than the
social one. Table 5 illustrates that the highest adjusted weights for the city are for NOx emissions
and energy consumption, followed by delivery reliability within specified time frames, and average
delivery costs, two of the main economic criteria. In contrast to Madrid, noise pollution has increas-
ing importance, leaving Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) and PM emission at the bottom of
the list. Some social and economic criteria have similar weights, such as quality of jobs and benefits
for retail stores, as well as urban storage and parking space and the quality of life in neighbour-
hoods. In short, when looking for sustainable last-mile logistic solutions for The Hague, they should
preferably have positive impacts on NOx emissions and energy consumption reduction as well as
average delivery cost reduction and improving delivery reliability.
Lyon and Porto follow a similar behaviour. The most significant adjusted weight was seen in the
energy consumption criterion, followed by the average delivery cost of the business model (see
Table 5). Job creation and its quality also received a notable weight, indicating the crucial role
played by various social factors in achieving sustainable LML. Interestingly, the adjusted weight
obtained by the city of Lyon for neighbourhood quality of life was one of the lowest, despite its
high importance as assigned by the experts. In addition, the other economic criteria did not receive
significant weight, except for the average delivery cost of the business model; however, the adjusted
weights for Lyon are higher than Porto.
In Budapest, as is shown in Table 5, the sustainability criteria with the greatest importance are
the average delivery cost of the business model, energy consumption, and neighbourhood quality of
life. Thus, each dimension of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) is represented by
one criterion. Notably, the adjusted weights for environmental criteria related to air quality emis-
sions have also shown significant importance, following a similar pattern to that of the experts.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 17

Oslo stands out from other cities in terms of its behaviour. It is noteworthy that while other cities
assign a high adjusted weight to the energy consumption criterion, it is not that important for Oslo.
Table 5 reveals that, for Oslo, the most significantly adjusted weight was the average delivery cost,
indicating that reducing the cost is critical to achieving a more sustainable LML. Notably, while
GHG and NOX emissions have high adjusted weights, PM emissions have the lowest adjusted
weights. The other economic criteria have low importance (see Figure 2).
Although each city has its strengths and weaknesses in terms of achieving sustainable last-mile
logistics in its own context, our results suggest that, in general, each of the six cities aims to
implement strategies that achieve a positive impact on all three dimensions of sustainability, but
with a special focus on improving the environmental and social aspects, which are the dimensions
that have been least considered when developing the business models for last mile logistics
solutions.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The increase in logistic activity due to the boom of e-commerce and the impact of COVID-19 is a
tremendous challenge for cities that adds up to air quality, demographic pressure, or economic pro-
blems. For this reason, implementing sustainable last-mile logistics has become a big priority in
many cities.
The successful implementation of sustainable LML solutions should respond to both the sustain-
ability needs of the city and the demands of key stakeholders. In fact, every city requires specific
measures to improve sustainability. There is not a single solution that is effective everywhere. Con-
sequently, the decision-making process to adopt suitable solutions should be accompanied by an
evaluation framework that engages expert stakeholders and considers the context of each city.
In this study, as part of the LEAD Project, the STAR Logistics Methodology is presented as a
specialised tool to assess the sustainability of different LML solutions. This model is an adaptation
and update of the STAR (Sustainability Tool for the Appraisal of Road projects) Model, created by
Bueno Cadena and Vassallo Magro (2015). The STAR Logistics Methodology applies an adjusted
weighting framework which incorporates the urban context and experts’ opinions to identify sus-
tainability criteria. The adjusted weighting framework is applied to six European cities in the frame-
work of the LEAD project with the aim of comparing variations of weights across cities. The results
show that this approach facilitates making tailor-made decisions according to the sustainability
needs of each city. Consequently, decision-makers can utilise the outcomes of this research to
make sustainability-oriented decisions at the time of implementing LML solutions.
The present weighting framework offers several advantages over alternative weighting schemes/
methods for the assessment of LML solutions: (i) it is a unique weighting framework that takes into
account in the weightings of the sustainability criteria the differences across urban contexts (the so-
called Level of Severity for each criterion) together with experts’ judgments (experts weights). It
recognises that different cities have unique priorities, challenges, and characteristics and allows
for customising weights based on the specific urban context in which sustainable last-mile logistics
solutions are implemented; (ii) the integrated Delphi/REMBRANDT method combines the Delphi
method, which allows for the aggregation of expert opinions through iterative rounds of feedback,
with the Rembrandt method providing a structured process for obtaining consensus among experts.
This integration ensures a robust and rigorous approach to capturing and synthesising expert judg-
ments, (iii) it enhances the accuracy and relevance of the weighting process, contributing to more
informed decision-making in evaluating and selecting sustainable last-mile logistics solutions.
The article analyses the importance of urban context in selecting sustainable last-mile logistics
solutions in six European cities. Significant differences have been found when the experts’ prefer-
ences are combined with each city’s needs through the urban context. For instance, last-mile strat-
egies impacting employment are much more critical in cities like Madrid, with high unemployment
rates, compared to cities like The Hague, where unemployment rates are negligible.
18 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

Environmental and social sustainability components have different importance across cities.
Madrid is more sensitive to both of them, while The Hague mostly emphasises the environmental
component. Lyon and Porto prioritise energy consumption and job creation, while Budapest prior-
itises the average delivery cost of the business model and energy consumption. Oslo focuses on
enhancing the business model, with a lower priority for PM emissions.
The findings allow us to draw interesting recommendation. It highlights that social sustainability
criteria (including job creation, quality of jobs, and quality of life in neighbourhoods) are crucial for
experts. Some cities like Madrid are also susceptible to social sustainability issues. The environ-
mental component, especially when it comes to energy consumption, is also important for experts
and sensitive for cities such as The Hague. The economic component appears to be less important
though criteria such as delivery cost and delivery reliability within the time windows are also impor-
tant to reach a sustainable LML.
The findings obtained in this paper are helpful for policymakers and LML stakeholders interested
in promoting sustainable urban mobility. Further research could apply the adjusted weights to prior-
itise certain LML strategies or decision-making scenarios across different cities (i.e. increasing the
electric delivery fleet, implementing microhubs, parcel lockers, crowdshipping, etc.). Furthermore,
the present weighting framework has certain limitations that are worth analysing in the future. Future
studies can investigate alternative coding approaches to capture more precise distinctions between
response categories, thereby addressing potential inaccuracies in measuring differences within the
present situation. Additionally, utilising a more nuanced scale beyond the three-point scale (‘improv-
ing’, ‘stable’, and ‘worsening’) can facilitate trend measurements, accommodating diverse degrees of
improvement or deterioration. This would contribute to improve accuracy in analysing and interpret-
ing trends. Future studies can also delve into the intricacies of trade-offs to improve understanding of
the complexities inherent in evaluating sustainable last-mile logistics solutions.

Notes
1. https://civitas.eu/projects/citylab
2. http://novelog.eu/
3. http://www.straightsol.eu/
4. https://ulaads.eu/
5. https://www.leadproject.eu/
6. http://evalog.civ.uth.gr/

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
7695814.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under
[grant number 861598].

ORCID
Juan Nicolas Gonzalez http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8589-803X
Natalia Sobrino http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4630-9284
Jose Manuel Vassallo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7151-4939
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 19

References
Alho, André Romano, and João de Abreu Silva. 2015. “Utilizing Urban Form Characteristics in Urban Logistics
Analysis: A Case Study in Lisbon, Portugal.” Journal of Transport Geography 42: 57–71. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.11.002.
ALICE. 2015. Urban Freight: Research and Innovation Roadmap. ERTRAC.
Alvarez, Sandra Milena, and Julien Maheut. 2022. “Protocol: Systematic Literature Review of the Application of the
Multicriteria Decision Analysis Methodology in the Evaluation of Urban Freight Logistics Initiatives.” WPOM-
Working Papers on Operations Management 13 (2 SE-): 86–107. https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.16780.
Autry, Chad, Michael S. Garver, Zachary Williams, G. Stephen Taylor, and William R. Wynne. 2012. “Modelling
Choice in Logistics: a Managerial Guide and Application.” International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 42 (2): 128–151. http://doi.org/10.1108/09600031211219654.
Awasthi, Anjali, and Satyaveer S. Chauhan. 2012. “A Hybrid Approach Integrating Affinity Diagram, AHP and Fuzzy
TOPSIS for Sustainable City Logistics Planning.” Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2): 573–584. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apm.2011.07.033.
Awasthi, Anjali, S. S. Chauhan, and S. K. Goyal. 2011. “A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Location
Planning for Urban Distribution Centers Under Uncertainty.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (1-2):
98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2010.07.023.
Ayuntamiento de Madrid. 2023a. “Estrategia de Distribución Urbana de Mercancías DUM.” Madrid 360. https://
www.madrid360.es/movilidad-sostenible/distribucion-urbana-de-mercancias/.
Ayuntamiento de Madrid. 2023b. “Los Retos de La Movilidad Urbana.” Ordenanza de Movilidad Sostenible. https://
www.madrid360.es/movilidad-sostenible/ordenanza-de-movilidad-sostenible/.
Balm, Susanne. 2022. “Using Procurement Power to Accelerate Sustainable City Logistics: Lessons from Change
Agents in The Netherlands.” Sustainability 14 (10): 6225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106225.
Boggio-Marzet, Alessandra, Andrés Monzón, Pablo Luque-Rodríguez, and Daniel Álvarez-Mántaras. 2021.
“Comparative Analysis of the Environmental Performance of Delivery Routes in the City Center and Peri-
Urban Area of Madrid.” Atmosphere 12 (10): 1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101233.
Bosona, Techane. 2020. “Urban Freight Last Mile Logistics—Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Sustainability:
A Literature Review.” Sustainability 12 (21): 8769–8720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218769.
Bueno Cadena, Paola Carolina, and José Manuel Vassallo Magro. 2015. “Setting The Weights Of Sustainability
Criteria For The Appraisal Of Transport Projects.” Transport 30 (3): 298–306. https://doi.org/10.3846/
16484142.2015.1086890.
Central Bureu of Statistics. 2017. “Factsheet The Hague.” https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2017/39/factsheet-
den-haag.
CIVITAS. 2021. “Urban Logistics.” CIVITAS Sustainable and Smart Mobility for All. https://civitas.eu/thematic-
areas/urban-logistics.
Cushman & Wakefield. 2022. MARKETBEAT Portugal. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.60.02.
European Commission. 2020. “Quality of Life in European Cities.” Regional Policy. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_
policy/en/information/maps/quality_of_life/.
European Commission. 2023. “Budapest.” Urban Access Regulations in Europe. https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/
countries-mainmenu-147/hungary/budapest.
European Environment Agency. 2020. “2021 Country Fact Sheets.” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/country-
fact-sheets/2021-country-fact-sheets.
European Environment Agency. 2021. “European City Air Quality Viewer.” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/
urban-air-quality/european-city-air-quality-viewer.
Eurostat. 2022a. “Population on 1 January by Age Groups and Sex - Larger Urban Zone.” https://appsso.eurostat.ec.
europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=urb_cpop1&lang=en.
Eurostat. 2022b. “Unemployment Rates by Sex, Age, Educational Attainment Level and NUTS 2 Regions (%).”
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfst_r_lfu3rt/default/table?lang=en.
Eurostat. 2022c. “Share of Renewable Energy in Gross Final Energy Consumption by Sector.” https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_07_40/default/table?lang=en.
Eurostat. 2022d. “Retail Trade Turnover - Total.” https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/teiis200/default/
table?lang=en.
Gaborieau, David. 2012. “«Le Nez Dans Le Micro». Répercussions Du Travail Sous Commande Vocale Dans Les
Entrepôts de La Grande Distribution Alimentaire.” La Nouvelle Revue Du Travail, no. 1. Durand, Jean-Pierre.
Gonzalez, Juan Nicolas, Laura Garrido, and Jose Manuel Vassallo. 2023. “Exploring Stakeholders’ Perspectives to
Improve the Sustainability of Last Mile Logistics for e-Commerce in Urban Areas.” Research in Transportation
Business & Management 49 (2022): 101005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2023.101005.
Gonzalez, Juan Nicolas, Juan Gomez, and Jose Manuel Vassallo. 2022. “Do Urban Parking Restrictions and Low
Emission Zones Encourage a Greener Mobility?” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
107 (May): 103319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103319.
20 J. N. GONZALEZ ET AL.

Gühnemann, Astrid, James J. Laird, and Alan D. Pearman. 2012. “Combining Cost-Benefit and Multi-Criteria
Analysis to Prioritise a National Road Infrastructure Programme.” Transport Policy 23: 15–24. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.005.
The Hague. 2022. “Low-Emission Zone for Diesel Cars.” https://www.denhaag.nl/en/in-the-city/getting-there-and-
around/low-emission-zone-for-diesel-cars-.htm#:~:text=The Hague has a low,depends on the emissions standard.
Ignat, Bianca, and Stanislav Chankov. 2020. “Do E-Commerce Customers Change Their Preferred Last-Mile Delivery
Based on Its Sustainability Impact?” The International Journal of Logistics Management 31 (3): 521–548. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2019-0305.
Jamshidi, Afshin, Farzad Jamshidi, Daoud Ait-Kadi, and Amar Ramudhin. 2019. “A Review of Priority Criteria and
Decision-Making Methods Applied in Selection of Sustainable City Logistics Initiatives and Collaboration
Partners.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (15-16): 5175–5193. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1540892.
Janjevic, Milena, Desirée Knoppen, and Matthias Winkenbach. 2019a. “Integrated Decision-Making Framework for
Urban Freight Logistics Policy-Making.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 72 (May):
333–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.05.006.
Janjevic, Milena, Desirée Knoppen, and Matthias Winkenbach. 2019b. “Integrated Decision-Making Framework for
Urban Freight Logistics Policy-Making.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 72 (May):
333–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.05.006.
Karbassi Yazdi, Amir, and Farshid Abdi. 2017. “Designing Robust Model for Banks Benchmarking Based on
Rembrandt Method and DEA.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 24 (2): 431–444. https://doi.org/10.
1108/BIJ-01-2015-0001.
Katsela, Konstantina, and Henrik Pålsson. 2019. “A Multi-Criteria Decision Model for Stakeholder Management in
City Logistics.” Research in Transportation Business & Management 33: 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.
2020.100439.
Kim, Jinsung, Minseok Kim, Sehyeuk Im, and Donghyun Choi. 2021. “Competitiveness of E Commerce Firms
Through ESG Logistics.” Sustainability 13 (20): 11548. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011548.
Krstić, Mladen, Snežana Tadić, Milovan Kovač, Violeta Roso, and Slobodan Zečević. 2021. “A Novel Hybrid MCDM
Model for the Evaluation of Sustainable Last Mile Solutions.” Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2021: 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5969788.
Lashgari, Yasaman S., and Sina Shahab. 2022. “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Retail in City Centres.”
Sustainability 14 (18): 11463–11413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811463.
Le Pira, Michela, Edoardo Marcucci, Valerio Gatta, Matteo Ignaccolo, Giuseppe Inturri, and Alessandro Pluchino.
2017. “Towards a Decision-Support Procedure to Foster Stakeholder Involvement and Acceptability of Urban
Freight Transport Policies.” European Transport Research Review 9 (4), https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-
0268-2.
Lyon Confluence. 2019. “The Mission of Lyon Confluence.” https://www.lyon-confluence.fr/en/missions-lyon-
confluence.
Lyons, Torrey, and Noreen C. McDonald. 2023. “Last-Mile Strategies for Urban Freight Delivery: A Systematic
Review.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2677 (1): 1141–1156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221103596.
Macário, Rosário. 2013. “Modeling for Public Policies Inducement of Urban Freight Business Development.” In
Freight Transport Modelling, edited by Moshe Ben-Akiva, Hilde Meersman, and Eddy Van de Voorde, 405–
432. CT: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781781902868-020.
Manerba, Daniele, Renata Mansini, and Roberto Zanotti. 2018. “Attended Home Delivery: Reducing Last-Mile
Environmental Impact by Changing Customer Habits.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 51 (5): 55–60. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ifacol.2018.06.199.
Mardani, Abbas, Ahmad Jusoh, and Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas. 2015. “Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision-
Making Techniques and Applications - Two Decades Review from 1994 to 2014.” Expert Systems with
Applications 42 (8): 4126–4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003.
Muñoz-Villamizar, Andrés, Carlos L. Quintero-Araújo, Jairo R. Montoya-Torres, and Javier Faulin. 2019. “Short-
and Mid-Term Evaluation of the Use of Electric Vehicles in Urban Freight Transport Collaborative Networks:
A Case Study.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 22 (3): 229–252. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13675567.2018.1513467.
Nathanail, Eftihia, Lambros Mitropoulos, Ioannis Karakikes, and Giannis Adamos. 2018. “Sustainability Framework
for Assessing Urban Freight Transportation Measures.” Logistics & Sustainable Transport 9 (2): 16–36. https://doi.
org/10.2478/jlst-2018-0007.
Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis. 2019. “Mobiliteitsbeeld 2019.” Kennisinstituut Voor
Mobilitietsbeleid, 204. https://www.kimnet.nl/publicaties/%0Ahttps://www.kimnet.nl/publicaties/rapporten/
2019/11/12/mobiliteitsbeeld-2019-vooral-het-gebruik-van-de-trein-neemt-toe.
OECD. 2020. “Jobs.” Better Life Index. https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/jobs/.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 21

Olson, David L., Gene Fliedner, and Karen Currie. 1995. “Comparison of the REMBRANDT System with Analytic
Hierarchy Process.” European Journal of Operational Research 82 (3): 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217
(93)E0340-4.
Ørving, Tale, and Olav Eidhammer. 2019. “Evaluation of Oslo City Hub. The Planning and Establishment of a Depot
for Transshipment of Goods.” Oslo. www.toi.no.
Patella, Sergio Maria, Gianluca Grazieschi, Valerio Gatta, Edoardo Marcucci, and Stefano Carrese. 2021. “The
Adoption of Green Vehicles in Last Mile Logistics: A Systematic Review.” Sustainability 13 (1): 6–29. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13010006.
Rao, Congjun, Mark Goh, Yong Zhao, and Junjun Zheng. 2015. “Location Selection of City Logistics Centers Under
Sustainability.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 36: 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2015.02.008.
Romero, Fernando, Juan Gomez, Thais Rangel, and José Manuel Vassallo. 2019. “Impact of Restrictions to Tackle
High Pollution Episodes in Madrid: Modal Share Change in Commuting Corridors.” Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment 77 (November): 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.10.021.
Rust, Roland T., and Katherine N. Lemon. 2001. “E-Service and the Consumer.” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce 5 (3): 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2001.11044216.
Singh, Harkiranpal. 2006. The Importance of Customer Satisfaction in Relation to Customer Loyalty and Retention.
Kuala Lumpur: UCTI Working Paper WP-06-06.
Slabinac, Masa. 2015. “Innovative Solutions for a Last-Mile Delivery.” In International Scientific Conference Business
Logistics in Modern Management, 111–129. https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/plusm/article/view/3876.
Stojčić, Mirko, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Dragan Pamučar, Željko Stević, and Abbas Mardani. 2019.
“Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A Literature Review 2008–2018.” Symmetry 11
(3): 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350.
Tadić, Snežana, Slobodan Zečević, and Mladen Krstić. 2014. “A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Fuzzy
DEMATEL, Fuzzy ANP and Fuzzy VIKOR for City Logistics Concept Selection.” Expert Systems with
Applications 41 (18): 8112–8128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.021.
Tapia, Rodrigo, Ioanna Kourounioti, Dimitra Politaki, and Tasos Kakouris. 2022. Digital Twin Models Library. 2.2.
https://www.leadproject.eu/resources/.
TomTom. 2022. “Traffic Congestion Ranking.” https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/ranking/.
United Nations. 2018. “68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN.”
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-
revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html.
United Nations. 2020. A Handbook on Sustainable Urban Mobility and Spatial Planning. A Handbook on Sustainable
Urban Mobility and Spatial Planning. UN. https://doi.org/10.18356/8d742f54-en.
Vassallo, José Manuel, and Paola Carolina Bueno. 2021. “Sustainability Assessment of Transport Policies, Plans and
Projects.” Advances in Transport Policy and Planning 7: 9–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2020.07.006.
Vassallo, Jose Manuel, Juan Nicolas Gonzalez, and Natalia Sobrino. 2023. “Sustainable Expert Criteria Weights.”
https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7695814.
Visser, Johan, Toshinori Nemoto, and Michael Browne. 2014. “Home Delivery and the Impacts on Urban Freight
Transport: A Review.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 125: 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2014.01.1452.
Wang, Xuping, Linmin Zhan, Junhu Ruan, and Jun Zhang. 2014. “How to Choose “Last Mile” Delivery Modes for E-
Fulfillment.” Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014: 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1155/2014/417129.
Watróbski, Jarosław, Krzysztof Małecki, Kinga Kijewska, Stanisław Iwan, Artur Karczmarczyk, and Russell G.
Thompson. 2017. “Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics.” Sustainability 9 (8): 1453.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081453.
The World Bank. 2020. “Logistics Performance Index: Frequency with Which Shipments Reach Consignee within
Scheduled or Expected Time (1 = low to 5 = high) - Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Hungary, Norway |
Data.” https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/LP.LPI.TIME.XQ?locations=ES-PT-FR-NL-HU-NO.