The forgotten Goliath: Exploring a citizen’s perspective on city logistics

(1)

The forgotten Goliath: Exploring a citizen’s perspective on

city logistics

Word count: 10519 Date: 27/01/2020 Author: Jochem Starrenburg S2904322 Assessor/supervisor

Dr. ir. P. (Paul) Buijs

Co-assessor

Dr. M.J. (Martin) Land

Master Thesis

(2)

Abstract

This thesis adds to current literature on city logistics by identifying the perspectives and objectives of citizens. Prior research identifies the citizen as a crucial stakeholder in city logistics research, but the citizen remains relatively under-researched. Currently, a citizen’s perspective is only taken for a fraction of city logistics literature, mainly on delivery methods. By taking a citizen’s perspective extending beyond delivery methods, this thesis will

contribute in identifying how citizens experience the externalities and solutions of city logistics in a broader sense. 152 citizens in Groningen completed a newly developed online survey. This survey was later on discussed with the municipality of Groningen and interest representatives of carriers and shippers. The results of the survey show that citizens do not experience the negative externalities of city logistics as problematic in their own

neighbourhoods. However, citizens that live outside the city centre experience this as significantly more problematic during a city centre visit. Neighbourhood of residence, sustainable shopping behaviour and family situations were found to be significant predictors of how citizens experience the externalities of city logistics. Finally, it is likely that citizens are not knowledgeable enough to show a preference for city logistics initiatives that aligns with their experienced problems.

(3)

Preface

(5)

1. Introduction

With the rising popularity of cities (United Nations, 2018), the city logistics system is being tested to the limit. Increasing amounts of urban citizens have to work, eat, and spend leisure time. City logistics is serving as a means to fulfil all of these needs. City logistics can be defined as goods transport within cities, such as the supply of shops, offices and building materials, the flows of returned goods varying from unwanted products to garbage pickups and home deliveries (Topsector Logistiek, 2019). Although being required for a healthy economy, city logistics can cause negative externalities such as congestion, pollution and excessive noise. Municipalities and governments are constantly collaborating with multiple stakeholders from industry to create and implement novel initiatives to minimize these externalities and increase the business climate and city liveability (Macharis, Milan, & Verlinde, 2014). These initiatives are highly extensive in scope and can affect many different parts of cities and industry, from dedicating urban parking zones, to constructing entire ring roads surrounding cities to relieve city centre traffic (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, Browne, & Wojtowicz, 2018a).

(6)

considering citizen perspectives for city logistics initiatives, there is currently a lack of knowledge on how citizens experience the externalities of city logistics and how they perceive established and new initiatives.

Surveys that do consider what citizens find important in city logistics are usually limited to individual aspects within the larger city logistics context, which directly affect the behaviour and/or wallet of a citizen. For example, there is considerable knowledge on what citizens think about last mile delivery methods such as pick-up points (B2C Europe, 2018; Buldeo Rai et al., 2019; Joerss, Schröder, Neuhaus, Klink, & Mann, 2016) and their opinions on being delivered by electric freight vehicles (Quak, Nesterova, van Rooijen, & Dong, 2016). This is easier to obtain information on, because citizens are more knowledgeable on these topics. However, surveys expanding to topics that citizens are less knowledgeable about, such as the implications of initiatives regarding safety or air pollution are lacking. In these more complex initiatives, evaluations of how aligned initiatives are with citizens’ objectives and problems are currently usually based on expert opinions rather than broader input from citizens via surveys (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018b).

The lack of knowledge on how citizens in general experience city logistics can lead to the development of initiatives that have low acceptance rates. What is more, initiatives might even affect citizens adversely (Douglas, 2011). Therefore, to create better suiting initiatives to tackle issues that citizens experience, more knowledge is required on how citizens perceive the externalities of city logistics, and their potential solutions. This thesis aims to answer the following research question:

How do citizens experience the externalities and solutions related to city logistics?

(7)

(8)

2. Theoretical background

2.1 City logistics initiatives

The purpose of city logistics initiatives is to minimize the negative externalities, such as congestion, excessive noise and pollution, that city logistics produces (Lagorio, Pinto, & Golini, 2016). To minimize these externalities, a high number of city logistics initiatives have been developed which cover all sorts of projects. Initiatives can be small scaled and only affecting certain companies in neighbourhoods, or can be citywide – or even multiple-citywide - and affect all types of industries. The most comprehensive overview of city logistics initiatives is from Holguín-Veras et al (2018), who assess the effectivity of a list of all city logistics initiatives performed globally (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018a; Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sánchez-Diaz, Browne, & Wojtowicz, 2018b). In their analysis, they cover dozens of initiatives, ranging from easier to implement

parking/loading zones, to creating entire ring roads or relocating large traffic generators. To cope with the complexity of evaluating initiatives based on their impact on society, they classify them in seven groups; infrastructure management, parking/loading areas

management, vehicle-related strategies, traffic management, financial approaches, logistical management and demand/land use management. The need to categorize initiatives indicates the breadth of the opportunities to solve the externalities that city logistics can cause.

2.2 City logistics’ need for stakeholder involvement

(9)

stake in a particular issue or system” (Grimble & Wellard, 1997, p. 175). It can be a challenging task identifying which stakeholders need to be involved in a city logistics initiative (van Binsbergen & Visser, 2001). Apart from the high number of stakeholders involved, they also hold many and often contradicting objectives and perceptions about initiatives at hand (Munda, 2004). The collaboration between the public and private sector (Lindholm & Browne, 2013) creates further contradicting objectives. Sometimes, multiple objectives for the same stakeholder are hardly achievable simultaneously, such as a healthy business climate (Lebeau, Macharis, van Mierlo, & Janjevic, 2018) and quality of life

(Behrends, 2011b; Witkowski & Kiba-Janiak, 2014) for local authorities. Notwithstanding all these issues, effective stakeholder involvement is widely considered crucial for the success of an initiative (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018b; Holguín-Veras & Sánchez-Díaz, 2016; Lindholm & Browne, 2013; Macharis & Melo, 2011; Macharis et al., 2014).

To ensure the success of city logistics initiatives, prior research has analysed what types of stakeholders should be included in these kind of initiatives (Behrends, 2011; Macharis et al., 2014; Quak & de Koster, 2009). Macharis and her colleagues confirmed a number of

stakeholders that are often involved in city logistics initiatives (Macharis et al., 2014). These main stakeholders are: 1) receivers, 2) shippers, 3) carriers, 4) citizens, and 5) local

(10)

(11)

It is important to consider perceptions of problems and objectives that stakeholders experience to evaluate city logistics initiatives. Based on a review of the literature on stakeholder involvement in city logistics initiatives, Table 1 presents the problems and resulting objectives from the main stakeholders. What stands out from the table is that many of the problems and objectives of the stakeholders are not in line with each other.

2.3 Citizens and city logistics

Table 1 shows the problems and objectives for all commonly involved stakeholders in city logistics initiatives. Perhaps the most crucial stakeholder that affects the probability of a successful initiative is the citizen itself (Buldeo Rai et al., 2019; Holguín-Veras & Sánchez-Díaz, 2016; Lindholm & Browne, 2013; Macharis et al., 2014) who as an inhabitant of a city will be affected by most city logistics initiatives. For example, off-hour delivery programs shift the times at which citizens should be home to receive their packages (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018b; Verlinde & Macharis, 2016). Similarly, delivery- or pick-up timeslots with vehicles (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018b) can restrict citizens from entering city centres by car.

(12)

Citizens are given the option to choose between ‘green’ delivery which takes longer, or fast delivery which is more expensive.

However, as illustrated before city logistics initiatives can be much larger and more complex in scale and scope than just sustainability and delivery methods. These two topics only cover a fraction of the total literature on city logistics initiatives. There has been a lack of surveys identifying how citizens experience the externalities of city logistics at all. Large-scale surveys that aim to discover perceptions of citizens about initiatives outside the easily understandable domain, remain limited. Instead, for evaluations of projects of this nature, expert opinions or only a handful of citizens serve to represent the entirety of their

(13)

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design

The objectives of this thesis was to add to current knowledge on how citizens experience the externalities and solutions of city logistics, extending beyond commonly surveyed topics such as sustainable delivery and delivery terms. This thesis has opted for an explorative approach due to the lack of knowledge on the citizen perspective. Furthermore, this thesis also aimed to establish best practices and things to avoid for future large-scale surveys to be distributed by the municipality of Groningen. However, these best practices are outside the scope of this thesis and will not be discussed further.

To accomplish these goals, this thesis distributed an online survey among the citizens of Groningen. In addition, the results of this survey were discussed with employees from the municipality of Groningen and employees from Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) and EvoFenedex, companies that represent the interests of carriers and shippers. The purpose of these interviews was threefold. First, to determine what the role of citizens is in their current policies. Second, to establish what current knowledge they have about the citizen stakeholder group and how they collect their information about the citizen. The third and final goal was to evaluate how the results of the survey fit in their current policy.

3.2 Sample

The unit of analysis is the city of Groningen. Groningen, one of the 40 cities in the

(14)

Groningen, without further criteria as the generic citizen is targeted. To obtain a most

representative sample, it was ensured that the respondents of the survey were distributed over several neighbourhoods in Groningen, namely: Centre, Old Streets, South, East, West, Ten Boer and Haren. This thesis followed the example of the municipality regarding

neighbourhood separation, as shown in Appendix A. This resulted in the identification of seven neighbourhoods across which the survey had to be distributed.

Moreover, interviews were conducted to discuss the results of this survey. Firstly, employees of the municipality of Groningen from the department of City Development and City

Logistics were interviewed. The local municipality is responsible for balancing a healthy economic climate and a high quality of life for citizens (Behrends, 2011b), creating a good match with the “local authorities” stakeholder in city logistics research (Macharis et al., 2014). Finally, representatives of TLN and EvoFenedex, two large parties that represent the interests of carriers and shippers, were interviewed. Interviews with these cases were conducted to discover whether the citizen played a different role in their policy as they represent different interests.

3.3 Measurement instrument

A newly developed survey (Appendix B) was based on questions derived from prior literature and city logistics projects. The city logistics literature and reports on city logistics initiatives were analysed for variables that would have an effect on a citizen’s experience of the

(15)

3.3.1 Demographics

The first topic of the survey is on respondent demographics, to determine different groups of citizens that might hold heterogeneous perspectives. Based on a survey from the UK

Department for Transport, questions were developed to distinguish groups based on age, gender and education (UK Department for Transport, 2018), as the results from that survey show that those variables could explain certain behavioural aspects, such as mode of transport used. For similar reasons, questions examining differences between citizens based on purpose of city centre visit are based on a project delivering insights for the city of Roermond

(Mingardo & Witte, 2019). Next, a question asking the respondent in which neighbourhood in Groningen they live was developed based on Basismonitor Groningen. This is an online tool tracking statistics about the municipality of Groningen and its neighbourhoods, which

identifies that quality of life varies across different neighbourhoods (Basismonitor Groningen, n.d.). A final question that was inspired from Basismonitor Groningen was on family

situation. This question distinguished between citizens that had younger children, citizens that had older children and citizens without children.

3.3.2 Attitudes, behaviour and experience of externalities

The second part of the survey relates to citizen behaviour, as well as to how citizens experience the negative externalities of city logistics. Citizen behaviour concerns their

(16)

identify the degree to which citizens experience the externalities as problematic, ranging from completely disagreeing (score of 1) to completely agreeing (score of 7) with statements such as “In my opinion, city logistics is causing congestion in my neighbourhood”. Moreover, it is likely that citizens that do not live in the city centre, experience city logistics differently in their own living area, compared to their experience during a visit to the city centre. This is because city centres are known to be more dense and produce more city logistics movements (Behrends, 2011b), which in turn produces more externalities. Therefore, the questions on experienced externalities are asked from both points of view (e.g. “In my opinion, city logistics causes congestion in the city centre”).

3.3.3 Perception of city logistics initiatives

The final part of the survey relates to how citizens perceive certain city logistics initiatives. These initiatives are based on the work of Holguín-Veras et al (2018), who show how aligned initiatives are with certain stakeholder groups (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018a; Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sánchez-Diaz, et al., 2018b). The survey in this thesis used some or their assessed initiatives from the majority of the categories in their work, such as parking/road pricing (from financial approaches), hubs/urban consolidation centres (from logistical management) and time-slotting of deliveries (from last mile delivery

(17)

The provisional survey questions were discussed in a first interview conducted with the local municipality. As described before, the municipality of Groningen is often responsible for developing and implementing initiatives. The interview ensured that the developed questions were of theoretical- as well as practical use to them. In addition to the content of the survey, the interview also resulted in further improvements in phrasing of some questions about behaviour and demographics.

To ensure the content and way of questioning of the survey was clear for respondents, the survey was discussed with a survey expert from the local municipality to resolve pitfalls or ambiguity in the survey questions. This survey expert is experienced in the creation of surveys and was knowledgeable on the topic of city logistics. After this, the survey was pilot tested in four rounds. Close friends and family that were representative of the sample were observed while answering the survey and interviewed after completing it. The purpose of this interview was to discuss and improve questions or answer options that were unclear. This process was reiterated until no comments for improvement were found and the survey could be completed without issues.

3.4 Data collection

The sample was mainly collected by distributing cards by hand in mailboxes requesting participation. The cards contained a link to the survey and a QR-code that could be scanned to redirect a respondent to the survey. Moreover, contact information of the author was included for assistance to reaching the online survey or for any other questions. Other means that were used to distribute the survey were social media, leaflets in supermarkets and citizen

communities.

(18)

information and a link to the survey were left at 11 supermarkets, and two LinkedIn messages were posted. Moreover, a number of neighbourhood websites were approached, of which two were willing to post a link to the survey on their website and social media page. Responses to the survey were collected during a three-month period, from November 19th to January 20th. During the data collection process, the demographics of respondents were monitored. This ensured that for comparison reasons, each neighbourhood contained a sufficient amount of citizens to construct a representative sample. When it occurred that for some groups there was a lack of citizens, a new wave of cards was distributed in neighbourhoods and locations that would likely reach the targeted group. For example, when it was found that there was a lack of citizens from one of the neighbourhoods, Haren, the next wave of request cards would be distributed to mailboxes in that neighbourhood. Unfortunately, there was a consistent lack of respondents in Ten Boer. For this reason, Ten Boer has been left out of the analysis. The online survey software does not allow to distinguish the individual response rates per means of data collection (cards, LinkedIn, websites). However, the 1800 cards and the final 152 responses that have been collected creates a response rate of 8.4%.

3.5 Data analysis

(19)

Next, the ANOVA test was the main method of analysis. It allows to compare mean scores of a variable for several groups to determine whether there is a significant statistical difference between groups. First, comparisons were made whether citizens experience city logistics differently in their own neighbourhood compared to during a visit to the city centre.

Moreover, the neighbourhoods the citizen lives in, shopping behaviour the citizen shows and the family situation of a citizen were also variables which ANOVA tests were based on. Finally, citizen preferences toward certain city logistics initiatives were analysed using mean rankings.

Table 2: Recoded variables to enable comparison of groups

Variable Old values New values

Family situation

Six answer options distinguishing between single parents and

two-parent families

Three categories:

 Families with younger children (<12 years)  Families with older children (>12 years)

 Families without children

Frequency of online

ordering Any number indicating the amount of times per month a respondent orders products online

Four categories, based on categories used in e-commerce statistics (Eurostat, 2019) :

 0-1 per month  1-2 per month  2-3 per month  more than 3 times per month

Method of grocery shopping

Five answer options: walking, biking, public transport, car and

other

Two categories, as other options were not chosen:  traveling ‘emission-free’ (walking and biking)

(20)

4. Results

4.1 Survey results

The survey results can be dissected into four main aspects: a comparison of the experience of the externalities of city logistics between citizens that live outside the city centre and citizens that live inside the city centre (4.1.1); the influence of attitudes toward sustainable delivery and shopping behaviour on experienced externalities in a citizen’s own neighbourhood (4.1.2); the family situation and its effect on the experience of externalities in the city centre (4.1.3); the perspective of citizens on a sample of city logistics initiatives (4.1.4).

4.1.1 Citizens living in- and outside the city centre

The first aspect that will be discussed is how citizens experience the externalities of city logistics in their own neighbourhoods and during a visit to the city centre. Figure 1 illustrates the average scores of negative externalities that citizens experience in their own

(21)

Figure 1: Experienced externalities of city logistics in own neighbourhood

Figure 2: Experienced externalities of city logistics in the city centre

(22)

Figure 3: Comparison of how the same city logistics in the city centre are experienced by 1) the citizen that lives

there (blue) and 2) the citizen that lives outside the city centre, but that visits the city centre (yellow)

Identifying what types of externalities are experienced most severely by non-city centre citizens also yields some interesting results. Focusing on the most significantly experienced externality, Figure 4 shows that congestion is consistently experienced as more problematic for each of the included neighbourhoods during a visit to the city centre. For example, citizens from East score congestion in their own neighbourhood rather low (M = 2.58, SD = 1.305) whereas they score congestion in the city centre significantly higher (M = 4.67, SD = 1.609). Comparable results can be found for all other neighbourhoods in this analysis. Safety (Figure 5) and air pollution (Figure 6), the two other externalities that are most significantly

experienced, show similar results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AIR POLLUTION EXCESSIVE NOISE APPEARANCE SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY CONGESTION

(23)

Figure 6: experienced air pollution issues of each neighbourhood, both in own neighbourhood and during city centre visit.

OLD STREETS

SOUTH EAST WEST HAREN Experienced congestion during city centre visit Experienced congestion own neighbourhood

OLD STREETS

SOUTH EAST WEST HAREN

Experienced air pollution during city centre visit Experienced air pollution own neighbourhood

OLD STREETS

SOUTH EAST WEST HAREN Experienced safety issues during city centre visit Experienced safety issues own neighbourhood

Figure 4: experienced congestion of each neighbourhood, both in own neighbourhood and during city centre visit.

(24)

4.1.2 Attitudes toward sustainability and shopping behaviour

Moving back to the entire sample of citizens, there are also other dimensions on which citizens can differ regarding their experience of city logistics. Variables identifying citizen shopping- and ordering attitudes and behaviour also contribute to the degree to which citizens experience negative externalities from city logistics. One of the statements in the survey, “I would be okay with extending delivery times to 3-4 days with the option of next day delivery”, explored how citizens’ attitudes are toward longer and more sustainable delivery times. Figure 7 highlights that citizens that agree (green) with the statement tend to

marginally experience more externalities regarding appearance of their neighbourhood (M = 2.88, SD = 1.566) than people that disagree (grey) with that statement (M = 2.08, SD = 1.188), with t(134) = 1.789, p = 0.076. Similarly, people that agree to this statement significantly experience more air pollution in their neighbourhood (M= 3.89, SD = 1.685) than people that disagree (M = 2.62, SD = 1.121), with t(134) = 2.653, p = 0.009.

Figure 7: Experienced externalities of city logistics in own neighbourhood, based on position towards more

sustainable delivery.

Next, Figure 8 compares citizens based on preferred delivery point, namely citizens preferring a pick-up point (green) versus citizens preferring home delivery (grey). Although no

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

AIR POLLUTION APPEARANCE

(25)

significant differences are found, citizens preferring the more sustainable delivery (pick-up points) consistently experience city logistics in their own neighbourhood as more problematic.

Figure 8: Experienced externalities of city logistics in own neighbourhood, comparing citizens based on

preferred delivery point.

The method of transport when grocery shopping as is depicted in Figure 9 show that citizens traveling by foot or bike are significantly more concerned with accessibility issues in their own neighbourhood (M = 2.96, SD = 1.805) than citizens traveling by car (M = 2.00, SD = 0.935), with F(1,124) = 4.625, p = 0.026. Again, although no other significant results are found at the 95% level, the figure shows that citizens preferring the more sustainable method of grocery shopping experience all externalities in their own neighbourhoods more, apart from excessive noise.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CONGESTION ACCESSIBILITY SAFETY APPEARANCE EXCESSIVE NOISE AIR POLLUTION

(26)

Figure 9: Experienced externalities of city logistics in own neighbourhood, comparing citizens based on

preferred method of grocery shopping.

4.1.3 Family situation

One final dimension on which citizens’ experience of city logistics can differ is their family situation. Across all externalities, citizens with younger children experienced the externalities of city logistics in the city centre as more problematic. However, the three main externalities are highlighted here. Figure 10 highlights that citizens with younger children (M = 5.47, SD = 1.179), along with citizens without children (M = 5.28, SD = 1.253) experience city centre congestion as more problematic compared to citizens with older children (M = 4.46, SD = 1.474) with F(2,99) = 4.203, p = 0.018. Similarly, citizens with younger children (M = 5.41 , SD = 1.121) are more annoyed by the diminished appearance of the city resulting from city logistics than both citizens with older children (M = 3.75, SD = 1.422) and citizens without children (M = 4.21 , SD = 1.496) with F(2,99) = 6.326, p = 0.001. Finally, citizens with younger children (M = 4.65, SD = 1.412) experience excessive noise in the city centre marginally more than families with older children (M = 3.58, SD = 1.381) and families without children (M = 4.16, SD = 1.428), with F(2,99) = 2.933, p = 0.058. Analysing whether

(27)

family situation also affected how citizens experience externalities in their own neighbourhood yielded no significant results.

Figure 10: Experienced externalities in city centre, based on family situation

Finally, the survey was inspired from previous research and projects showing indirect relations between demographics and behavioural aspects regarding city logistics. More specifically, these demographics were age, gender and education (UK Department for Transport, 2016) and the purpose of city visit (Mingardo & Witte, 2019). In this thesis, however, none of these variables affected the way city logistics are experienced by citizens.

4.1.4 Citizen perspectives on city logistics initiatives

Moving on to the citizen perspective on city logistics initiatives, the results are mixed. Table 4 and 5 show the scores on the rankings for solutions affecting citizens directly and solutions affecting citizens indirectly, respectively. Table 4 shows that interestingly, the original ranking (1 is most positive) which was provided in the survey (1 = pick-up points, 2 = social

1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

EXCESSIVE NOISE APPEARANCE CONGESTION

(28)

hub, 3 = parking pricing, 4 = road pricing) is more or less maintained. This is not the case for solutions indirectly affecting citizens, as shown in Table 5.

Table 4: Ranking of solutions directly affecting citizen, comparing original (untouched survey) ranking and actual citizen ranking

Rank Original ranking (mean ranking)

Citizen ranking (mean ranking)

1st Pick-up point (1) Pick-up point (1.55)

2nd Social hub (2) Social hub (2.39)

3rd Parking pricing (3) Parking pricing (3.00)

4th Road pricing (4) Road pricing (3.06)

Table 5: Ranking of solutions indirectly affecting citizen, comparing original (untouched survey) ranking and actual citizen ranking

Rank Original ranking (mean ranking)

Citizen ranking (mean ranking)

1st Hub (1) Bicycle courier (2.53)

2nd Timeslot (2) Hub (2.63)

3rd Electric vehicle delivery (3) Electric vehicle delivery (2.90)

4th Bicycle courier (4) Timeslots (3.52)

5th Loading zone (5) Loading zone (4.30)

6th Road pricing (6) Road pricing (5.11)

(29)

annoyed by excessive noise, with a score of five or higher on that question. Unexpectedly, the ranking of solutions that prevent excessive noise do not significantly differ for citizens

especially annoyed by noise compared to the average sample. Even more, the result is counterintuitive in that the case of bicycle couriers. Bicycle couriers that would actually reduce noise, are less favourably ranked (2.92) than the average ranking (2.53).

Table 6: Comparing average citizen ranking of solutions to ranking for those especially annoyed by excessive noise (≥ 5)

Rank Citizen ranking (mean ranking)

Ranking for those

especially annoyed by noise (mean ranking)

1st Bicycle courier (2.53) Hub (2.76)

2nd Hub (2.63) Electric vehicle delivery (2.80)

3rd Electric vehicle delivery (2.90) Bicycle courier (2.92)

4th Timeslots (3.52) Timeslots (3.48)

5th Loading zone (4.30) Loading zone (4.36)

6th Road pricing (5.11) Road pricing (4.68)

4.2 Interview results

The interviews also yielded interesting results. Firstly, the roles of the citizens were discussed with the employees from the municipality. According to them, “city logistics initiatives affects the local entrepreneur more than it does affect the citizen”. However, they also

established that with the advent of online shopping, citizens were increasingly affected by city logistics initiatives, and their importance was increasing. There was no clear current

(30)

of implementing city logistics initiatives, the municipality indicated that they do not

distinguish between different neighbourhoods when implementing city logistics initiatives. It was common for the municipality to collaborate with local entrepreneurs in the development of city logistics initiatives, but the citizen was not mentioned during this process. The results of the survey did not surprise them in many cases. They thought that some aspects were remarkable, however, such as the fact that citizen were likely to have a lack of knowledge about the implications of city logistics.

The interview with TLN and EvoFenedex provided similar results, but the citizen plays a more important role according to them. Following the question whether they believe the citizen plays a significant role in city logistics initiatives, they responded that they are

(31)

5. Discussion

5.1 Theoretical implications

This thesis set out to identify how citizens, a stakeholder that is often not explicitly included in city logistics initiatives, experience the externalities and solutions related to city logistics. The results show that citizens do not experience the externalities of city logistics in their own neighbourhoods as problematic. However, there are differences between city- and non-city centre citizens’ experiences. Moreover, citizens’ experiences were found to differ on more than just the neighbourhood they live in. Namely, their awareness on sustainability issues and their corresponding behaviour also determine how they experience the externalities of city logistics. Citizens that do their grocery shopping in an emission-free manner such as biking or walking, experience the externalities of city logistics more problematic than citizens that do their grocery shopping by car. Similarly, citizens that are willing to extend standard delivery times to 3-4 days, with an option of fast delivery, also experience the externalities of city logistics as more severe. Finally, the results of the questions asking citizens on how they perceive city logistics initiatives show that citizens are likely to be unknowledgeable about city logistics.

5.1.1 City centre and non-city centre citizens

(32)

logistics movements. Still, it was found in this thesis that the scores for experienced

externalities of city logistics in their own neighbourhoods for both groups of citizens were not significantly different from each other.

There is however a difference in how citizens experience city logistics in the city centre. It is specifically the non-city centre citizen that experiences the externalities of city logistics during a visit to the city centre as more problematic. This finding contradicts previous literature on the relation between exposure and annoyance, that concludes that more regular exposure to some negative effects increases the annoyance of that negative effect (Blanes-Vidal et al., 2012; Miedema, 2004). This unexpected difference could be explained by the fact that people that already live within the city centre are more used to the traffic movements and negative externalities that go with it, and take it for granted as a part of their living area. Moreover, they deliberately chose to live in the city centre, and as a result do not experience city logistics as bothersome. The fact that only non-city centre citizens regard city centres as most problematic, provides local municipalities and policymakers a focus area for their efforts. It can also be assumed that a lack of experienced externalities in other

neighbourhoods acts as a barrier to develop initiatives there. It will be hard to obtain support from locals for initiatives that might be unwanted if they solve problems that do not exist in that neighbourhood.

5.1.2 Diverging citizen’s experiences

(33)

in goals and objectives stems from external pressures such as action groups (Hamdan & Cheaitou, 2017) and government regulations (Behrends, 2011b; Hamdan & Cheaitou, 2017), or from differences in standards and user needs (Smith, 1956; Wedel & Kamakura, 2012). This is confirmed by previously conducted surveys that identify citizen preferences regarding delivery methods (B2C Europe, 2018; Joerss et al., 2016). The results from these surveys remain inconclusive to a certain degree and remark that not every citizen prefers to be delivered at pick-up points and not every citizen is at home to receive off-hour deliveries. Pooling these actors within the same stakeholder group results in a situation where their individual preferences for city logistics initiatives are not accurately represented.

In the study presented in this thesis, citizens were found to significantly differ based on (i) their shopping behaviour, attitudes toward sustainability and method of transport when doing groceries, as well as (ii) on their family situation. These aspects will be elaborated on below.

Findings on behaviour and attitudes: It is interesting to find that behaviour and opinions toward sustainability affects the degree of experienced externalities of city logistics. The survey results reveal that the citizens who are more favourably opinionated toward sustainability and adjust their behaviour accordingly, experience city logistics as more

problematic. This is partly contradicting research on green marketing and purchase decisions, which indicates that increased concern about the state of the environment was not a

(34)

sustainable method of delivery or grocery shopping experience the externalities of city logistics as more problematic.

Family situation: The results illustrate that citizens with younger children experience city logistics in the city centre as more problematic. Congestion and diminished appearance of the city were significantly more experienced among citizens with younger children, than other citizens with older children and citizens without children. One explanation could be that this family group is more concerned with the congested streets because their children are not self-dependent yet and navigating through congested streets with younger children can be especially chaotic for them. Prior literature states that parents with young children experience less joy of shopping, for example. This would be a valid explanation, as in more than 25% of the cases the main purpose of a city centre visit for these citizens was to go shopping. On the other hand, a possible reasoning is that younger parents, who belong to the age group that spends the most time outside (Verbeek & de Haan, 2011), are more exposed to these city logistics movements in the city centre. As previously

mentioned, this would be in line with literature analysing the relation between exposure and annoyance (Blanes-Vidal et al., 2012; Miedema, 2004). However, the average age difference between citizens with young children and without any children is only around four years, providing arguments against this reasoning. Moreover, comparing the means of experienced externalities of city logistics based on age did not yield any significant results, leading to a lack of arguments for this explanation.

5.1.3 Citizen’s perspectives on possible solutions

(35)

the citizens simply left the initial ranking untouched because they were not sufficiently knowledgeable on city logistics. Previous literature also concludes that knowledge outside a small part of city logistics that encompasses delivery methods and its implications, is limited among citizens (B2C Europe, 2018). The lack of knowledge was further analysed, by

observing whether citizens that specifically experience a certain negative externality align the preferred solutions to solve that externality. Citizens that are specifically annoyed by noise should prefer solutions that reduce this noise, such as electric vehicles or bicycle couriers. However, as the argument for lack of knowledge and/or interest predicts, citizens that experience severe excessive noise resulting from city logistics, fail to show a preference for solutions that reduce this noise. Because of this, we can conclude that the results on the rankings of solutions in this thesis are of limited use.

This indicates that for effective citizen involvement in city logistics initiatives, it is important to first educate the citizen about city logistics. Understanding the benefits and the drawbacks of solutions is crucial before citizens can be asked to participate in the process of developing and evaluation city logistics initiatives. Considering this, research that ranks city logistics initiatives (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018a; Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sánchez-Diaz, et al., 2018b) will be of more value when all involved stakeholders are well educated on a project. Especially if initiatives directly affect stakeholders and citizens, full awareness of the implications for each stakeholder of an initiative is required before a valid ranking can be constructed

5.1.4 Findings from the interviews

(36)

city logistics, although they indicated the importance of the citizen is increasing with the advent of e-commerce and home deliveries. On the other hand, TLN and EvoFenedex view the role of the citizen as more instrumental. They believe the citizen is a stakeholder to be kept in mind since they are voters who need to be satisfied. None of the interviewees

(37)

the disconnect between what literature implies and what practice shows regarding the role of the citizen, it was a surprising finding of the interviews nevertheless.

5.2 Implications for managers and policymakers

The practical implications of this thesis are that policymakers and municipalities are provided with a more detailed view of the citizen perspective. This thesis shows that experienced externalities of city logistics are not homogeneous among citizens, and that citizens can differ on a number of dimensions in the way they experience these externalities. Moreover, this thesis provides a basis for developing new solutions, as the more detailed overview of experienced externalities makes it easier to align certain initiatives with citizen experiences. For effective implementation of city logistics initiatives, this thesis illustrates it is crucial to know who experiences what.

Combining this type of survey identifying how citizens experience city logistics along with rankings assessing the effectiveness of city logistics initiatives (Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sanchez-Diaz, et al., 2018a; Holguín-Veras, Amaya Leal, Sánchez-Diaz, et al., 2018b) provides policymakers with a sound foundation upon which new initiatives can be

implemented. Furthermore, it shows that for effective citizen involvement, it is required to first educate a citizen properly before a valid evaluation of city logistics initiatives can be made. Finally, this thesis sets an example for the local municipality to build upon. As this thesis was meant as a building block for larger scale research, the findings can be elaborated upon in a large-scale citizen survey.

5.3 Limitations and future research

(38)

results of this survey are limited by the small sample size. This was discussed in the

methodology as well. This thesis should be regarded not as an objective truth, but as a starting point for larger scale survey research on this topic. A larger sample size may also discover that within neighbourhoods, citizen perceptions may differ. There is logically a large

difference in living area for citizens that live near a mall with shops that have to be supplied daily and neighbours that receive parcels, compared to those citizens that live further away from these movements but within the same neighbourhood. In this thesis, it is likely that not all of these subtle areas that cause differences in perspectives have been covered, due to the sampling method. A survey distributed to a larger sample might reveal interesting findings like this one.

The second limitation relates to the sample characteristics, which was dominated by higher educated citizens. The results of this thesis illustrate that there is a relation between

sustainability awareness and sustainable shopping behaviour, and the degree of experienced negative externalities of city logistics. Prior research has established that education can be a significant predictor for sustainable behaviour (De Silva & Pownall, 2014). It would have been interesting to see whether education can predict sustainable choices regarding city logistics, but the sample characteristics does not allow for this comparison to be made.

Ensuring a more proper distribution of education levels in future research would open up new opportunities to determine whether proper education of citizens on the impacts of city

logistics (such as fast delivery) will adjust behaviour of citizens, changing it to more sustainable ways of living.

(39)

(40)

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, this thesis sheds lights on the perception of the citizen related to city logistics, an often overlooked stakeholder group in recent city logistics initiatives. Little was known about the citizen, especially considering the wide scope that city logistics initiatives can cover. Based on a newly developed survey, this thesis reveals signs of who experiences what. The findings reveal that citizens in Groningen do not experience city logistics in their own living area as highly problematic. However, non-city centre citizens that visit the city centre consistently experience city logistics in the city centre more severely. Furthermore, this thesis shows signs of a positive relation between sustainable shopping choices and the experience of the externalities of city logistics. Similarly, families with younger children tend to experience city logistics in the city centre more severely than those with older- or without children.

(41)

References

Anderson, S., Allen, J., & Browne, M. (2005). Urban logistics - How can it meet policy makers’ sustainability objectives? Journal of Transport Geography, 13, 71–81.

B2C Europe. (2018). Green & Social delivery report: The future of ecommerce lies in its sustainability and sociality.

Ballantyne, E. E. F., Lindholm, M., & Whiteing, A. (2013). A comparative study of urban freight transport planning: Addressing stakeholder needs. Journal of Transport Geography, 32, 93–101.

Basismonitor Groningen. (n.d.). Basismonitor Groningen: Statistics and other moninitoring information about Groningen and its inhabitants. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://basismonitor-groningen.nl/

Behrends, S. (2011a). The urban context of intermodal road-rail transport – Threat or opportunity for modal shift? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 39, 463–475.

Behrends, S. (2011b). Urban freight transport sustainability - the interaction of urban freight and intermodal transport. Department of Technology Management and Economics. Gothenburg.

Bjerkan, K. Y., Sund, A. B., & Nordtømme, M. E. (2014). Stakeholder responses to measures green and efficient urban freight. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 11, 32–42.

Blanes-Vidal, V., Suh, H., Nadimi, E. S., Løfstrøm, P., Ellermann, T., Andersen, H. V, & Schwartz, J. (2012). Residential exposure to outdoor air pollution from livestock

(42)

Buldeo Rai, H., Verlinde, S., & Macharis, C. (2019). The “next day, free delivery” myth unravelled: Possibilities for sustainable last mile transport in an omnichannel

environment. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 47(1), 39– 54.

Dablanc, L. (2007). Goods transport in large European cities : Difficult to organize, difficult to modernize, 41(3), 280–285.

Dablanc, L., Diziain, D., & Levifve, H. (2011). Urban freight consultations in the Paris region. European Transport Research Review, 3(1), 47–57.

De Silva, D. G., & Pownall, R. A. J. (2014). Going green: Does it depend on education, gender or income? Applied Economics, 46(5), 573–586.

Douglas, C. (2011). Quiet deliveries demonstration scheme (QDDS). London.

Eurostat. (2019). E-commerce statistics for individuals.

Gemeente Groningen. (2020). Neighbourhoods, villages, neighbourhood councillors and area-specific teams. Retrieved January 23, 2020, from https://gemeente.groningen.nl/wijken-dorpen-wijkwethouders-en-gebiedsteams

Gill, R. (2003). Change management — or change leadership ? Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 307–318.

Green Paper: Towards a new culture for urban mobility. (2007). Luxembourg.

Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 55(2), 173–193.

(43)

criteria: An MCDM and multi-objective optimization approach. Computer & Operations Research, 81, 282–304.

Holguín-Veras, J., Amaya Leal, J., Sanchez-Diaz, I., Browne, M., & Wojtowicz, J. (2018). State of the art and practice of urban freight management Part II: Financial approaches, logistics, and demand management. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, In press.

Holguín-Veras, J., Amaya Leal, J., Sánchez-Diaz, I., Browne, M., & Wojtowicz, J. (2018). State of the art and practice of urban freight management: Part I: Infrastructure, vehicle-related, and traffic operations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, In press.

Holguín-Veras, J., & Sánchez-Díaz, I. (2016). Freight demand management and the potential of receiver-led consolidation programs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 84, 109–130.

Joerss, M., Schröder, J., Neuhaus, F., Klink, C., & Mann, F. (2016). Parcel delivery: The future of last mile.

Kelly, C., May, A. D., & Jopson, A. (2008). The development of an option generation tool to identify potential transport policy packages. Transport Policy, 15, 361–371.

Lagorio, A., Pinto, R., & Golini, R. (2016). Research in urban logistics: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(10), 908–931.

Lammgård, C. (2007). Environmental perspectives on marketing of freight transports - The intermodal road-rail case. Gothenburg.

(44)

city logistics: The contributions of a multi-actor multi-criteria analysis. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 6(4), 554–563.

Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(6), 573–586.

Lindholm, M., & Browne, M. (2013). Local authority cooperation with urban freight

stakeholders: A comparison of partnership approaches. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 13(1), 20–38.

Macharis, C., & Melo, S. (2011). City distribution and urban freight transport: Multiple perspectives. Northhampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Macharis, C., Milan, L., & Verlinde, S. (2014). A stakeholder-based multicriteria evaluation framework for city distribution. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 11, 75–84.

Macharis, C., Turcksin, L., & Lebeau, K. (2012). Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: State of use. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 610–620.

Miedema, H. M. E. (2004). Relationship between exposure to multiple noise sources. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(2), 949–957.

Mingardo, G., & Witte, J. J. (2019). Resolve Inzichten voor Roermond [Resolve insights for Roermond].

Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation : Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 662–677.

(45)

Quak, H. J. (2011). City distribution and urban freight transport: Multiple perspectives. In C. Macharis & S. Melo (Eds.), City distribution and urban freight transport: Multiple perspectives (pp. 37–55). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Quak, H. J., & de Koster, M. B. M. (2006). Urban distribution : The impacts of different governmental time-window schemes.

Quak, H. J., & de Koster, M. B. M. (2009). Delivering goods in urban areas: How to deal with urban policy restrictions and the environment. Transportation Science, 43(2), 211–227.

Quak, H. J., Nesterova, N., van Rooijen, T., & Dong, Y. (2016). Zero emission city logistics: Current practices in freight electromobility and feasibility in the near future.

Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1506–1515.

Shrum, L. J., Lowrey, T. M., & McCarty, J. A. (1995). Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71–82.

Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3–8.

Stathopoulos, A., Valeri, E., & Marcucci, E. (2012). Stakeholder reactions to urban freight policy innovation. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 34–45.

Tamagawa, D., Taniguchi, E., & Yamada, T. (2010). Evaluating city logistics measures using a multi-agent model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 6002–6012.

Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R. G., & Yamada, T. (2014). Recent trends and innovations in modelling city logistics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 125, 4–14.

(46)

UK Department for Transport. (2016). Public attitudes towards electric vehicles: 2016 (revised).

UK Department for Transport. (2018). British social attitudes survey 2017: Public attitudes towards transport.

United Nations. (2018). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. Retrieved October 17, 2019, from

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html

van Binsbergen, A., & Visser, J. (2001). Innovation steps towards efficient goods distribution systems for urban areas. Delft: Delft University Press Science.

Verbeek, D., & de Haan, J. (2011). Eropuit! Nederlanders in hun vrije tijd buitenshuis [Let’s go! Dutch nationals in their leisure time outside]. The Hague.

Verlinde, S., & Macharis, C. (2016). Who is in favor of off-hour deliveries to Brussels supermarkets ? Applying multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) to measure stakeholder support. Transportation Research Procedia, 12(June 2015), 522–532.

Vilain, P., & Wolfrom, P. (2000). Value pricing and freight traffic issues and industry constraints in shifting from peak to off-peak movements. Transportation Research Record, 1707(1), 64–72.

Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2012). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. New York: Springer Science.

(47)

(48)

Appendix A: Defined neighbourhoods of Groningen. Source:

(49)

Appendix B: Questionnaire

Master Thesis: City Logistics Questionnaire

Start of Block: Intro - Stad en eigen wijk

Beste respondent,

Dit is een vragenlijst voor een afstudeeronderzoek aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in samenwerking met de Gemeente Groningen. Het onderzoek is gericht op stadslogistiek. Stadslogistiek gaat om bijvoorbeeld: post- en pakketbezorging, retourzendingen,

bevoorrading van supermarkten en servicemonteurs. Dit gaat gepaard met vrachtwagens, busjes en tegenwoordig ook fietsen die de stad en woonwijken in en uit moeten. Een overschot aan deze bewegingen kan voor ongemak zorgen. Deze vragenlijst dient ertoe om inzichten te krijgen in verschillende meningen van Groningers op het gebied van

stadslogistiek. Door hier inzicht in te krijgen kunnen we samen werken aan een betere leefomgeving voor iedereen.

De vragenlijst is opgedeeld in vier delen. Hieronder wordt elk deel kort toegelicht 1) uw persoonsgegevens

2) uw gebruiken en manier van leven

3) uw ergernissen in a) uw eigen wijk en b) het stadscentrum (als u niet in het stadscentrum woont)

4) de mate van passende oplossingen in a) uw eigen wijk en b) het stadscentrum (als u niet in het stadscentrum woont)

De data uit deze enquête zullen uiterst vertrouwelijk worden behandeld. De resultaten van het onderzoek worden algemeen behandeld, en dus niet teruggevoerd op 1 persoon. Het is aan te raden om de vragenlijst op een laptop of computer in te vullen. Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 15 minuten. Wij danken u zeer voor uw deelname!

Vergeet niet dat volledig ingevulde vragenlijsten meedoen aan een verloting van een

waardebon van 50 euro! Om deze te verloten hebben we een e-mail adres nodig waarop we u kunnen bereiken, wat aan het eind van de vragenlijst wordt gevraagd.

Let op: in de enquête zal het woord stadslogistiek worden gebruikt als het gaat om de verkeersbewegingen die het resultaat zijn van monteursbussen, post- en pakketbezorging, vrachtwagens, afvalwagens en fietskoeriers.

(50)

Start of Block: Demografie - Stad en eigen wijk

In dit deel van de vragenlijst worden er een aantal vragen over uzelf gesteld.

Q1 Wat is uw geboortejaar? ▼ 1920 (2) ... 2020 (104) Q2 Wat is uw geslacht?

o

Man (1)

o

Vrouw (2)

o

Anders (3) Q3 Wat is uw familiesituatie?

o

Alleenstaand, zonder kinderen (1)

o

Alleenstaand, met kinderen jonger dan 12 jaar (8)

o

Alleenstaand, met kinderen van 12 jaar of ouder (9)

o

Partner, zonder kinderen (3)

o

Partner, met kinderen jonger dan 12 jaar (4)

o

Partner, met kinderen van 12 jaar of ouder (5)

o

Anders, namelijk (7) ________________________________________________ Q4 Wat is de omvang van uw huishouden, dat nog thuiswonend is?

(51)

Q5 Wat is uw 4-cijferige postcode, zonder letters? Voorbeeld: 9712

________________________________________________________________

Q6 Zie de kaart hieronder. Verschillende wijken in Groningen zijn aangegeven met kleuren. Geef aan in welke wijk u woont.

o

Centrum - binnen de grachtengordel (roze) (1)

o

Oude Wijken - Korrewegbuurt, Oosterparkbuurt (paars) (2)

o

Zuid - Rivierenbuurt, de Wijert, (oranje) (3)

o

Oost - Lewenborg, Beijum (groen) (4)

o

West - Vinkhuizen, Paddepoel, Hoogkerk (blauw) (5)

o

Ten Boer (rood) (6)

o

Haren (geel) (7)

Q7 Wat is uw hoogste niveau van opleiding (of vergelijkbaar opleidingsniveau)?

o

Middelbare school (VMBO,HAVO,VWO) (1)

o

MBO (2)

o

HBO/Universiteit (3)

o

Anders, namelijk (6) ________________________________________________

End of Block: Demografie - Stad en eigen wijk Start of Block: Gedrag - Stad en eigen wijk

(52)

Q8 Als u het centrum bezoekt, welk van de onderstaande redenen is dan uw voornaamste doel van het bezoeken van het centrum?

o

Ik werk/studeer in het centrum van Groningen (1)

o

Ik woon in (of vlakbij) het centrum van Groningen (2)

o

Ik doe dagelijkse boodschappen in het centrum van Groningen (3)

o

Ik ga shoppen in het centrum van Groningen (4)

o

Ik spreek met vrienden af / ik ga uit in het centrum van Groningen (5)

o

Anders, namelijk (6) ________________________________________________ Q9 Gaat u wel eens naar de supermarkt (dus niet het online bestellen van boodschappen)?

o

Ja (1)

o

Nee (2)

Display This Question:

If Gaat u wel eens naar de supermarkt (dus niet het online bestellen van boodschappen)? = Ja

Q10 Hoeveel keer gaat u gemiddeld per maand naar de supermarkt?

(53)

If Gaat u wel eens naar de supermarkt (dus niet het online bestellen van boodschappen)? = Ja

Q11 Als u boodschappen gaat doen, op welke manier gaat u doorgaans naar de supermarkt?

o

Lopen (1)

o

Fietsen (2)

o

Openbaar vervoer (3)

o

Auto (4)

o

Anders, namelijk (5) ________________________________________________ Q12 Bestelt u wel eens boodschappen online?

o

Ja (1)

o

Nee (2)

If Bestelt u wel eens boodschappen online? = Ja

Q13 Hoeveel keer bestelt u gemiddeld per maand online boodschappen?

________________________________________________________________

Q14 Bestelt u wel eens andere producten dan boodschappen online, zoals kleren, boeken of electronica?

Let op: hier vallen maaltijden zoals via Thuisbezorgd of UberEats niet onder!

o

Ja (1)

(54)

If Bestelt u wel eens andere producten dan boodschappen online, zoals kleren, boeken of electronica?... = Ja

Q15 Hoeveel keer per maand bestelt u online andere goederen dan boodschappen, zoals kleren, boeken, electronica?

________________________________________________________________

Q16 Als u online andere producten dan boodschappen bestelt, dan laat u de bestelling het liefst afleveren bij:

o

U thuis (1)

o

Afleveradres op het werk (7)

o

Een fysieke winkel van het bedrijf waar u het heeft besteld (4)

o

Pakketkluizen (5)

o

Een afhaalpunt/ophaalpunt (Albert Heijn, PostNL, CIGO winkels) (2)

o

Een afleveradres in de buurt (ViaTIM punten of Homer punten; dit zijn adressen in uw buurt waar pakketten worden afgeleverd bij mensen die overdag vaak thuis zijn, die daar een kleine vergoeding voor krijgen) (3)

(55)

And Als u online andere producten dan boodschappen bestelt, dan laat u de bestelling het liefst aflev... != U thuis

Q17 De voornaamste reden dat ik het niet thuis laat afleveren is:

o

Ik ben niet thuis tijdens bezorguren, dus dan kan ik het pakket niet aannemen (1)

o

Ik vind het prettiger afhalen bij een ophaalpunt/afleveradres (2)

o

Ik ben niet thuis tijdens bezorguren, en ik vind me niet comfortabel om mijn pakket bij mijn afwezigheid bij de buren te laten bezorgen (3)

o

Anders, namelijk (4) ________________________________________________

If Als u online andere producten dan boodschappen bestelt, dan laat u de bestelling het liefst aflev... = U thuis

Q18 Beantwoord de volgende stelling: "Als ik een bestelling plaats, zorg ik dat er iemand thuis is tijdens het tijdsvak van de levering om de bestelling aan te nemen, ongeacht de lengte van het tijdsvak."

o

Eens (1)

o

Oneens (2)

Q19 Beantwoord de volgende stelling: "Als mijn bestelling efficiënter zou kunnen worden geleverd wat resulteert in minder uitstoot van uitlaatgassen en minder verkeersbewegingen, zou ik best 3 tot 4 dagen langer willen wachten tot mijn pakketje aankomt."

o

Eens (1)

(56)

Q20 Beantwoord de volgende stelling: "Ik zou het niet erg vinden als de standaard levertijd voor pakketten 3-4 dagen zou zijn, zolang ik maar de optie heb om pakketten die ik met spoed nodig heb de volgende dag in huis te hebben".

o

Eens (1)

o

Oneens (2)

Q21 Beantwoord de volgende stelling: "Als mijn pakketje standaard bij een afhaalpunt zou worden afgeleverd, zou ik best wat meer bezorgkosten willen betalen als dat betekent dat het bij mij thuis wordt afgeleverd"

o

Eens (1)

o

Oneens (2)

Q22 Beantwoord de volgende stelling: "Als mijn bestelling elektrisch zou worden geleverd, zou ik daar best wat hogere bezorgkosten voor willen betalen"

o

Eens (1)

o

Oneens (4)

(57)

End of Block: Gedrag - Stad en eigen wijk Start of Block: Ergernissen eigen wijk

In dit deel van de vragenlijst worden een aantal stellingen voorgelegd, die te maken hebben met uw belevenis van stadslogistiek in uw eigen woonomgeving.

De stellingen zullen gaan over waar u zich aan ergert in uw eigen woonomgeving. Denk dus bij elk statement waarin de mate van de volgende oorzaken hieraan bijdraagt: bestelbusjes die pakketten komen leveren, vrachtwagens die de bevoorrading van winkels komen doen, fietskoeriers en busjes van monteurs die op de stoep geparkeerd staan om reparaties uit te voeren.

Q24 Ik vind de stadslogistiek in mijn wijk drukte en (korte) files veroorzaken

Q25 Ik vind dat de stadslogistiek in mijn wijk ervoor zorgt dat ik niet normaal over de stoep kan lopen of op een fietspad / de weg kan fietsen

Q26 Ik vind dat de stadslogistiek onveilige verkeerssituaties in mijn wijk veroorzaakt

(58)

Q28 Ik vind dat de stadslogistiek geluidsoverlast in mijn wijk veroorzaakt

Q29 Ik vind dat de stadslogistiek luchtvervuiling in mijn wijk veroorzaakt

Q30 Hieronder worden de voorgaande 6 ergernissen nogmaals genoemd. Breng een volgorde aan van de ergernissen en hoe u deze persoonlijk ervaart. Begin bovenaan met de ergernis die de meeste invloed op u heeft, en eindig onderaan met de ergernis die het minste invloed op u heeft.

U kunt de regels verslepen om een volgorde aan te brengen. ______ Drukte en files (1)

______ Hinderlijk bij lopen op de stoep, of fietsen (2) ______ Onveiligheid (3)

______ Afdoen aan aanzicht (4) ______ Geluidsoverlast (5) ______ Luchtvervuiling (6)

End of Block: Ergernissen eigen wijk

Q31 Hieronder worden een aantal oplossingen voor stadslogistiek kort uitgelegd, die invloed

hebben op u als consument. Lees de beschrijvingen goed, en breng een volgorde aan van de

oplossingen. Begin met de oplossing die u denkt dat het meest effectief is, en eindig met de oplossing die het minst effectief is voor uw ergernissen in uw eigen leefomgeving.

Pick up points: bepaalde winkels nemen pakketten aan van postbedrijven als PostNL en

DHL. Een klant kan een pick up point als afleveradres kiezen en zijn of haar pakket binnen de openingstijden van het betreffende pick up point het pakket ophalen. Naast dat dit handig is voor de klant omdat hij of zij niet thuis hoeft te zijn, scheelt dit ook in het aantal adressen wat postbezorgers af moeten rijden omdat alle pakketten voor een wijk op 1 pick up point worden geleverd.

Social hubs: dit werkt hetzelfde als een pick up point maar dan is het een bewoner van een

The forgotten Goliath: Exploring a citizen’s perspective on city logistics