Evaluation of sustainable last-mile delivery vehicles using the neutrosophic fuzzy SAW method

Öz

To mitigate traffic congestion, operational inefficiencies, and environmental externalities caused by conventional delivery vehicles in parcel distribution, sustainable and smart urban solutions, such as electric delivery vehicles, autonomous ground transporters, and cargo trams, have recently come to the fore. In this study, the Neutrosophic Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting (NF-SAW) method is employed to evaluate sustainable last-mile delivery alternatives. The analysis is conducted based on fourteen criteria spanning environmental, economic, social, and operational dimensions. The results indicate that the highest criterion weights are assigned to energy savings (T4), development investments (T7), and air pollution (T5). Applying these weights in the decision-making process shows that autonomous ground vehicles (Alt4) achieve the highest overall performance, while conventional delivery methods (Alt1) rank the lowest. These findings reveal that autonomous, ground-based solutions align strongly with urban logistics sustainability objectives and underscore the need for policymakers to promote such innovative alternatives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban logistics
• sustainability
• last-mile delivery
• multi-criteria decision making
• Neutrosophic Fuzzy SAW

Nötrosofik bulanık SAW yöntemi ile sürdürülebilir son adım teslimat araçlarının değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Paket teslimatında geleneksel taşıma araçlarının yol açtığı trafik sıkışıklığı, operasyonel verimsizlik ve çevresel dışsallıkları azaltmaya yönelik olarak son dönemde elektrikli teslimat araçları, otonom yer taşıtları ve kargo tramvayları gibi sürdürülebilir ve akıllı kentsel çözümler öne çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, sürdürülebilir son adım teslimat alternatiflerinin değerlendirilmesinde Nötrosofik Bulanık Basit Toplamlı Ağırlıklandırma (NB-SAW) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Analiz çevresel, ekonomik, sosyal ve operasyonel boyutları kapsayan on dört kriter temelinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre önem ağırlığı en yüksek kriterler; enerji tasarrufu (T4), geliştirme yatırımları (T7) ve hava kirliliği (T5) olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu ağırlıkların karar sürecine uygulanmasıyla yapılan performans sıralamasında otonom yer taşıtları (Alt4) en yüksek toplam performansı sergilerken geleneksel teslimat yöntemleri (Alt1) en düşük performansa sahip alternatif olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, özellikle otonom kara tabanlı çözümlerin kentsel lojistikte sürdürülebilirlik hedefleriyle güçlü bir uyum gösterdiğini ve politika yapıcıların bu tür yenilikçi uygulamaları teşvik etmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel lojistik
• sürdürülebilirlik
• son adım teslimat
• çok kriterli karar verme
• Nötrosofik Bulanık SAW

Teşekkür

Yükseköğretim Kurulu'na yazarlardan Nimet Elmacıoğlu'na doktora eğitimi süresince 100/2000 bursu verdiği için teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Kaynakça

1. 1. Zhongming, Z., Lu Li., Zhang W., Liu W., World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization, 2020.
2. 2. Bai, X., Shi, P., Liu, Y., Society: Realizing China's urban dream. Nature, 509 (7499), 158-160, 2014.
3. 3. Dünya Bankası. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#. Erişim Tarihi Şubat 19, 2025.
4. 4. Boffa, M., Logistics Constraints for International E-commerce. In Postal Strategies: Logistics, Access, and the Environment (pp. 359-369). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023.
5. 5. Boz E., Çalık A., Şahin Y., Solution approaches for the green vehicle routing problem with time window and simultaneous pickup and delivery. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 39 (2), 757-770, 2024.
6. 6. International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2021. International Energy Agency Web Site. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021. Yayın tarihi Nisan 2021. Erişim tarihi 27 Şubat 2026.
7. 7. Liu, R., Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Consumers' attitudes and behaviour towards safe food in China: A review. Food Control, 33(1), 93-104, 2013.
8. 8. Sharfman, M. P., Meo, M., Ellington, R. T., Regulation, business, and sustainable development: The antecedents of environmentally conscious technological innovation. American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (2), 277-302, 2000.

9. 9. Shaikh, I. N., Gupta, A. K., Srivastava, M. K., Towards Achieving Customer Satisfaction in Last Mile Delivery for E commerce Sector: A MCDM Approach. Data Science and Intelligent Computing Techniques, 337–346, 2023.
10. 10. Wang, B., Deng, N., Liu, X., Sun, Q., Wang, Z., Effect of energy efficiency labels on household appliance choice in China: sustainable consumption or irrational intertemporal choice?. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 169, 105458, 2021.
11. 11. Ghajargar, M., Zenezini, G., ve Montanaro, T., Home delivery services: innovations and emerging needs. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49 (12), 1371-1376, 2016.
12. 12. Arvidsson, N., Givoni, M., Woxenius, J., Exploring last mile synergies in passenger and freight transport. Built Environment, 42 (4), 523-538, 2016.
13. 13. Retallack, A. E., Ostendorf, B., Current understanding of the effects of congestion on traffic accidents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (18), 3400, 2019.
14. 14. Toledo, C. A. M., Congestion indicators and congestion impacts: a study on the relevance of area-wide indicators. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 16, 781-791, 2011.
15. 15. Ye, S., Research on urban road traffic congestion charging based on sustainable development. Physics Procedia, 24, 1567-1572, 2012.
16. 16. Rehdanz, K., Maddison, D., Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 787-797, 2008.
17. 17. Braubach, M., Tobollik, M., Mudu, P., Hiscock, R., Chapizanis, D., Sarigiannis, D. A., Martuzzi, M., Development of a quantitative methodology to assess the impacts of urban transport interventions and related noise on well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12 (6), 5792-5814, 2015.
18. 18. Saighani, A., Sommer, C., Potentials for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and conversion of renewable energy for the regional transport market-a case study. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 3479-3494, 2017.
19. 19. Wey, W. M., Constructing urban dynamic transportation planning strategies for improving quality of life and urban sustainability under emerging growth management principles. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 275-290, 2019.
20. 20. Allen, J., Browne, M., Tanner, G., Anderson, S., Christodoulou, G., Jones, P., Analysing the potential impacts of sustainable distribution measures in UK urban areas. In Logistics Systems for Sustainable Cities. 32, 251-262, 2004.
21. 21. Patier, D., Alligier, L., On-line retailing in France current and future effects on City Logistics. In Logistics Systems for Sustainable Cities 22, 381-395, 2004.
22. 22. Anderson, S., Allen, J., Browne, M., Urban logistics––how can it meet policy makers’ sustainability objectives?. Journal of Transport Geography, 13 (1), 71-81, 2025.
23. 23. Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R. G., Yamada, T., Predicting the effects of city logistics schemes. Transport Reviews, 23 (4), 489-515, 2003.
24. 24. Barceló, J., Grzybowska, H., Pardo, S., Combining vehicle routing models and microscopic traffic simulation to model and evaluating city logistics applications. In The proceedings of the 16th mini-EURO conference and 10th meeting of EWGT, Italy. Eylül, 2005.
25. 25. Yeh, W. C., Chuang, M. C., Using multi-objective genetic algorithm for partner selection in green supply chain problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (4), 4244-4253, 2011.
26. 26. Niu, S. H., Ong, S. K., Nee, A. Y. C., An enhanced ant colony optimiser for multi-attribute partner selection in virtual enterprises. International Journal of Production Research, 50 (8), 2286-2303, 2023.
27. 27. Van Duin, R., Slabbekoorn, M., Tavasszy, L., Quak, H., Identifying dominant stakeholder perspectives on urban freight policies: A Q-analysis on urban consolidation centres in the Netherlands. Transport, 33 (4), 867-880, 2018.
28. 28. Sahoo, S. K., Goswami, S. S., A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, 1 (1), 25-48, 2023.
29. 29. Lee, H., Chen, M., Pham, H. T. Choo, S., Development of a decision making system for installing unmanned parcel lockers: Focusing on residential complexes in Korea. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 23 (6), 2713-2722, 2019.
30. 30. Aljohani, K., The role of last-mile delivery quality and satisfaction in online retail experience: An empirical analysis. Sustainability, 16 (11), 4743, 2024.
31. 31. Ranieri, L., Digiesi, S., Silvestri, B., Roccotelli, M., A review of last mile logistics innovations in an externalities cost reduction vision. Sustainability, 10 (3), 782, 2018.
32. 32. Cheng, J. H., Chen, S. S., Chuang, Y. W., An application of fuzzy delphi and Fuzzy AHP for multi-criteria evaluation model of fourth party logistics. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 7 (5), 466-478, 2008.
33. 33. Hu, H., Xiong, H., You, Y., Yan, W. A mixed integer programming model for supplier selection and order allocation problem with fuzzy multiobjective. Scientific Programming, 2016 (1), 9346781, 2016.
34. 34. Wątróbski, J., Małecki, K., Kijewska, K., Iwan, S., Karczmarczyk, A., Thompson, R. G., Multi-criteria analysis of electric vans for city logistics. Sustainability, 9 (8), 1453, 2017.
35. 35. Jiang, X., Wang, H., Guo, X., Gong, X., Using the FAHP, ISM, and MICMAC approaches to study the sustainability influencing factors of the last mile delivery of rural E-commerce logistics. Sustainability, 11 (14), 3937, 2019.
36. 36. Raj, A., Sah, B., Analyzing critical success factors for implementation of drones in the logistics sector using grey-DEMATEL based approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 138, 106118, 2019.
37. 37. Büyüközkan, G., Uztürk, D., A hybrid methodology for last mile delivery strategy and solution selection at smart cities. In Transactions on Engineering Technologies: World Congress on Engineering, Singapore: Springer Singapore, 217-231, 2019.
38. 38. Melkonyan, A., Gruchmann, T., Lohmar, F., Kamath, V., Spinler, S., Sustainability assessment of last-mile logistics and distribution strategies: The case of local food networks. International Journal of Production Economics, 2020.
39. 39. Nur, F., Alrahahleh, A., Burch, R., Babski-Reeves, K., Marufuzzaman, M., Last mile delivery drone selection and evaluation using the interval-valued inferential fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 7 (4), 397-411, 2020.
40. 40. Švadlenka, L., Simić, V., Dobrodolac, M., Lazarević, D., Todorović, G., Picture fuzzy decision-making approach for sustainable last-mile delivery. IEEE Access, 8, 209393-209414, 2020.
41. 41. Simić, V., Lazarević, D., Dobrodolac, M., Picture fuzzy WASPAS method for selecting last-mile delivery mode: a case study of Belgrade. European Transport Research Review, 13 (2), 1-22, 2021.
42. 42. Jovanović, B., Šarac, D., Čačić, N., Performance benchmarking of European postal incumbents with TOPSIS and BMW-TOPSIS. Utilities Policy, 91, 101845, 2024.
43. 43. Pathak, V. K., Garg, D., Agarwal, A., Analysing alternatives for last mile delivery performance: an application of VIKOR. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 14 (3), 264-279, 2022.
44. 44. Saha, A., Simic, V., Senapati, T., Dabic-Miletic, S., Ala, A., A dual hesitant fuzzy sets-based methodology for advantage prioritization of zero-emission last-mile delivery solutions for sustainable city logistics. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 31 (2), 407-420, 2022.
45. 45. Yılmaz, Ş. F., Demirel, N., Evaluatıon of out-of-home last-mıle delıvery methods ın terms of Sustainability. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 30 (5), 2023.
46. 46. Pourmohammadreza, N., Jokar, M. R. A., A novel two-phase approach for optimization of the last-mile delivery problem with service options. Sustainability, 15 (10), 8098, 2023.
47. 47. Bonilla, M. A. M., Da Silva, B. S., Schmitt, M. B., Bouzon, M., Sustainable practices in last-mile logistics of small Brazilian e-retailers: an analysis using an MCDM approach. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 37 (3), 383-408, 2024.
48. 48. La zarević, D., Popović, Đ., Çodur, M. Y., Dobrodolac, M., Fuzzy logic approach for evaluating electromobility alternatives in last-mile delivery: Belgrade as a case study. Energies, 17 (24), 6307, 2024.
49. 49. Moslem, S., Gündoğdu, F. K., Saylam, S., Pilla, F., A hybrid decomposed fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for optimizing parcel lockers location in the last-mile delivery landscape. Applied Soft Computing, 154, 111321, 2024.
50. 50. Tadić, S., Krstić, M., Radovanović, L., Assessing strategies to overcome barriers for drone usage in last-mile logistics: A novel hybrid fuzzy MCDM model. Mathematics, 12 (3), 367, 2024.
51. 51. Tran, T. P. A., Gavade, S. A., Evaluating sustainable last mile delivery solutions: A multi-criteria decision analysis. Journal of Supply Chain Management Science, 6 (1-2), 2025.
52. 52. Veljović, M., Tadić, S., Krstić, M., Last word in last-mile logistics: A novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for ranking Industry 4.0 technologies. Mathematics, 12 (13), 2010, 2024.
53. 53. Kanık, Z. B., Erişkan, S., Soysal, M., Ömürgönülşen, M., A hybrid approach based on qualitative and quantitative techniques for analyzing last-mile parcel delivery. OPSEARCH, 1-41, 2025.
54. 54. Kaur, G., Tandon, A., Verma, A., Anand, S., Prioritizing barriers for sustainable last-mile delivery in online retail supply chain: a spherical fuzzy AHP-based approach. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 1-23, 2025.
55. 55. Krstic, M., Tadic, S., A. ˇCvorovic, and M. Veljovic,“Optimization of last-mile delivery alternatives using the fuzzy FARE and ADAM multi-criteria decision-making methods,”. Journal of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 4 (2), 98-108, 2025.
56. 56. Maravić, A., Pajić, V., Andrejić, M., A holistic human-based approach to last-mile delivery: stakeholder-based evaluation of logistics strategies. Logistics, 9 (4), 135, 2025.
57. 57. Puška, A., Dragić, R., Prdić, N., Ćosić, Đ., Novaković Božić, N., Štilić, A., Digital technologies selection for sustainable urban logistics in last-mile delivery under conditions of uncertainty. Sustainability, 17 (22), 10413, 2025.
58. 58. 2ZeroEmission. FREVUE – Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe Project. 2ZeroEmission Web Site. https://www.2zeroemission.eu/project-highlight/frevue-freight-electric-vehicles-in-urban-europe-project/. Yayın tarihi Aralık 8, 2024. Erişim tarihi Mart 12, 2025.
59. 59. Gruber, J., Ehrler, V., Lenz, B., Technical potential and user requirements for the implementation of electric cargo bikes in courier logistics services. In 13th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR). Mayıs, 2023
60. 60. Wrighton, S., Reiter, K., CycleLogistics–moving Europe forward!. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 950-958, 2016
61. 61. Öcal, A., Analysis of emotional attitudes toward autonomous vehicles: A comparative approach using language models Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 40 (4), 2515-2526, 2025.
62. 62. Valdez, M., Cook, M., Potter, S., Humans and robots coping with crisis–Starship, Covid-19 and urban robotics in an unpredictable world. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2021.
63. 63. Günay, G., Dündar, S., Sürücüsüz yük ulaşımının geleceği. In INARS International Congress on Sciences and Engineering for Sustainability, 2021.
64. 64. Behiri, W., Belmokhtar-Berraf, S., Chu, C., Urban freight transport using passenger rail network: Scientific issues and quantitative analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 115, 227-245, 2018.
65. 65. Dündar, S., Selection of compost plant location by K-Means and ARAS methods in TR83 region. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 38 (4), 2607-2623, 2023.
66. 66. Erik, A., Kuvvetli, Y., Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making framework for digital marketing integration evaluation of manufacturing facilities Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 40 (3), 1689-1704, 2025.
67. 67. Stević, Ž., Durmić, E., Gajić, M., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., A novel multi-criteria decision-making model: interval rough SAW method for sustainable supplier selection. Information, 10 (10), 292, 2019.
68. 68. Ajay, D., Manivel, M., Aldring, J., Neutrosophic Fuzzy SAW method and it’s application. The International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, 11 (8), 881-887, 2019.
69. 69. Hsu, H. M., Chen, C. T., Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79 (3), 279-285, 1996.
70. 70. Kengpol, A., Tuammee, S., Tuominen, M., The development of a framework for route selection in multimodal transportation. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 25 (3), 581-610, 2014.
71. 71. Özbek, A., LOPCOW tabanlı MOORA yöntemiyle kargo şirketi seçimi. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 139-159, 2025.
72. 72. Kumru, M., Kumru, P. Y., Analytic hierarchy process application in selecting the mode of transport for a logistics company. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 48 (8), 974-999, 2014.
73. 73. Wang, Y., Yeo, G. T., Intermodal route selection for cargo transportation from Korea to Central Asia by adopting Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy ELECTRE I methods. Maritime Policy & Management, 45 (1), 3-18, 2018.
74. 74. Pham, T. Y., Yeo, G. T., Evaluation of transshipment container terminals’ service quality in Vietnam: From the shipping companies’ perspective. Sustainability, 11 (5), 1503, 2019.
75. 75. Koohathongsumrit, N., Meethom, W., An integrated approach of fuzzy risk assessment model and data envelopment analysis for route selection in multimodal transportation networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 171, 114342, 2021.
76. 76. Alazzawi, A., Żak, J., MCDM/A based design of sustainable logistics corridors combined with suppliers selection. the case study of freight movement to Iraq. Transportation Research Procedia, 47, 577-584, 2020.
77. 77. Deveci, M., Mishra, A. R., Gokasar, I., Rani, P., Pamucar, D., Özcan, E., A decision support system for assessing and prioritizing sustainable urban transportation in metaverse. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 31 (2), 475-484, 2022.
78. 78. Kopytov, E., Abramov, D., Multiple-criteria analysis and choice of transportation alternatives in multimodal freight transport system. Transport and Telecommunication, 13 (2), 148, 2012.
79. 79. Verlinde, S., Macharis, C., Milan, L., Kin, B., Does a mobile depot make urban deliveries faster, more sustainable and more economically viable: results of a pilot test in Brussels. Transportation Research Procedia, 4, 361-373, 2014.
80. 80. Arunyanart, S., Ohmori, S., Yoshımoto, K., Selection of export route option in GMS region: recommendation for current situation. Journal of Japan Industrial Management Association, 67 (2E), 193-201, 2016.
81. 81. Stoilova, S., Study of railway passenger transport in the European Union. Tehnički Vjesnik, 25 (2), 587-595, 2018
82. 82. Kaewfak, K., Ammarapala, V., Huynh, V. N., Multi-objective optimization of freight route choices in multimodal transportation. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 14 (1), 794-807, 2021.
83. 83. Krstić, M., Tadić, S., Kovač, M., Roso, V., Zečević, S., A novel hybrid MCDM model for the evaluation of sustainable last mile solutions. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021 (1), 5969788, 2021.
84. 84. Garus, A., Alonso, B., Raposo, M. A., Grosso, M., Krause, J., Mourtzouchou, A., Ciuffo, B., Last-mile delivery by automated droids. Sustainability assessment on a real-world case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 79, 103728, 2022.
85. 85. Kabashkin, I., Lucina, J., Development of the model of decision support for alternative choice in the transportation transit system. Transport and Telecommunication, 16 (1), 61, 2015.
86. 86. Hanaoka, S., Kunadhamraks, P., Multiple criteria and fuzzy based evaluation of logistics performance for intermodal transportation. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 43 (2), 123-153, 2009.
87. 87. Madleňák, R., Madleňáková, L., Multi-criteria evaluation of e-shop methods of delivery from the customer's perspective. Transport Problems, 15 (1), 5-14, 2020.
88. 88. Dzemydienė, D., Burinskienė, A., Miliauskas, A., Integration of multi-criteria decision support with infrastructure of smart services for sustainable multi-modal transportation of freights. Sustainability, 13 (9), 4675, 2021.
89. 89. Elmacıoğlu, N., Demirel, N., Öcal, O., A hybrid framework for improving sustainable urban mobility: integrating multi-criteria decision-making and maximal covering location problem for bike-sharing system site selection. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 41 (1), 346-369, 2025.
90. 90. Sah, B., Gupta, R., Bani-Hani, D., Analysis of barriers to implement drone logistics. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 24 (6), 531-550, 2021.
91. 91. Ozdemir, S., Unveiling environmental resilience: A data-driven multi-criteria decision-making approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 108, 107607, 2024.
92. 92. Toraman, Ö. G. Y., Lojistikte yeni teknoloji kullanımı: elektrikli araçlar üzerine bir çalışma. Lojistiğin Geleceği-2, 90, 2023.
93. 93. Goeke, D., Schneider, M., Routing a mixed fleet of electric and conventional vehicles. European Journal of Operational Research, 245 (1), 81-99, 2015.
94. 94. Kazancı, U., Tanyaş, M., E-ticarette son aşama teslimatlarının kentsel lojistiğe olan etkileri. Tedarik Zinciri ve Lojistik Yönetiminde Dijitalleşme ve Güncel Uygulamalar, Editörler: Doç. Dr. Egemen İpek, Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Muhammed Turgut, Paradigma Akademi, Çanakkale, 53-79, 2024.
95. 95. Moore, A. M., Innovative scenarios for modeling intra-city freight delivery. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3, 100024, 2019.
96. 96. Napoli, G., Polimeni, A., Micari, S., Dispenza, G., Antonucci, V., Andaloro, L., Freight distribution with electric vehicles: A case study in Sicily. Delivery van development. Transportation Engineering, 3, 100048, 2021.
97. 97. Ronald, N., Yang, J., Thompson, R. G., Exploring co-modality using on-demand transport systems. Transportation Research Procedia, 12, 203-212, 2016.
98. 98. Pietrzak, O., Pietrzak, K., Cargo tram in freight handling in urban areas in Poland. Sustainable Cities and Society, 70, 102902, 2021.
99. 99. Merkisz-Guranowska, A., Shramenko, N., Kiciński, M., Shramenko, V., Simulation model for operational planning of city cargo transportation by trams in conditions of stochastic demand. Energies, 16 (10), 4076, 2023.
100. 100. De Langhe, K., Meersman, H., Sys, C., Van de Voorde, E., Vanelslander, T, How to make urban freight transport by tram successful?. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 4 (1), 13, 2019.
101. 101. Van der Kaauwen, G., Van Duin, R., Robotisation of urban freight transport. Vervoer. Werkdagen, 235-245, 2018.
102. 102. Engesser, V., Rombaut, E., Vanhaverbeke, L., Lebeau, P., Autonomous delivery solutions for last-mile logistics operations: A literature review and research agenda. Sustainability, 15 (3), 2774, 2023.
103. 103. Fedorko, G., Honus, S., Salai, R., Comparison of the traditional and autonomous AGV systems. In MATEC Web of Conferences, 134, 00013, 2017.
104. 104. Guzman, L. A., Cantillo-Garcia, V. A., Arellana, J., Sarmiento, O. L., User expectations and perceptions towards new public transport infrastructure: evaluating a cable car in Bogotá. Transportation, 50 (3), 751-771, 2023.
105. 105. Fagnant, D. J., Kockelman, K., Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181, 2015.
106. 106. De Mello Bandeira, R. A., Goes, G. V., Gonçalves, D. N. S., de Almeida D'Agosto, M., de Oliveira, C. M., Electric vehicles in the last mile of urban freight transportation: A sustainability assessment of postal deliveries in Rio de Janeiro-Brazil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 67, 491-502, 2019.
107. 107. Gruber, J., Kihm, A., Lenz, B., A new vehicle for urban freight? An ex-ante evaluation of electric cargo bikes in courier services. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 11, 53-62, 2014.
108. 108. Melo, S., Baptista, P., Evaluating the impacts of using cargo cycles on urban logistics: Integrating traffic, environmental and operational boundaries. European Transport Research Review, 9 (2), 30, 2017.
109. 109. Llorca, C., Moeckel, R., Assesment of the potential of cargo bikes and electrification for last-mile parcel delivery by means of simulation of urban freight flows. European Transport Research Review, 13 (1), 33, 2021.