IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2022i1p186-d1011905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Barriers to a Fossil-Free Urban Freight System

Author

Listed:
  • Mikael Kervall

    (Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden)

  • Henrik Pålsson

    (Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide a system perspective on the barriers to the development of a fossil-free and thus more sustainable urban freight system and to provide insights regarding these barriers and how they impede progress. The system perspective complements earlier research, where barriers were identified in delimited parts of freight systems. Here, the urban freight system in a Swedish city is explored using an inductive and qualitative approach, according to which barriers are both detailed and categorized. This study is based on empirical data concerning the perceptions of multiple stakeholders in one system. The interrelationships between barrier categories and changes to the urban freight system are explored through management theory. This study provides a unique overview of the barriers to development in one system and insights concerning these barriers and how they impede development of the system. Ten categories of barriers are identified: technology, infrastructure, economy, knowledge, policy, goals, organization, cooperation, politics, and societal factors. The categories can be divided into four different types, which are related to each other and to the overall system in various ways, based on how they impede the development toward sustainability. Future research could advance this theoretical knowledge by continuing to study urban freight system development processes and by adding insights from other contexts, stakeholders, and theoretical areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikael Kervall & Henrik Pålsson, 2022. "A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Barriers to a Fossil-Free Urban Freight System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:186-:d:1011905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/186/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/186/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lindawati & Johan van Schagen & Mark Goh & Robert de Souza, 2014. "Collaboration in urban logistics: motivations and barriers," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 278-290, July.
    2. Jane E. Dutton & Robert B. Duncan, 1987. "The influence of the strategic planning process on strategic change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 103-116, March.
    3. Ballantyne, Erica E.F. & Lindholm, Maria & Whiteing, Anthony, 2013. "A comparative study of urban freight transport planning: addressing stakeholder needs," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 93-101.
    4. Juan Guillermo Urzúa-Morales & Juan Pedro Sepulveda-Rojas & Miguel Alfaro & Guillermo Fuertes & Rodrigo Ternero & Manuel Vargas, 2020. "Logistic Modeling of the Last Mile: Case Study Santiago, Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Kin, Bram & Verlinde, Sara & Mommens, Koen & Macharis, Cathy, 2017. "A stakeholder-based methodology to enhance the success of urban freight transport measures in a multi-level governance context," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 10-23.
    6. Sönke Behrends & Maria Lindholm & Johan Woxenius, 2008. "The Impact of Urban Freight Transport: A Definition of Sustainability from an Actor's Perspective," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 693-713, September.
    7. Susie Moloney & Ralph Horne, 2015. "Low Carbon Urban Transitioning: From Local Experimentation to Urban Transformation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2018. "To bid or not to bid: An empirical study of the supply determinants of crowd-shipping," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 468-483.
    9. Luigi Ranieri & Salvatore Digiesi & Bartolomeo Silvestri & Michele Roccotelli, 2018. "A Review of Last Mile Logistics Innovations in an Externalities Cost Reduction Vision," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    10. Buldeo Rai, Heleen & Verlinde, Sara & Macharis, Cathy, 2021. "Unlocking the failed delivery problem? Opportunities and challenges for smart locks from a consumer perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniela Paddeu & Paulus Aditjandra, 2020. "Shaping Urban Freight Systems via a Participatory Approach to Inform Policy-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Csilla Bartucz & László Buics & Edit Süle, 2023. "Lack of Collaboration on the CEP Market and the Underlying Reasons—A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Sergio Maria Patella & Gianluca Grazieschi & Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci & Stefano Carrese, 2020. "The Adoption of Green Vehicles in Last Mile Logistics: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-29, December.
    4. Pedro A. P. Dias & Hugo Yoshizaki & Patricia Favero & Jose Geraldo Vidal Vieira, 2019. "Daytime or Overnight Deliveries? Perceptions of Drivers and Retailers in São Paulo City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Feng Li & Zhi-Ping Fan & Bing-Bing Cao & Xin Li, 2020. "Logistics Service Mode Selection for Last Mile Delivery: An Analysis Method Considering Customer Utility and Delivery Service Cost," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Leise Kelli de Oliveira & Carla de Oliveira Leite Nascimento & Paulo Renato de Sousa & Paulo Tarso Vilela de Resende & Francisco Gildemir Ferreira da Silva, 2019. "Transport Service Provider Perception of Barriers and Urban Freight Policies in Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Anna Fredriksson & Linnea Eriksson & Jonas Löwgren & Nina Lemon & Daniel Eriksson, 2022. "An Interactive Visualization Tool for Collaborative Construction Logistics Planning—Creating a Sustainable Project Vicinity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Gabriele Iannaccone & Edoardo Marcucci & Valerio Gatta, 2021. "What Young E-Consumers Want? Forecasting Parcel Lockers Choice in Rome," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz & Jagienka Rześny-Cieplińska, 2019. "Priorities of Urban Transport System Stakeholders According to Crowd Logistics Solutions in City Areas. A Sustainability Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Nicolas Brusselaers & Koen Mommens & Cathy Macharis, 2021. "Building Bridges: A Participatory Stakeholder Framework for Sustainable Urban Construction Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-33, March.
    11. Giacomo Lozzi & Gabriele Iannaccone & Ila Maltese & Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci & Riccardo Lozzi, 2022. "On-Demand Logistics: Solutions, Barriers, and Enablers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-21, August.
    12. Wang, Hui & Han, Jiaying & Su, Min & Wan, Shulin & Zhang, Zhenchao, 2021. "The relationship between freight transport and economic development: A case study of China," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Alireza Ermagun & Ali Shamshiripour & Amanda Stathopoulos, 2020. "Performance analysis of crowd-shipping in urban and suburban areas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1955-1985, August.
    14. Priscila Pereira Suzart Carvalho & Ricardo Araújo Kalid & Jorge Laureano Moya Rodríguez & Sandro Breval Santiago, 2019. "Interactions among stakeholders in the processes of city logistics: a systematic review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 567-607, August.
    15. Max Leyerer & Marc-Oliver Sonneberg & Maximilian Heumann & Michael H. Breitner, 2019. "Decision support for sustainable and resilience-oriented urban parcel delivery," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 267-300, November.
    16. Katarzyna Dohn & Marzena Kramarz & Edyta Przybylska, 2022. "Interaction with City Logistics Stakeholders as a Factor of the Development of Polish Cities on the Way to Becoming Smart Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-24, June.
    17. Bjørgen, Astrid & Seter, Hanne & Kristensen, Terje & Pitera, Kelly, 2019. "The potential for coordinated logistics planning at the local level: A Norwegian in-depth study of public and private stakeholders," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 34-41.
    18. Malik, Leeza & Tiwari, Geetam & Biswas, Udayin & Woxenius, Johan, 2021. "Estimating urban freight flow using limited data: The case of Delhi, India," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    19. John Olsson & Daniel Hellström & Henrik Pålsson, 2019. "Framework of Last Mile Logistics Research: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-25, December.
    20. Marta Viu-Roig & Eduard J. Alvarez-Palau, 2020. "The Impact of E-Commerce-Related Last-Mile Logistics on Cities: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:186-:d:1011905. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.