Stakeholder-Specific Data Acquisition and Urban Freight Policy Evaluation Evidence Implications and New Suggestions

Transport Reviews
ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20
Stakeholder-specific data acquisition and urban

freight policy evaluation: evidence, implications
and new suggestions
Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci
To cite this article: Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci (2016): Stakeholder-specific data
acquisition and urban freight policy evaluation: evidence, implications and new suggestions,
Transport Reviews, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1126385
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1126385
Published online: 05 Jan 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 49
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttrv20
Download by: [University of Newcastle] Date: 15 March 2016, At: 07:40

TRANSPORT REVIEWS, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1126385
Stakeholder-specific data acquisition and urban freight policy

evaluation: evidence, implications and new suggestions
Valerio Gatta and Edoardo Marcucci
Department of Political Science, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Cities, characterised by scarce resources and facing increasing Received 6 November 2015
citizens’ requests for more liveable and attractive environments, Accepted 25 November 2015
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle] at 07:40 15 March 2016
need to define and implement more efficient urban freight

KEYWORDS
transport policy interventions. It is strategically relevant to Urban freight transport;
perform an ex-ante in-depth policy evaluation. The paper aims at policy evaluation;
investigating the relevance, the needs and the implications of the experimental design; data
data acquisition process by combining a focused review with an acquisition; willingness to
original research study. It critically compares five categories of pay; stated preference
methodological approaches adopted for policy evaluation
purposes with an explicit focus on the stated preference method
given its behavioural peculiarity and robustness. The review,
following a systematic procedure where scientific quality is
complemented by relevance and coverage, underlines a high
variability in the level of sophistication for data acquisition. While
a stakeholder-specific approach seems natural in all those cases
where local authorities want to adopt distinct policy instruments
for each stakeholder, this is also needed when homogeneous
policies impacting the various stakeholders are tested.
Stakeholder-specific data acquisition translates into the creation of
multiple experimental designs, explicitly conceived for each
stakeholder considered. A case study, intended to compare two
alternative strategies for data acquisition, provides a quantitative
measure of potential distortions in policy evaluation due to the
adoption of a stakeholder-generic approach. Results, in terms of
willingness to pay measures, show that a stakeholder-specific
approach is needed not only when modelling but also in the data
acquisition process.
1. Introduction
Efficient and sustainable urban freight transport (UFT) is fundamental for city develop-
ment. It supports urban lifestyles, promotes industry competitiveness, attracts and helps
retaining high-value industrial and trading activities (Anderson, Allen, & Browne, 2005).
At the same time, however, it also produces negative effects impacting on other urban
vital functions (e.g. reduced accessibility, decrease attractiveness of urban area, etc.).
Specific examples of the negative impacts produced by UFT are: air and noise pollution,
traffic safety, increased length and lowered reliability of deliveries and passenger transport
CONTACT Valerio Gatta valerio.gatta@uniroma3.it

© 2016 Taylor & Francis
2 V. GATTA AND E. MARCUCCI
(Macharis & Melo, 2011). The definition of UFT usually includes movements of goods ge-
nerated by local business, deliveries and collections of finished and intermediate goods,
mail and waste. The increase in customised deliveries has made cities progressively
more dependent on transportation systems (Dablanc, 2007). Additionally UFT is charact-
erised by an intrinsic and high heterogeneity. Also within a single city, delivery times, ship-
ment size, shipment frequency, service quality may drastically differ for each business
sector, sub-sector or even distribution chain (Dablanc, 2011; Danielis, Rotaris, & Marcucci,
2010). One can safely say that UFT is heterogeneous and complex due to the derived
demand nature of urban freight services that are specific to each urban economy which
is commonly characterised by dissimilar weight of the various economic sectors that are
present (e.g. industry, services, public and private conglomerates, small retail shops, etc.).
Correspondingly there are also some similarities between different urban logistic
chains. Among these the most relevant are: independent retailing and the informal
sector, chain retailing and commercial sectors, food markets, parcel transports and
express services and home deliveries (Dablanc, 2011).
Various stakeholders are involved. They interact, compete and, sometimes, cooperate.
Each stakeholder often has its own, at times, conflicting objectives (Quak, 2011). It is diffi-
cult to define, deploy and make acceptable innovative solutions capable of simultaneously
increasing urban goods efficiency, reducing their environmental impacts and guarantee-
ing self-financial sustainability. This is even truer when pursuing medium/long-run sustain-
ability in the absence of dedicated public funding. One has to acknowledge that UFT
sustainability/unsustainability is often dependent upon the specific stakeholders involved
and their perception of their activity/role. The complexity described is often aggravated
when a possible solution from one stakeholder’s point of view represents a new and insur-
mountable problem from another (Browne & Allen, 1999).
Local policy-makers, operating under a re-election constraint (Marcucci, Marini, & Ticchi,
2005), having to deal with this complex framework populated by heterogeneous stake-
holders, face a daunting task when conceiving, defining and trying to implement new
intervention policies. In fact, they have to be, at the same time, both effective in pursuing
economic, environmental and societal objectives as well as acceptable by a majority of sta-
keholders. Given these conditions, it becomes strategically relevant to perform an ex-ante
in-depth policy evaluation with the intent of forecasting the likely effects on the different
stakeholders impacted. This is fundamental to foresee the prospective reactions to the
intervention policy-makers want to introduce.
Data-driven policy evaluation based on quantitative methods is progressively acquiring
a predominant position in this field. This is both due to the ex-ante and ex-post evaluation
that this approach consistently makes available as well as for its analytical scenario-assess-
ment capabilities. The concurrent need for an adequate treatment of data and stakeholders’
heterogeneity justifies an explicit joint focus on data-acquisition strategies and on the
specific stakeholders involved. While a stakeholder-specific data acquisition seems
natural in all those cases where local authorities want to adopt distinct policy instruments
for alternative subsets of stakeholders, this is also needed when homogeneous policies
impacting different stakeholders are implemented since it helps evaluating the different
impacts on heterogeneous stakeholders. This last point can be of vital importance.
The paper aims at investigating the relevance, the needs and the implications of the
data-acquisition process in the realm of UFT policy evaluation by combining a focused
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 3
review with an original research study. It reviews recent contributions that have adopted
alternative methods to deal with the ex-ante policy assessment. Additionally it reports an
illustrative case study evidencing policy implications of alternative data acquisition
approaches in a stated preference (SP) framework that represents the most frequently
adopted methodological approach when studying behavioural policy impacts. To the
best of our knowledge, the example proposed, where a stakeholder-specific multi-stage
efficient design is developed, constitutes an innovation in the field. Moreover, the sys-
tematic comparison between a stakeholder-generic data-acquisition process and a stake-
holder-specific data-acquisition process demonstrates the practical relevance of the issue
raised and provides a quantitative measure of the potential distortions in policy evalu-
ation. Results show that when adopting a stakeholder-generic approach, no data model-
ling can recoup the valuable information on the behavioural impact of alternative policy
interventions a stakeholder-generic data-acquisition process could have ensured.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the procedure used to select the
UFT-related literature specifically dealing with policy-evaluation methods and discusses
the respective data acquisition procedures. The SP case study is illustrated in Section
3. Here, two alternative data-acquisition strategies are discussed. Their alternative policy
implications are shown by comparing the econometric results obtained. Section 4
concludes.
2. UFT policy-evaluation techniques and data-acquisition needs

This section reports a systematic UFT literature review with a focus on policy-evaluation
approaches and their respective data acquisition characteristics and needs. The procedure
followed for the review performed is reported below (see Figure 1).
To ensure a high scientific content level of the papers considered they are preliminary
drawn from the ISI web of knowledge database.1 Since there is no consistent definition of
UFT and, more in general, of city logistics, one has to use different research keywords to
locate the relevant contributions (Wolpert & Reuter, 2012). To minimise, as much as pos-
sible, research arbitrariness a pre-determined plan was systematically followed. The seven
keywords selected for literature research priming are: ‘urban freight’, ‘urban logistics’,
‘urban goods’, ‘urban supply chain’, ‘city logistics’, ‘urban areas’, ‘freight’. While the first
six are used with an ‘or’ Boolean operator, the last is used with an ‘and’ operator. The data-
base interrogation by ‘topic’ produces a total of 626 items.
Given the heterogeneity and the excessive number of results obtained a refinement
strategy, producing 161 items, is developed adopting the following criteria: (i) document
types (i.e. articles); (ii) publication years (i.e 2005–15); (iii) research areas (i.e. transportation,
engineering, urban studies, business economics, operations research management
science, computer science, geography, environmental science ecology, public admin-
istration, science technology, social sciences other topics); (iv) language (i.e. english).
While one could, in principle, qualitatively partition the 161 papers considered within
categories representing the main thematic clusters in the literature,2 however, given the
specific research question, a dichotomous classification is performed. The distinction
made is between policy-related (78) and non-policy-related (83) papers.
The main concentrations of the policy-related papers considered are produced by
authors located in USA (19%), UK (12%), Italy (10%) and Sweden (10%). Around 60% of
Figure 1. Selection and partitioning of the UFT literature review.
the papers included in this group are from the 2012–14 period with an average of more
than 15 papers per year with respect to an average of four for the 2005–11 period thus
testifying a rising interest.
The 78 policy-related papers are additionally split in five different classes according to
the different methodological approach adopted. This helps concentrating on the alterna-
tive data-acquisition processes that are generally correlated to the methodological choices
performed. The categories used to partition the papers considered are the following: (1)
case studies (32%); (2) multi-criteria analysis (9%); (3) personal critical assessment (21%);
(4) simulation (26%); (5) SP (13%). Table 1 reports all the papers considered for each class.
Since scientific quality (i.e. ISI web of knowledge source) has to be complemented by
relevance and coverage, additional papers are included on the base of the authors’ know-
ledge and personal beliefs. The choice ensures the inclusion of conceptually, practically
and thematically relevant papers within the classes identified.
In what follows, for each class, the papers reported constitute the most illustrative
examples with specific attention paid to alternative stakeholders considered and data-acqui-
sition methods. An in-depth analysis is performed on SP studies for three main reasons: (1) SP
studies are acquiring an increasing role especially with respect to ex-ante policy evaluation;
(2) SP data acquisition is costly, time-consuming and requires a meticulous procedure to
ensure the quality and robustness of the policy-evaluation process performed; (3) this
paper proposes an efficient, robust and policy relevant SP methodology for a stakeholder-
specific data-acquisition process. The rising role of SP methods is mainly due to the much
appreciated capability this methodological approach can provide with respect to the
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 5
Table 1. Classification of the UFT policy-related papers

Multi-criteria Personal critical
Case studies analysis assessment Simulation Stated preferences
Alho and Silva (2015), Macharis and Arvidsson (2013), Anand, Van Duin, and Marcucci, Gatta, and
Browne, Allen, Milan (2015), Arvidsson, Woxenius, Tavasszy (2014), Lin Scaccia (2015), Gatta
Wainwright, Palmer, Cordova, Merchan, and Lammgard (2013), et al. (2014), and Marcucci (2014),
and Williams (2014), and Torres (2014), Ballantyne, Lindholm, Nourinejad, Marcucci and Gatta
Lindholm and Blinge Tadic, Zecevic, and and Whiteing (2013), Wenneman, Habib, (2013), Stathopoulos,
(2014), Olsson and Krstic (2014a), Lenz and Riehle (2013), and Roorda (2014), Valeri, and Marcucci
Woxenius (2014), Tadic, Zecevic, and Wachs (2013), Basbas Nuzzolo, Comi, and (2012), Holguin-Veras,
Sadhu, Tiwari, and Krstic (2014b), and Bouhouras (2012), Rosati (2014), Silas, Polimeni, and
Jain (2014), Awasthi and Cherrett et al. (2012), Qureshi, Taniguchi, Cruz (2008), Marcucci
Triantafyllou, Cherrett, Chauhan (2012), Munuzuri, Cortes, and Thompson and Danielis (2008),
and Browne (2014), Awasthi, Chauhan, Guadix, and Onieva (2014), Teo, Holguin-Veras, Silas,
Zunder, Aditjandra, and Goyal (2011), (2012), Aftabuzzaman Taniguchi, and Polimeni, and Cruz
and Carnaby (2014), Zhang and Kwon and Mazloumi (2011), Qureshi (2014), Zhou (2007), Puckett,
Akyol and De Koster (2011) Russo and Comi (2011), and Wang (2014), Hensher, Rose, and
(2013), Dablanc, Behrends, Lindholm, Jaller, Holguin-Veras, Collins (2007), Puckett,
Giuliano, Holliday, and and Woxenius (2008), and Hodge (2013), Hensher, and Battellino
O’Brien (2013), Dablanc (2008), Munuzuri, Grosso, (2006); and Hensher
Lindholm and Browne Macário, Galelo, and Cortes, and Guadix and Puckett (2005)
(2013), Motraghi Martins (2008), Dablanc (2013), Anand, Yang,
(2013), Regue and (2007), Holguin-Veras Van Duin, and
Bristow (2013), Ville, et al. (2005) and Tavasszy (2012),
Gonzalez-Feliu, and Munuzuri, Larraneta, Deflorio, Gonzalez-
Dablanc (2013), Allen, Onieva, and Cortes Feliu, Perboli, and
Browne, and Cherrett (2005) Tadei (2012),
(2012a), Cidell (2012), Motraghi and
Ferguson, Maoh, Ryan, Marinov (2012),
Kanaroglou, and Munuzuri, Cortes,
Rashidi (2012), Grosso, and Guadix
Lindholm and (2012), Teo,
Behrends (2012), Taniguchi, and
Browne and Gomez Qureshi (2012), van
(2011), McLeod and Duin and van der
Cherrett (2011), Heijden (2012),
Sathaye, Harley, and Boussier, Cucu, Ion,
Madanat (2010a), and Breuil (2011),
Sathaye, Horvath, and Yang and Moodie
Madanat (2010b), (2011), Crainic,
Quak and de Koster Ricciardi, and Storchi
(2009), Marquez and (2009), Friesz,
Salim (2007), Quak Mookherjee, HoIguin-
and de Koster (2007) Veras, and Rigdon
and Finnegan, Finlay, (2008) and Holguin-
O’Mahony, and Veras (2008)
O’Sullivan (2005)
detection and measurement of the behavioural changes accompanying the policies

implemented. The main SP added value resides in the explicit consideration of stakeholders’
utility maximisation efforts within a well-defined micro-economic theoretical framework.
2.1. Case studies

The papers belonging to this category usually describe a single significant case either to
foster reproduction (good results) or to ensure avoidance (bad results). A second relevant
group adopts a comparative analysis approach between cases so to determine both
common aspects and differing peculiarities with the intent of learning lessons and
replicating the experience elsewhere. These articles usually provide in-depth analysis of
both the various stakeholders involved as well as the data portraying the main charact-
eristics of the case considered.
Österle, Aditjandra, Vaghi, Grea, and Zunder (2015) represent an illustrative example of
best practices and case studies with respect to qualitative policy evaluation, data acqui-
sition and stakeholder engagement. With respect to the city of Como, the authors describe
the implementation of the urban consolidation centre ‘Merci in Centro’ established in
2009. The paper describes and clarifies the application of a design and monitoring frame-
work developed by the Asian Development Bank (2007) to engage different local freight
stakeholders within the planning process of an innovative city logistics project. In particu-
lar, the structured consultation process fosters stakeholders to share their aspirations
accounting for the differences in their respective priorities. Lindholm and Browne (2013)
report alternative methods for stimulating urban interaction between stakeholders and
local authorities with respect to possible partnership approaches when dealing with inno-
vative policy implementation.
Holguín-Veras, Aros-Vera, and Browne (2015) analyse the role interactions among
different freight agents have in influencing supply chain’s response to pricing-based
policies. In particular, effective transport policies should be based on a robust under-
standing of the heterogeneous behaviour of the population impacted. The paper
adopts a case-study approach on pricing policies aimed at influencing both carriers
(three projects considered) and receivers (two projects examined). The analysis con-
ducted is subsequently used to confirm (mostly)/falsify the hypothesis the authors
made ex-ante deriving them from economic theory, literature analysis and personal
research experience.
The setup of an urban consolidation centre is discussed by Ville et al. (2013) with
respect to the case of Vicenza (Italy). The paper, analysing the strong and daring regu-
lations implemented, discusses the likely effects and the legal risks deriving from such
measures for other European cities. The paper investigates the preferences and moti-
vations of the different stakeholders involved; it reviews the court decisions that ruled
in favour of the complaint with respect to the extremely strict restrictions imposed. The
Vicenza case has set a Europe-wide precedent with respect to the restrictions that can
and cannot be imposed to freight transport vehicles’ accessing city centres.
2.2. Multi-criteria decision analysis

Papers in this category are grouped according to the use of multi-criteria analysis when
assessing UFT policies. Data are typically used and relate either to single or multiple
stakeholders.
Tadic et al. (2014a) investigate different UFT policies in Belgrade involving a single sta-
keholder. They propose a variant of multi-criteria decision analysis combining three fuzzy
methods. Fuzzy logic is structurally consistent with the often-incomplete information
available to the decision-maker. They include several factors reflecting the economic,
environmental and social characteristics of the city. The approach suggested can be
extended to multiple stakeholders and to any city.
When multiple stakeholders are involved, data gathering is often stakeholder-generic
since the criteria used for evaluation are the same for all (e.g. Awasthi & Chauhan,
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 7
2012). Frequently, stakeholders participate only at the beginning or at the end of the
evaluation process. Usually they are involved in the preliminary stages to collect infor-
mation needed for building an initial evaluation framework. They are, subsequently,
involved at the end of the evaluation process so to obtain a feedback on the results.
Macharis and Bernardini (2015) review 276 publications concerning the use of multi-cri-
teria decision analysis for transport projects evaluation. Only in a few cases, stakeholder
involvement is considered crucial and is included in the whole analysis via a well-struc-
tured procedure.
Macharis (2004) proposes a multi-stakeholder multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) differing
from classical multi-criteria with respect to the stakeholder-specific data acquisition
process used. Macharis, Van Hoeck, Verlinde, Debauche, and Witlox (2011) conduct a
MAMCA for assessing night-time deliveries for urban distribution in Belgian cities. After
defining alternative policy measures to be evaluated and identifying the stakeholders
involved, the most critical step is the selection of the policy-evaluation criteria and their
respective weights. The criteria are the stakeholder-specific goals and the weights
reflect the importance the stakeholder attaches to each objective. An overall analysis pro-
duces a classification of the alternatives considered while a sensitivity analysis can reveal
the robustness of the results.
2.3. Personal critical assessment

This class of papers typically does not make use of specific data for policy evaluation. Data
acquisition strategy is thus not a relevant issue.
Dablanc (2007), through a personal analysis derived from a six-year fieldwork for various
research projects, considers UFT policies scarce, out-of-date and inefficient. All stake-
holders wait for others to take effective initiatives. In order to overcome this paralysed si-
tuation, Dablanc suggests two strategies: (i) the provision of logistic areas and delivery
bays should be planned after a consultation phase (e.g. zoning ordinance or development
of commercial/industrial buildings) when transport practitioners and the planning depart-
ment work close together; (ii) regulate city access for delivery trucks based on a nego-
tiation process between transport and business community leaders adopting
environmental access criteria rather than truck’s weight and/or size.
Behrends et al. (2008) concentrate on sustainable UFT policies. They propose an indi-
cator matrix describing both the interdependencies of the various stakeholders and the
actions required for a more sustainable UFT system. Starting from the stakeholder-
based model suggested by Sjöstedt (1996) and the equation linking CO2 emissions to
GNP, transport intensity, traffic intensity and technical capability, they illustrate the
single stakeholder’s responsibility and the short-term effects of possible measures on
sustainability.
Macário et al. (2008) identify the critical aspects and assess the benefits of new urban
logistic solutions implemented via a pilot study in Lisbon. UFT policies are evaluated on
the basis of their business profitability. They focus on the link between strategy, business
structure, business processes, infrastructure and systems needed for a successful develop-
ment adopting appropriate business models. The article underlines the important role that
concerted and complementary services play in satisfying the different stakeholders’
requirements.
2.4. Simulation
Papers in this category generally rely on theoretical models and perform numerical
computations through simulated data to verify the assumptions made and assess the
results.
Holguin-Veras (2008) employs an economic model to estimate the impact of alternative
policies, aiming at fostering off-hour deliveries, on stakeholders’ profits. In particular, the
Author proposes a set of equations, in the case of both independent and integrated
carrier–receiver operations, through which the necessary conditions for off-hour deliveries
feasibility can be determined. This scheme is used to evaluate alternative policies (i.e.
freight road pricing and/or financial incentives) so that one can simulate various scenarios
for fostering the shift to off-peak deliveries. Real-life cost estimates are also used to check
the realism of the model proposed.
Friesz et al. (2008) develop a dynamic pricing model for freight services within a game
theoretical setting. Acknowledging the relevance of the interactions between stakeholders

in freight transport decision-making, they consider sellers and transporters, optimising
their profits and having pricing power, as Cournot-Nash stakeholders in a network
economy. Receivers are not explicitly modelled, however, included as input for freight
demand. Stakeholder-specific competition models are defined and, subsequently, com-
bined. This allows the treatment of a non-linear complementarity problem, which is
extended by introducing uncertainty for a stochastic formulation. A numerical example
reported illustrates the different pricing strategies adopted by the stakeholders
investigated.
Anand et al. (2014) illustrate the use of a knowledge data model for urban freight
defined as ‘city logistics ontology’ whereupon to build an agent-based model. This
broad view includes various city logistics entities such as, for instance, stakeholders and
resources as well as a structured representation of the relationships among them. In
this paper, the authors, using the Repast Symphony platform allowing the use of GIS-
based modelling, develop an agent-based ‘toy model’ considering the road network in
Rotterdam with 100 retailers, 10 shippers and 7 carriers along with synthetic data for
parameters related to shop area, location and goods demand.
2.4. Stated preferences

This class includes urban freight policy-evaluation papers based on SP data to test alterna-
tive stakeholders’ behavioural reactions. Reconciling deep heterogeneity due to different
stakeholders’ preferences with accurate and robust policy-evaluation techniques requires
using sophisticated stakeholder-specific data acquisition. These difficult conditions are
additionally aggravated by the difficulties usually encountered when administering SP
questionnaires aimed at evaluating alternative UFT policies. This is, in fact, not an easy
task. The daunting problems to be overcome have to do with privacy concerns, limited
participation and high interviewing costs. The concurrent presence of all these problems
manifests itself with often-limited sample size available for estimation purposes and for
out-of-sample prediction purposes. The adoption of methodologically complex exp-
erimental designs constitutes a possible solution.
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 9
Looking at the recent literature one notices that stakeholder-specific data acquisition is
performed in different ways. The articles reported hereafter provide examples of this.
Hensher and Puckett (2005) report a first example of quantitative policy evaluation
based on SP techniques explicitly considering different stakeholder types and interaction
modelling. The authors propose an advanced Interactive Agency Choice Experiment (IACE)
building on previous research by Hensher and Chow (1999). The approach is used to
model the interdependencies between stakeholders along a supply chain. The intent is
to provide insights with respect to the most appropriate incentives policy-makers
should use to reduce traffic congestion. The authors consider a multi-stakeholder
supply chain (i.e. supplier, freight firm and receiver). They require respondents to indicate
the most preferred among a set of mutually exclusive distribution networks and strategies.
The interviewee is prompted to perform this choice both unconditionally and conditional
on the likelihood that the other stakeholder is willing to adopt the same distribution str-
ategy. This approach, based on stakeholder-specific trade-offs, fosters the achievement of

a cooperative outcome among them. A major drawback of this sophisticated method-
ology is its practical implementation costs. This might explain the limited replications of
this approach in either similar or different contexts by other researchers.
In an attempt to simplify the previous approach and facilitate its practical application,
Puckett et al. (2007) develop Minimum Information Group Inference (MIGI) experiments
based on simulated rather than real interaction. MIGI is less data demanding than IACE
while still capable of providing interesting insights with respect to stakeholders inter-
action. First, the authors acquire choice experiment data from a sample of freight firms
and then employ a two-stage modelling system to estimate transporters and shippers pre-
ferences independently. These results are subsequently used to calculate a group equili-
brium model based on concessions by both stakeholders (Hensher, Puckett, & Rose,
2007). MIGI reconciles quantitative strategic measurement of stakeholder interactions
effects with an acceptably difficult data acquisition process. However, both financial con-
straints and minimum sample size requirements render also MIGI difficult to implement. In
fact, only a limited number of buyers of road freight transport services and transport pro-
viders are willing to participate to such a complex preference elicitation process. This
makes it difficult to guarantee a sufficiently widespread participation to obtain statistically
reliable parameter estimates.
In what follows more practically oriented and technically feasible approaches are
reported and their implications discussed. For example, Holguin-Veras et al. (2007) and
Holguin-Veras et al. (2008) analyse the effectiveness of comprehensive policies, aimed
at receivers and carriers in urban areas and focused at diverting truck traffic from peak
to off-peak hours. These papers adopt a stakeholder-specific perspective for data acqui-
sition. In fact, separate datasets for receivers and carriers were acquired and subsequently
split in a calibration (80%) and validation (20%) sub-samples. Alternative scenarios are pre-
sented to interviewees who are asked to express their likely acceptance of the scenario
proposed. The data are used to estimate a binary logit model making use of socio-
economic characteristics. In fact, no experimental design is used and the interviewees
are questioned only with respect to their acceptance/rejection of the scenario proposed.
de Oliveira, Dutra, Correia, Neto, and Guerra (2012) propose a SP exercise for retailers and
carriers with a standard experimental design developed to test stakeholders’ preferences
for alternative configurations of an urban consolidation centre. It is important to remark
that the authors follow a stakeholder-specific data acquisition since they develop and test
different choice scenarios for different stakeholders.3 In fact, the scenario developed con-
tains stakeholder-specific attributes. The authors use scenario cards to ask interviewees
about the ranking of each of the four cards shown. Each attribute has two levels only
with the first being the status quo situation and the second being the qualitative effect a
urban consolidation centre would presumably have on the status quo situation.
Domínguez, Holguín-Veras, Ibeas, and dell’Olio (2012) report the results in two exp-
eriments conducted in Barcelona and Santander aimed at testing receivers’ willingness
to adopt new off-peak delivery policies and the establishment of an urban consolidation
centre. A SP survey, based on an efficient experimental design, investigates the impact
each variable has in influencing receivers’ decision to accept the policies considered.
Both policies are tested separately and the degree of acceptance is evaluated for each
scenario. The efficient experimental design rests on one pilot only to obtain a priori
values for the attribute coefficients. For estimation purposes, 200 valid questionnaires
are acquired.
It is important to recall that recent methodological advancements in modelling indiv-
idual choices have produced new research opportunities that have opened the door to
a deeper analysis of choice procedures and increased their informative potential (Frisch-
knecht, Eckert, Geweke, & Louviere, 2014). However, independently of the sophistication
of the estimation methodologies employed on the data acquired, end-results will
always be strictly dependent on the quality of the available data. These general consid-
erations naturally extend to all research fields and are also pertinent to UFT policy-
evaluation issues. Administering UFT policy-focused questionnaires is costly and difficult.
Small samples are generally available for estimation purposes. This should reverberate on
the experimental design choice. Efficient experimental designs represent the best sol-
ution. The advantages of adopting an efficient design strategy are well documented in
the literature (Bliemer & Rose, 2005; Huber & Zwerina, 1996; Sandor & Wedel, 2001). More-
over, it is important to note that SP techniques are specifically useful whenever undifferen-
tiated policies are implemented with respect to a heterogeneous sample of stakeholders. If it
is often politically advisable to implement homogeneous policies due to acceptability con-
straints, nevertheless one has to be aware that their relative appreciation can be highly dif-
ferentiated if the population impacted is composed of different stakeholders characterised
by heterogeneous preferences and interests. In this case, one should test homogeneous pol-
icies in terms of attributes while accounting for stakeholder heterogeneity.
To sum up, for UFT policy-evaluation purposes, it is appropriate and desirable to have:
(1) multi-stage efficient experimental design (e.g. the a priori values for the attribute coef-
ficients should be updated an appropriate number of times so to enjoy the beneficial
effects this technique is capable of producing in terms of attribute significance and/or
reduction in sample size needed); (2) stakeholder-specific data acquisition process (e.g.
the efficient experimental design should be optimised for each stakeholder considered).
An example of a stakeholder-specific multi-stage efficient design is reported in Gatta
and Marcucci (2014). The authors discuss the implications heterogeneity4 among own-
account, retailers and transport providers have from a policy-maker’s perspective. In par-
ticular the data acquired helped defining different policies that would have an equal
impact on all agents’ utilities while accounting for their heterogeneous preferences.
More details on the data acquisition process are available in Marcucci, Stathopoulos,
TRANSPORT REVIEWS 11
Gatta, and Valeri (2012) where an in-depth description of the survey instrument develop-
ment process is reported.
3. Stakeholder-specific vs. stakeholder-generic data acquisition and policy

evaluation
This section presents a case study intended to compare two alternative strategies for SP
data acquisition in order to discern the relevance and impact a stakeholder-specific vs.
stakeholder-generic approach has on policy evaluation. In what follows the paper provides
a quantitative measure of potential distortions in policy evaluation due to the adoption of
a stakeholder-generic approach.
3.1. Data acquisition process

The case study refers to a SP survey administered in Rome’s limited traffic zone between
September 2009 and February 2010 aimed at eliciting stakeholders’ preferences with
respect to possible UFT policy variations. In the late 80s, access to a 5-km2 area in the
city centre was restricted for passengers to non-resident vehicles. Subsequently a specific
legislation limited entrance to passenger and freight vehicles alike, both resident and non-
resident. The constraints essentially referred to Euro-vehicle standards. A yearly access fee
of 565€ was, when the questionnaire was administered, levied for each vehicle; time
windows applied, albeit not systematically enforced, to freight vehicles while numerous
exemptions were contemplated (Stathopoulos et al., 2011).
The aim of the policy tested is to increase the effectiveness of the urban freight distri-
bution in the area considered by using the instruments all the stakeholders consider both
appropriate and acceptable. Retailers, transport providers and own-account stakeholders
constitute the level of disaggregation generally adopted in investigating UFT policies
(Marcucci, Gatta, Valeri, & Stathopoulos, 2013). The first two stakeholders are well ident-
ified in the literature and the paper concentrates on them.
Attribute definition, selection and customisation are discussed in previous papers
where a detailed description of the Bayesian efficient experimental design developed is
also reported (Marcucci, Gatta, Stathopoulos, & Valeri, 2011, 2013; Marcucci, Gatta,
Valeri, et al., 2013). Each policy alternative is characterised by attributes taking at least
three levels to describe variation ranges presented to respondents. The attributes,
included and defined on the base of stakeholders’ shared relevance, are: (1) number of
loading/unloading bays (LUB); (2) probability of finding a loading/unloading bay free
(PLUBF); (3) entrance fee (EF). LUB and PLUBF have three levels while EF has five. These
attributes were considered policy relevant by all stakeholders while others (e.g. tradable
permits for policy-makers), judged significant only by a single stakeholder, were discarded.
UFT policy interventions are usually uniformly applied to all stakeholders involved and this
motivates the choice performed. Joint stakeholder meetings were an important source of
information concerning attribute ranges. Broad level ranges were used in order to avoid
possible behavioural misinterpretations (e.g. lexicographic preferences, see e.g. Hess,
Stathopoulos, & Daly, 2012). In fact, seemingly non-trading behaviour among interviewees
could, de facto, be due to insufficient variation in level ranges producing an undetectable
impact on utility.
Ranking is the response format adopted since it seems more consistent to ask for a
ranking of policies rather than choosing among them. This, in fact, never happens in
reality. Interviewees are asked to rank three policies (two hypothetical and the status
quo). Replies to the ranking exercises were exploded into choices for estimation purposes.
Multiple designs are generated each corresponding to a different segment (i.e. retailers
and transport providers) of the sampled population (see e.g. Rose & Bliemer, 2006; Sándor
& Wedel, 2005). In fact, one has to underline the strong a priori nurtured concerning the
structurally different preferences that supposedly characterise retailers and transport pro-
viders. The ex-ante considerations, suggesting a consistent distinction between these two
stakeholders’ preferences, are based on their respective structural and functional charac-
teristics. In fact, while retailers demand freight transportation services, transport providers
offer them. This is considered sufficient to assume that they are characterised by divergent
interests explaining heterogeneous policy preferences. These different preferences for UFT
policy attributes should, as the case study demonstrates, also be reflected in the efficient
design development process implying the adoption of a stakeholder-specific approach
even when the same intervention levers are tested on different stakeholders. Taking the
beneficial impacts of this strategy for granted, the case study investigates the effects of
a stakeholder-specific approach.
3.2. Stakeholder-specific vs. stakeholder-generic

The choice between the two alternative data-acquisition processes depends on the a priori
assumptions made concerning the homogeneous/heterogeneous preference hypothesis
in relation to the stakeholders to be interviewed.
Two datasets are acquired and used for estimation. The first (i.e. stakeholder-generic) is
acquired by treating retailers and transport providers as homogeneous. In fact, they were
given the same questionnaire. The second (i.e. stakeholder-specific) is acquired assuming
they have different utility functions. In this case, retailers and transport providers were
administered a stakeholder-specific version of the questionnaire. In both cases a multi-
stage efficient design, developed employing Ngene 1.1 software (Rose & Bliemer, 2012),
is used. In particular, both designs incorporate indications on magnitude, sign and distri-
bution for each attribute coefficient derived from multinomial logit (MNL) model estimates
obtained using data acquired in the previous stage. Bayesian priors account for uncer-
tainty in parameter estimates. The size of the spread for the a priori assumptions was
determined using the estimated confidence intervals from previous rounds of interviews.
D-efficiency (i.e. AVC matrix determinant minimisation) and a-efficiency (AVC matrix trace
minimisation) were the main drivers for design development while level and utility
balance criteria were also considered. The two datasets were generated administering
an equal number of interviews producing a total number of observations equal to 653
for the stakeholder-generic dataset and 809 for the stakeholder-specific one. The
number of observations is increased due to the rank-exploded procedure which consists
in extracting choices from a ranking exercise (Chapman & Staelin, 1982). When asking to
rank the alternatives showed the respondents had the opportunity to provide us with an
incomplete ordering if one alternative was considered unacceptable, in line with the
concept of hard cut-offs reported in Swait (2001) and subsequently applied in freight
transportation by Marcucci and Danielis (2007). In our case a full ordering of three
alternatives is equivalent to two choice observations. An incomplete ordering, instead, cor-

responds to just one choice observation. The difference in full and incomplete orderings in
the two datasets explains the varying number of observations. It is important to note that
the number of incomplete ordering is greater in the stakeholder-generic dataset. This can
be interpreted as a signal of an inadequate design where non-tailored alternatives are per-
ceived as unrealistic and consequently kept outside of the consideration set. Should the
interpretation be correct this would imply an additional distortion a stakeholder-generic
approach introduces due to the misrepresentation of the choice set actually considered.
Notwithstanding both samples used are relatively small in size, they are in line with the
commonly suggested rules-of-thumb to determine a sufficient number of observations to
get statistically significant parameters estimates (Orme, 1998). Furthermore, sampling
more respondents will, at the margin, have only a small effect on the standard errors of
the parameter estimates (Rose & Bliemer, 2013). These considerations justify the adoption
of a Bayesian efficient design and the shunning of the traditional factorial one since robust
results can be obtained also with a small number of interviews.
3.3. Econometric results and policy implications of data acquisition process

This section reports the econometric results based on MNL models assuming linear
effects.5 Policy implications are derived comparing a stakeholder-generic vs. stake-
holder-specific data acquisition process.
Firstly, assuming homogeneous stakeholders’ preferences, a single MNL model is esti-
mated.6 A naïve estimation result is derived using a stakeholder-generic data acquisition
process (R1).
Considering, instead, heterogeneous preferences between retailers and transport pro-
viders a MNL model is estimated for each stakeholder. According to the two different data
acquisition processes, two estimation results are derived. The first is based on the dataset
acquired via a stakeholder-generic data-acquisition process (R2), while the second via a
stakeholder-specific data-acquisition process (R3). Since an equally sophisticated choice
model (i.e. MNL) is always used, the different results can be imputed to the different
data-acquisition processes.
The comparison is performed on the basis of the empirical impact on policy evaluation,
measured in terms of willingness to pay (WTP). WTP point estimates for an additional unit
of the desired attribute (i.e. LUB and PLUBF) are reported together with their confidence
intervals calculated via the Delta method.7 In a choice-modelling framework, the WTP for a
given attribute is obtained by dividing its marginal coefficient by that of cost. Estimated
coefficients reported refer to normalised attributes8 so to circumvent unit of measurement
issues and facilitating utility impact assessments. Due to attribute normalisation, the ratio
between the two coefficients has to be multiplied by the minimum level of cost attribute
(i.e. 200) and divided by the minimum level of the attribute at the numerator (i.e. 400 for
LUB and 10 for PLUBF). WTP for attribute variations provide valuable information to
decision-makers. This knowledge base might allow for UFT policies tailoring.
Table 2 reports R1 results. All coefficients, with the exception of the two alternative
specific constants (ASC1 and ASC2) referring to the hypothetical options in the ranking
task, are statistically significant and with the expected sign: positive for LUB and PLUBF
while negative for EF. In fact, an increase in either the number of loading/unloading
Table 2. Single MNL based on stakeholder-generic data acquisition process

Variable Coefficient St. Err. t-stat WTPa
LUB 0.337 0.079 4.24 −0.22 (0.05)
PLUBF 0.419 0.083 5.05 −11.13 (2.10)
EF −0.753 0.057 −13.18 –
ASC1 0.096 0.173 0.55 –
ASC2 0.017 0.181 0.09 –
Log likelihood function: −461.53
No. of observations: 653
Info. Criterion AIC: 1.429
Finite Sample AIC: 1.429
Info. Criterion BIC: 1.463
Info. Criterion HQIC: 1.442
a
WTP for an additional unit of the corresponding attribute. In brackets the standard error estimated using Delta method.
bays or in the probability of finding them free has a positive impact on utility. On the con-
trary, an increase in the annual cost negatively affects utility. As imaginable EF plays the
lion part in explaining preferences (the highest t-stat value). Moreover, the supposed
homogeneous stakeholders are willing to pay 0.22€ annual fee for each additional
loading/unloading bay and nearly 11€ for an additional unit of probability of finding
loading/unloading bays free.
R2 results are reported in Table 3 where the MNL models for both stakeholders are
showed. Similar considerations on significance and interpretation, as expressed for R1,
apply to this case. Small WTP measures differences are detected. However, accounting
for stakeholders’ heterogeneity in the modelling estimation one discovers that the two
stakeholders considered have opposite sensitivities to policy attributes. Retailers are
more interested in PLUPF (11.99€ vs. 10.12€) suggesting they would prefer the adoption
of a light intervention policy relying more on regulation rather than on infrastructural
investments. On the contrary, transport providers are more interested in LUB (0.23€ vs.
0.21€).
Table 4 reports the econometric results for R3. The estimates for both models are policy
relevant and indicate a remarkable goodness-of-fit. R3 is characterised, when compared to
R1 and R2, by the lowest information criteria values (i.e. AIC, BIC, HQIC) and entails substan-
tially different WTP measures.
Therefore, accounting for stakeholders’ heterogeneity also in the data-acquisition
process produces different results. In fact, EF has a much higher impact on utility (this is
more evident for retailers) thus implying lower WTP measures for both LUB and PLUBF.
Moreover, ASC1 and ASC2 are both positive and statistically significant indicating,
ceteris paribus, a negative attitude towards the status quo option.
From a purely statistical point, one should suggest policy-makers to have more faith in
R3 results given its higher fit to the data. This confirms the need for adopting a stake-
holder-specific approach not only when modelling but also for data acquisition. R3 is
thus taken as a benchmark while R1 and R2 are used for quantitatively measuring the
potential bias.
A quantification of WTP distortions is reported in Table 5 where policy interventions are
simulated on the base of the highest possible level that can be adopted for each attribute
in the SP survey (i.e. additional 800 loading/unloading bays and/or additional 20% of prob-
ability of finding loading/unloading bays free). As expected, using a stakeholder-generic
Table 3. Two MNL results based on stakeholder-generic data acquisition process

Retailers
LUB 0.264 0.104 2.54 −0.21 (0.08)
PLUBF 0.377 0.109 3.46 −11.99 (3.33)
EF −0.629 0.070 −8.97 –
ASC1 −0.053 0.226 −0.23 –
ASC2 −0.132 0.236 −0.56 –
Transport providers
LUB 0.461 0.126 3.65 −0.23 (0.06)
PLUBF 0.501 0.132 3.79 −10.12 (2.51)

EF −0.990 0.104 −9.53 –
ASC1 0.322 0.275 1.17 –
ASC2 0.283 0.286 0.99 –
a
WTP for an additional unit of the corresponding attribute. In brackets the standard error estimated using Delta
method.
Table 4. Two MNL results based on stakeholder-specific data acquisition process

Retailers
LUB 0.281 0.151 1.86 −0.12 (0.05)
PLUBF 0.390 0.175 2.23 −6.51 (2.60)
EF −1.197 0.117 −10.23 –
ASC1 0.686 0.350 1.96 –
ASC2 0.658 0.308 2.14 –
Transport providers
LUB 0.548 0.159 3.46 −0.20 (0.05)
PLUBF 0.468 0.183 2.56 −6.83 (2.28)
EF −1.372 0.149 −9.23 –
ASC1 0.255 0.315 0.81 –
ASC2 0.612 0.325 1.88 –
a
WTP for an additional unit of the corresponding attribute. In brackets the standard error estimated using Delta
method.
Table 5. Potential distortions due to the adoption of a stakeholder-generic approach

Stakeholder-specific Stakeholder-generic data Stakeholder-generic
data acquisition (R3) acquisition & modelling (R1) data acquisition (R2)
Policy Stakeholder Benchmark Distortion (%)
+800 LUB Retailers 88€ +104 +91
Transport providers 160€ +12 +16
+20% PLUBF Retailers 130€ +71 +84
Transport providers 137€ +63 +48
+800 LUB & Retailers 218€ +84 +87
+20% PLUBF Transport providers 297€ +35 +31
approach also when modelling (R1) would induce the adoption of inefficient policy
measures. In fact, in the case of LUB, policy-makers would increase the annual entrance
fee by nearly 180€ which is twice as much the retailers are willing to pay (+104%). This
would, most likely, cause serious discontent to them while transport providers would
mildly oppose the policy change due to a small WTP overestimation (+12%). With
respect to PLUBF, noticeable distortions emerge for both retailers (+71%) and transport
providers (+63%). Similar considerations apply when looking at the full policy intervention
package based on the combined LUB and PLUBF level variations.
Surprisingly, the error margin is not reduced when considering R2. All WTP measures
are overestimated also in this case and, compared to R1, the distortions are, in some
cases, even higher (e.g. PLUBF for retailers). Moreover, policy-makers would incorrectly
conclude that retailers are willing to pay more than transport providers for the full
policy intervention package.
To sum up, results suggest the adoption of a well-defined stakeholder-specific perspec-
tive in both data acquisition and modelling. In fact, employing a stakeholder-generic
approach would provoke severe policy distortions. Considering stakeholders’ heterog-
eneity only when modelling data is not sufficient to avoid or reduce the risk of erring.
4. Conclusion
Cities, characterised by scarce resources and facing increasing citizens’ requests for more
liveable and attractive environments, need to define and implement more efficient UFT
policy interventions. This difficult task can be better pursued via quantitative policy analy-
sis. Data-driven evaluation thus acquires a critical role.
Ex-ante scenario assessment is fundamental when local policy-makers have to deal with
heterogeneous preferences among the relevant stakeholders playing a role in urban
freight distribution. Data acquisition is critical and costly. It is critical since stakeholders
are usually unwilling to share information that might have a strategically relevant commer-
cial value. It is costly since high-quality data usually require face-to-face interviews
administration. Small samples typically characterise research papers in this field. The
data-acquisition process is thus a relevant issue and cannot be underestimated. Recognis-
ing this point and taking in due consideration the widely acknowledged high-level of pre-
ference heterogeneity among stakeholders in this field, this paper critically compares the
various methodological approaches adopted for policy-evaluation purposes. This is per-
formed by considering 78 policy-related papers conveniently subdivided in five different
classes: (i) case studies; (ii) multi-criteria analysis; (iii) personal critical assessment; (iv)
simulation; (v) SP. The different methodological approaches pose varying levels of atten-
tion to quantitative policy evaluation, data acquisition and heterogeneity.
The paper specifically focuses on SP methods given recent trends and their methodo-
logical robustness. Under this respect, if possible, data-acquisition process has to be con-
sidered even more critical given both the limited sample size usually available and the
implications preference heterogeneity might have in terms of policy-evaluation issues.
This should induce the analyst to adopt a stakeholder-specific multi-stage efficient exp-
erimental design.
The review highlights a high variability in the level of sophistication for data acquisition,
ranging from dramatically complex approaches with limited practical feasibility to very
simple ones that do not even make use of an experimental design. Articles focus on
either a single stakeholder or multiple stakeholders. In the latter case, a stakeholder-
specific approach naturally applies when heterogeneous policies, in terms of attributes,
are tested. Nonetheless, a stakeholder-specific data acquisition should also be adopted

when the same policy levers are investigated. This translates into the creation of multiple
experimental designs, explicitly conceived for each stakeholder considered.
The advantages of this approach are reflected in the case study. It analyses and com-
pares the implications a stakeholder-generic data acquisition process might have with
respect to a stakeholder-specific data acquisition process. In both cases, choice data for
retailers and transport providers are acquired with the same level of sophistication (i.e.
multi-stage efficient design) and treated with the same model specification (i.e. MNL).
The case study shows the relevance the distinctive data acquisition process has in
terms of estimated WTP measures for the same policy measures considered. The results
reported indicate that once a stakeholder-generic data acquisition strategy is adopted,
providing lower data quality, there is not much ex-post data modelling can do to compen-
sate for the original sin committed. The quantitative biases in WTP measures testify to the
potential relevance of the issue raised in this paper.
The warning the paper sends to the research community concerns the initial choice of
pursuing a stakeholder-specific or generic data acquisition. Unless the analyst has a strong
a priori concerning the non-existence of substantially different stakeholders’ preferences
our results suggests it is safer to take the longer data acquisition route (i.e. stakeholder-
specific approach). These considerations are valid independently of the experimental
design adopted.
Notwithstanding that all the considerations reported are only pertinent and valid with
respect to the sample of observations considered and only for the city of Rome where they
were acquired, we believe that the conclusions reached are also pertinent in other policy-
evaluation contexts (e.g. limited traffic zone creation, the imposition of a road pricing
scheme, etc.). In other words, in all those cases where a general-purpose policy has
effects on structurally different stakeholders.
The main weakness of the paper is the small number of interviews that limits the
robustness of the conclusions reached, their transferability to other geographical/dimen-
sional contexts and the possibility to perform out-of-sample prediction tests.
Future research will: (i) increase the dataset size used for estimation by interviewing a
larger number of both retailers and transport providers; (ii) extend the investigation to
other cities of different dimension and characterised by dissimilar UFT policies; (iii) also
include citizens’ preference analysis.
Notes
1. ISI web of knowledge is used since it is widely recognised as the most exclusive research database
given the quality standards Journals need to respect to be indexed. Last access to the database
was on 15 May 2015.
2. Specific thematic concentrations emerge from a first qualitative article clustering. In particular,
the most numerous group relates to vehicle routing and efficiency maximisation of freight move-
ments within city boundaries (e.g. Ehmke, Meisel, & Mattfeld, 2012; Hemmelmayr, Cordeau, &
Crainic, 2012; Motraghi & Marinov, 2012; Nguyen, Prins, & Prodhon, 2012; Perboli, Tadei, &
Vigo, 2011; Pillac, Gueret, & Medaglia, 2012). Another set concentrates on UFT environmental
impacts and its regulation (e.g. Arvidsson, 2013; Figliozzi, 2011; Lee et al., 2012; Sathaye et al.,
2010a, 2010b). Data acquisition issues have also catalysed consistent research efforts (e.g.
Allen, Browne, & Cherrett, 2012b; McCabe, Kwan, & Roorda, 2013; Roorda, 2011), while minor
attention has been paid to the effects of UFT disruptions (e.g. Friesz, Lee, & Lin, 2011;
Mamasis, Minis, & Dikas, 2013) and agent-based modelling (e.g. Teo et al., 2012; Zhang, Peeta,
& Friesz, 2005).
3. A similar study on urban consolidation centres is performed by Marcucci, Danielis, Paglione, and
Gatta (2007) where, on the contrary, the same choice scenarios are showed to all stakeholders.
4. Gatta and Marcucci (2013) focus on preference heterogeneity for UFT policies within a single sta-
keholder type. Heterogeneity can be modelled by using advanced techniques (e.g. Marcucci &
Gatta, 2011, 2012; Fabrizi, Farcomeni, & Gatta, 2012; Felici & Gatta, 2008).
5. Gatta and Marcucci (in press) and Marcucci and Gatta (2014) investigate the non-linear effects of
policy intervention on retailers’ and transport providers’ utility functions.
6. Gatta and Marcucci (in press) and Please see Hensher, Rose, and Greene (2005) for an in-depth
analysis of the strenght and weaknesses of a MNL model.
7. The Delta method relies on the joint and strong normality assumption for both the maximum
likelihood estimates and their ratio. In practice, the Delta method is usually recommended
when the cost coefficient is highly significant (Gatta, Marcucci, & Scaccia, 2015).
8. Attributes are normalised dividing each attribute level by its own minimum value (see Marcucci,
Gatta, Valeri, et al., 2013). As an example, unnormalised LUB=400, 800, 1200 while normalised
LUB=1, 2 and 3.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Volvo Research Foundation (‘Innovative
solutions to freight distribution in the complex large urban area of Rome’, Grant #SP-2007–50).
References
Aftabuzzaman, M., & Mazloumi, E. (2011). Achieving sustainable urban transport mobility in post
peak oil era. Transport Policy, 18(5), 695–702. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.01.004
Akyol, D., & De Koster, R. (2013). Non-dominated time-window policies in city distribution. Production
and Operations Management, 22(3), 739–751. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2012.01414.x
Alho, A., & Silva, J. (2015). Utilizing urban form characteristics in urban logistics analysis: A case study in
Lisbon, Portugal. Journal of Transport Geography, 42, 57–71. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.11.002
Allen, J., Browne, M., & Cherrett, T. (2012a). Investigating relationships between road freight trans-
port, facility location, logistics management and urban form. Journal of Transport Geography,
24, 45–57. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.010
Allen, J., Browne, M., & Cherrett, T. (2012b). Survey techniques in urban freight transport studies.
Transport Reviews, 32(3), 287–311.
Anand, N., Van Duin, R., & Tavasszy, L. (2014). Ontology-based multi-agent system for urban freight
transportation. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(2), 133–153. doi:10.1080/12265934.2014.
920696
Anand, N., Yang, M., Van Duin, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2012). GenCLOn: An ontology for city logistics. Expert
Systems with Applications, 39(15), 11944–11960. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.068
Anderson, S., Allen, J., & Browne, M. (2005). Urban logistics––How can it meet policy makers sustain-
ability objectives? Journal of Transport Geography, 13, 71–82.
Arvidsson, N. (2013). The milk run revisited: A load factor paradox with economic and environmental
implications for urban freight transport. Transportation Research Part A – Policy and Practice, 51,
56–62. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.04.001
Arvidsson, N., Woxenius, J., & Lammgard, C. (2013). Review of road Hauliers’ measures for increasing
transport efficiency and sustainability in urban freight distribution. Transport Reviews, 33(1),
107–127. doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.763866
Asian Development Bank. (2007). Guidelines for preparing a design and monitoring framework. Manila:
Asian Development Bank.

Awasthi, A., & Chauhan, S. (2012). A hybrid approach integrating affinity diagram, AHP and fuzzy
TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(2), 573–584.
doi:10.1016/j.apm.2011.07.033
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S., & Goyal, S. (2011). A multi-criteria decision making approach for location
planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty. Mathematical and Computer
Modelling, 53(1–2), 98–109. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2010.07.023
Ballantyne, E., Lindholm, M., & Whiteing, A. (2013). A comparative study of urban freight transport
planning: Addressing stakeholder needs. Journal of Transport Geography, 32, 93–101. doi:10.
1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.013
Basbas, S., & Bouhouras, E. (2012). Sustainable mobility and goods distribution system. The case study
of the central area of Thessaloniki. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 13(2), 603–610.
Behrends, S., Lindholm, M., & Woxenius, J. (2008). The impact of urban freight transport: A definition
of sustainability from an actor’s perspective. Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(6),
693–713. doi:10.1080/03081060802493247
Bliemer, M. C. J., & Rose, J. M. (2005). Efficiency and sample size requirements for stated choice studies
(Working Paper). Sidney: Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies.
Boussier, J. M., Cucu, T., Ion, L., & Breuil, D. (2011). Simulation of goods delivery process. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(9), 913–930. doi:10.1108/
09600031111175852
Browne, M., & Allen, J. (1999). The impact of sustainability policies on urban freight transport and
logistics systems. In H. Meersman, E. Van De Voorde, & W. Winkelmans (Eds.), 8th World conference
on transport research (pp. 505–518). Antwerp: Pergamon.
Browne, M., & Gomez, M. (2011). The impact on urban distribution operations of upstream supply
chain constraints. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(9),
896–912. doi:10.1108/09600031111175843
Browne, M., Allen, J., Wainwright, I., Palmer, A., & Williams, I. (2014). London 2012: Changing delivery
patterns in response to the impact of the games on traffic flows. International Journal of Urban
Sciences, 18(2), 244–261. doi:10.1080/12265934.2014.929508
Chapman, R., & Staelin, R. (1982). Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility
model. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3), 288–301.
Cherrett, T., Allen, J., McLeod, F., Maynard, S., Hickford, A., & Browne, M. (2012). Understanding urban
freight activity – Key issues for freight planning. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 22–32. doi:10.
1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.05.008
Cidell, J. (2012). Flows and pauses in the urban logistics landscape: The municipal regulation of ship-
ping container mobilities. Mobilities, 7(2), 233–245. doi:10.1080/17450101.2012.654995
Cordova, J., Merchan, D., & Torres, S. (2014). Redesigning a retail distribution network in restricted
urban areas: A case study on beverage distribution in the historic center of Quito. Journal of
Applied Research and Technology, 12(5), 850–859.
Crainic, T., Ricciardi, N., & Storchi, G. (2009). Models for evaluating and planning city logistics systems.
Transportation Science, 43(4), 432–454. doi:10.1287/trsc.1090.0279
Dablanc, L. (2007). Goods transport in large European cities: Difficult to organize, difficult to modernize.
Transportation Research Part A – Policy and Practice, 41(3), 280–285. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.005
Dablanc, L. (2008). Urban goods movement and air quality policy and regulation issues in European
cities. Journal of Environmental Law, 20(2), 245–266. doi:10.1093/jel/eqn005
Dablanc, L. (2011). City distribution, a key element of the urban economy: Guidelines for prac-
titioners. In C. Macharis & S. Melo (Eds.), City distribution and urban freight transport (pp. 13–36).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dablanc, L., Giuliano, G., Holliday, K., & O’Brien, T. (2013). Best practices in urban freight management:
Lessons from an international survey. Transportation Research Record, 2379, 29–38. doi:10.3141/
2379-04
Danielis, R., Rotaris, L., & Marcucci, E. (2010). Urban freight policies and distribution channels.
European Transport, 46, 114–146.

Deflorio, F., Gonzalez-Feliu, J., Perboli, G., & Tadei, R. (2012). The influence of time windows on the
costs of urban freight distribution services in city logistics applications. European Journal of
Transport and Infrastructure Research, 12(3), 256–274.
Domínguez, A., Holguín-Veras, J., Ibeas, A., & dell’Olio, L. (2012). Receivers’ response to new urban
freight policies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 886–896.
van Duin, J., & van der Heijden, R. (2012). Towards governance on noise between municipality and
terminal operator by the use of simulation modelling. Journal of Computational Science, 3(4),
216–227. doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2012.03.001
Ehmke, J. F., Meisel, S., & Mattfeld, D. C. (2012). Floating car based travel times for city logistics.
Transportation Research Part C, 21(1), 338–352.
Fabrizi, E., Farcomeni, A., & Gatta, V. (2012). Modelling work history patterns in the Italian labour
market. Statistical Methods & Applications, 21, 227–247.
Felici, G., & Gatta, V. (2008). The analysis of service quality through stated preferences and rule-based
classification. In G. Felici & C. Vercellis (Eds.), Mathematical methods for knowledge discovery and
data mining (pp. 65–81). Hershey: IGI Global.
Ferguson, M., Maoh, H., Ryan, J., Kanaroglou, P., & Rashidi, T. (2012). Transferability and enhancement
of a microsimulation model for estimating urban commercial vehicle movements. Journal of
Transport Geography, 24, 358–369. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.013
Figliozzi, M. A. (2011). The impacts of congestion on time-definitive urban freight distribution net-
works CO2 emission levels: Results from a case study in Portland, Oregon. Transportation
Research Part C, 19(5), 766–778.
Finnegan, C., Finlay, H., O’Mahony, M., & O’Sullivan, D. (2005). Urban freight in Dublin city
center, Ireland – Survey analysis and strategy evaluation. Freight anaylsis, evaluation, and
modeling: 2005 Thomas B. Deen Distinguished Lecture, 1941, 89–98.
Friesz, T., Mookherjee, R., HoIguin-Veras, J., & Rigdon, M. (2008). Dynamic pricing in an urban freight
environment. Transportation Research Part B-Methodological, 42(4), 305–324. doi:10.1016/j.trb.
2007.08.001
Friesz, T. L., Lee, I., & Lin, C. C. (2011). Competition and disruption in a dynamic urban supply chain.
Transportation Research Part B, 45(8), 121–1231.
Frischknecht, B. D., Eckert, C., Geweke, J., & Louviere, J. J. (2014). A simple method to
estimate preference parameters for individuals. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
31(1), 35–48.
Gatta, V., & Marcucci, E. (2013). Urban freight transport policies: Joint accounting of non-linear
attribute effects and discrete mixture heterogeneity (Working Paper CREI, 1–19). Rome: University
of Roma Tre.
Gatta, V., & Marcucci, E. (2014). Urban freight transport and policy changes: Improving decision
makers’ awareness via an agent-specific approach. Transport Policy, 36, 248–252. doi:10.1016/j.
tranpol.2014.09.007
Gatta, V., & Marcucci, E. (in press). Behavioural implications of non-linear effects on urban freight
transport policies: The case of retailers and transport providers in Rome. Case Study on
Transport Policy. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2015.08.001.
Gatta, V., Marcucci, E., & Scaccia, L. (2015). On finite sample performance of confidence intervals
methods for willingness to pay measures. Transportation Research part A: Policy and Practice, 82,
169–192.
Hemmelmayr, V. C., Cordeau, J. F., & Crainic, T. G. (2012). An adaptive large neighborhood search
heuristic for two-echelon vehicle routing problems arising in city logistics. Computers &
Operations Research, 39(12), 3215–3228.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis. A primer. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hensher, D., & Puckett, S. (2005). Refocusing the modelling of freight distribution: Development of an
economic-based framework to evaluate supply chain behaviour in response to congestion char-
ging. Transportation, 32(6), 573–602. doi:10.1007/s11116-004-7615-6

Hensher, D., Puckett, S., & Rose, J. (2007). Agency decision making in freight distribution chains:
Establishing a parsimonious empirical framework from alternative behavioural structures.
Transportation Research Part B, 41, 924–949.
Hensher, D. A., & Chow, G. (1999). Interacting agents and discrete choices in logistics outsourcing: A con-
ceptual framework, world transport research, Vol 3: Transport modelling/assessment (pp. 365–376).
(H. Meersman, E. Van de Voorde, & W. Winkelman). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hess, S., Stathopoulos, A., & Daly, A. (2012). Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete
choice models: An approach and four case studies. Transportation, 39(3), 565–559.
Holguin-Veras, J. (2008). Necessary conditions for off-hour deliveries and the effectiveness of urban
freight road pricing and alternative financial policies in competitive markets. Transportation
Research Part A – Policy and Practice, 42(2), 392–413. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2007.10.008
Holguín-Veras, J., Aros-Vera, F., & Browne, M. (2015). Agent interactions and the response of supply
chains to pricing and incentives. Economics of Transportation, 4(3), 147–155.
Holguin-Veras, J., Polimeni, J., Cruz, B., Xu, N., List, G., Nordstrom, J., & Haddock, J. (2005). Off-peak
freight deliveries – Challenges and stakeholders’ perceptions. Transportation Research Record,
1906, 42–48.
Holguin-Veras, J., Silas, M., Polimeni, J., & Cruz, B. (2007). An investigation on the effectiveness of joint
receiver-carrier policies to increase truck traffic in the off-peak hours - Part I: The behavior of recei-
vers. Networks & Spatial Economics, 7(3), 277–295. doi:10.1007/s11067-006-9002-7
Holguin-Veras, J., Silas, M., Polimeni, J., & Cruz, B. (2008). An investigation on the effectiveness of joint
receiver-carrier policies to increase truck traffic in the off-peak hours - Part II: The behavior of car-
riers. Networks & Spatial Economics, 8(4), 327–354. doi:10.1007/s11067-006-9011-6
Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of
Marketing Research, 33, 307–317.
Jaller, M., Holguin-Veras, J., & Hodge, S. (2013). Parking in the city challenges for freight traffic.
Transportation Research Record, 2379, 46–56. doi:10.3141/2379-06
Lee, G., You, S., Ritchie, S. G., Saphores, J. D., Jayakrishnan, R., & Ogunseitan, O. (2012). Assessing air
quality and health benefits of the clean truck program in the Alameda corridor. Transportation
Research Part A, 46(8), 1177–1193.
Lenz, B., & Riehle, E. (2013). Bikes for urban freight? Experience from Europe. Transportation Research
Record, 2379, 39–45. doi:10.3141/2379-05
Lin, C., Choy, K. L., Ho, G. T. S., Lam, H. Y., Pang, G. K. H., & Chin, K. S. (2014). A decision support system
for optimizing dynamic courier routing operations. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(15), 6917–
6933. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.04.036
Lindholm, M., & Behrends, S. (2012). Challenges in urban freight transport planning – A review in the
Baltic Sea Region. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 129–136. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.001
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.
Lindholm, M. E., & Blinge, M. (2014). Assessing knowledge and awareness of the sustainable urban
freight transport among Swedish local authority policy planners. Transport Policy, 32, 124–131.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.01.004
Macário, R., Galelo, A., & Martins, P. (2008). Business models in urban logistics. Ingeniería Y Desarrollo,
24, 77–96.
Macharis, C. (2004). The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport: The MAMCA meth-
odology. European Transport/Trasporti Europei, 25–26, 114–120.
Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the
evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186.
Macharis, C., & Melo, S. (2011). City distribution and urban freight transport. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Macharis, C., & Milan, L. (2015). Transition through dialogue: A stakeholder based decision process for cities:
The case of city distribution. Habitat International, 45, 82–91. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.026
Macharis, C., Van Hoeck, E., Verlinde, S., Debauche, W., & Witlox, F. (2011). Multi-actor multi-criteria
analysis: A case study on night-time delivery for urban distribution. In C. Macharis & S. Melo
(Eds.), City distribution and urban freight transport (pp. 101–119). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mamasis, K., Minis, I., & Dikas, G. (2013). Managing vehicle breakdown incidents during urban distri-
bution of a common product. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(6), 925–937.
Marcucci, E., & Danielis, R. (2007). Attribute cut-offs in freight service selection. Transportation
Research Part E – Logistics and Transportation Review, 43, 506–515.
Marcucci, E., & Danielis, R. (2008). The potential demand for a urban freight consolidation centre.
Transportation, 35(2), 269–284. doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9147-3
Marcucci, E., Danielis, R., Paglione, G., & Gatta, V. (2007). Centri urbani di distribuzione delle merci e poli-
tiche del traffico: una valutazione empirica tramite le preferenze dichiarate. In VV.AA. (Eds.), Sviluppo
sostenibile, tutela dell’ambiente e della salute umana (pp. 373–378). Perugia: Morlacchi Editore.
Marcucci, E., & Gatta, V. (2011). Regional airport choice: Consumer behaviour and policy implications.
Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 70–84.
Marcucci, E., & Gatta, V. (2012). Dissecting preference heterogeneity in consumer stated choices.
Transport Research Part E, 48(1), 331–339.
Marcucci, E., & Gatta, V. (2013). Intra-agent heterogeneity in urban freight distribution: The case of
own-account operators. International Journal of Transport Economics, 40(2), 267–284.
Marcucci, E., & Gatta, V. (2014). Behavioral modeling of urban freight transport. Testing non-linear
policy effects for retailers. In J. Gonzalez-Feliu, F. Semet, & J.-L. Routhier (Eds.), Sustainable urban
logistics: Concepts, methods and information systems (pp. 227–243). Berlin: Springer.
Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., & Scaccia, L. (2015). Urban freight, parking and pricing policies: An evaluation
from a transport providers’ perspective. Transportation Research Part A – Policy and Practice, 74,
239–249. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.011
Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Stathopoulos, A., & Valeri, E. (2011). Designing an efficient stated ranking exper-
iment for ex-ante urban freight policy evaluation in a three agent type context: Retailers, own-account
and carriers (Working Papers of Italian society of Transport Economics). Parma: Siet.
Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Valeri, E., & Stathopoulos, A. (2013). Urban freight transport modelling: An agent-
specific approach. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Stathopoulos, A., & Valeri, E. (2013). Urban freight policy acceptability: Eliciting
agent specific preferences via efficient experimental design. Zeitschrift Fur Verkehrswissenschaft, 3,
237–259.
Marcucci, E., Marini, M., & Ticchi, D. (2005). Road pricing as a citizen-candidate game. European
Transport \ Trasporti Europei, 31, 28–45.
Marcucci, E., Stathopoulos, A., Gatta, V., & Valeri, E. (2012). A stated ranking experiment to study policy
acceptance: The case of freight operators in Rome’s LTZ. Italian Journal of Regional Science, 11(3),
11–30.
Marquez, L., & Salim, V. (2007). Assessing impacts of urban freight measures on air toxic emissions in
Inner Sydney. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(4), 515–525. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.02.
007
McCabe, S., Kwan, H., & Roorda, M. J. (2013). Comparing GPS and non-GPS survey methods for col-
lecting urban goods and service movements. International Journal of Transport Economics, 40(2),
183–205.
McLeod, F., & Cherrett, T. (2011). Loading bay booking and control for urban freight. International
Journal of Logistics – Research and Applications, 14(6), 385–397. doi:10.1080/13675567.2011.641525
Motraghi, A. (2013). Rail research projects: Case studies. Research in Trasportation Economics, 41,
76–83. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.10.001
Motraghi, A., & Marinov, M. (2012). Analysis of urban freight by rail using event based simulation.
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 25, 73–89. doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2012.02.009
Munuzuri, J., Cortes, P., Grosso, R., & Guadix, J. (2012). Selecting the location of minihubs for freight
delivery in congested downtown areas. Journal of Computational Science, 3(4), 228–237. doi:10.
1016/j.jocs.2011.12.002
Munuzuri, J., Cortes, P., Guadix, J., & Onieva, L. (2012). City logistics in Spain: Why it might never work.
Cities, 29(2), 133–141. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.03.004

Munuzuri, J., Grosso, R., Cortes, P., & Guadix, J. (2013). Estimating the extra costs imposed on delivery
vehicles using access time windows in a city. Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 41,
262–275. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.05.005
Munuzuri, J., Larraneta, J., Onieva, L., & Cortes, P. (2005). Solutions applicable by local administrations
for urban logistics improvement. Cities, 22(1), 15–28. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2004.10.003
Nguyen, V. P., Prins, C., & Prodhon, C. (2012). Solving the two-echelon location routing problem by a
GRASP reinforced by a learning process and path relinking. European Journal of Operational
Research, 216(1), 113–126.
Nourinejad, M., Wenneman, A., Habib, K. N., & Roorda, M. J. (2014). Truck parking in urban areas:
Application of choice modelling within traffic microsimulation. Transportation Research Part A –
Policy and Practice, 64, 54–64. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.03.006
Nuzzolo, A., Comi, A., & Rosati, L. (2014). City logistics long-term planning: Simulation of shopping
mobility and goods restocking and related support systems. International Journal of Urban
Sciences, 18(2), 201–217. doi:10.1080/12265934.2014.928601
de Oliveira, L., Dutra, N., Correia, V., Neto, A., & Guerra, A. (2012). Adoption assessment by carriers and
retailers to use an urban consolidation center – A case study in Brazil. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 39, 783–795.
Olsson, J., & Woxenius, J. (2014). Localisation of freight consolidation centres serving small road haul-
iers in a wider urban area: Barriers for more efficient freight deliveries in Gothenburg. Journal of
Transport Geography, 34, 25–33. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.10.016
Orme, B. (1998). Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies (Report No.1). Sawtooth Software
Technical Paper, Sequim.
Österle, I., Aditjandra, P., Vaghi, C., Grea, G., & Zunder, T. (2015). The role of a structured stakeholder
consultation process within the establishment of a sustainable urban supply chain. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 20(3), 284–299.
Perboli, G., Tadei, R., & Vigo, D. (2011). The two-echelon capacitated vehicle routing problem: Models
and math-based heuristics. Transportation Science, 45(3), 364–380.
Pillac, V., Gueret, C., & Medaglia, A. L. (2012). An event-driven optimization framework for dynamic
vehicle routing. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 414–223.
Puckett, S., Hensher, D., & Battellino, H. (2006). The adjustment of supply chains to new states: A quali-
tative assessment of decision relationships with reference to congestion charging. International
Journal of Transport Economics, 33(3), 313–339.
Puckett, S., Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Collins, A. (2007). Design and development of a stated choice
experiment for interdependent agents: Accounting for interactions between buyers and sellers
of urban freight services. Transportation, 34(4), 429–451. doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9114-z
Quak, H., & de Koster, M. (2007). Exploring retailers’ sensitivity to local sustainability policies. Journal
of Operations Management, 25(6), 1103–1122. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.020
Quak, H., & de Koster, M. (2009). Delivering goods in urban areas: How to deal with urban policy
restrictions and the environment. Transportation Science, 43(2), 211–227. doi:10.1287/trsc.1080.
0235
Quak, H. J. (2011). Urban freight transport: The challenge of sustainability. In C. Macharis & S. Melo
(Eds.), City distribution and urban freight transport (pp. 13–36). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Qureshi, A., Taniguchi, E., & Thompson, R. (2014). Application of exact route optimization for the
evaluation of a city logistics truck ban scheme. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(2),
117–132. doi:10.1080/12265934.2014.930672
Regue, R., & Bristow, A. (2013). Appraising freight tram schemes: A case study of Barcelona. European
Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 13(1), 56–78.
Roorda, M. J. (2011). Data collection strategies for benchmarking urban goods movement across
Canada. Transportation Letters, 3(3), 175–199.
Rose, J. M., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2006). Designing efficient data for stated choice experiments. Paper pre-
sented at the 11th international conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Kyoto, Japan.
Rose, J. M., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2012). Ngene. Choice-metrics (1.1). Retrieved from http://www.choice-
metrics.com/download.html
Rose, J. M., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2013). Sample size requirements of stated choice experiments.
Transportation, 40, 1021–1041.
Russo, F., & Comi, A. (2011). Measures for sustainable freight transportation at urban scale: Expected
goals and tested results in Europe. Journal of Urban Planning and Development – ASCE, 137(2),
142–152. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000052
Sadhu, S. L. N. S., Tiwari, G., & Jain, H. (2014). Impact of cycle rickshaw trolley (CRT) as non-motorised
freight transport in Delhi. Transport Policy, 35, 64–70. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.015
Sandor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2001). Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 430–444.
Sándor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2005). Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. Journal of Marketing
Research, 42, 210–218.
Sathaye, N., Harley, R., & Madanat, S. (2010a). Unintended environmental impacts of nighttime freight
logistics activities. Transportation Research Part A – Policy and Practice, 44(8), 642–659. doi:10.1016/
j.tra.2010.04.005
Sathaye, N., Horvath, A., & Madanat, S. (2010b). Unintended impacts of increased truck loads on pave-
ment supply-chain emissions. Transportation Research Part A – Policy and Practice, 44(1), 1–15.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2009.09.002
Sjöstedt, L. (1996). A theoretical framework – from an applied engineering perspective. In Mobility,
transport and traffic: In the perspective of growth, competitiveness, employment (pp. 71–79). Paris:
Euro-case. Retrieved from http://www.euro-case.org/index.php/publications/archives.html
Stathopoulos, A., Valeri, E., & Marcucci, E. (2012). Stakeholder reactions to urban freight policy inno-
vation. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.017
Stathopoulos, A., Valeri, E., Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Nuzzolo, A., & Comi, A. (2011). Urban freight policy
innovation for Rome’s LTZ: A stakeholder perspective. In C. Macharis & S. Melo (Eds.), Multiple views
on city distribution: A state of the art (pp. 75–100). London: Edward Elgar.
Swait, J. (2001). A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cut-offs. Transportation
Research B, 35(10), 903–928.
Tadic, S., Zecevic, S., & Krstic, M. (2014a). A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy
ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(18),
8112–8128. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.021
Tadic, S., Zecevic, S., & Krstic, M. (2014b). Ranking of logistics system scenarios for central business
district. Promet-Traffic & Transportation, 26(2), 159–167. doi:10.7307/ptt.v26i2.1349
Teo, J., Taniguchi, E., & Qureshi, A. (2012). Evaluation of distance-based and cordon-based urban
freight road pricing in e-commerce environment with multiagent model. Transportation
Research Record, 2269, 127–134. doi:10.3141/2269-15
Teo, J., Taniguchi, E., & Qureshi, A. (2014). Multi-agent systems modelling approach to evaluate urban
motorways for city logistics. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(2), 154–165. doi:10.1080/
12265934.2014.929020
Triantafyllou, M. K., Cherrett, T. J., & Browne, M. (2014). Urban freight consolidation centers case study
in the UK retail sector. Transportation Research Record, 2411, 34–44. doi:10.3141/2411-05
Ville, S., Gonzalez-Feliu, J., & Dablanc, L. (2013). The limits of public policy intervention in urban logis-
tics: Lessons from Vicenza (Italy). European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1528–1541. doi:10.1080/
09654313.2012.722954
Wachs, M. (2013). Turning cities inside out: Transportation and the resurgence of downtowns in
North America. Transportation, 40(6), 1159–1172. doi:10.1007/s11116-013-9501-6
Wolpert, S., & Reuter, C. (2012). Status quo of city logistics in scientific literature systematic review.
Transportation Research Record, 2269, 110–116.
Yang, Z., & Moodie, D. (2011). Locating urban logistics terminals and shopping centres in a Chinese
city. International Journal of Logistics – Research and Applications, 14(3), 164–176. doi:10.1080/
13675567.2011.609159
Zhang, P., Peeta, S., & Friesz, T. (2005). Dynamic game theoretic model of multi-layer infrastructure
networks. Networks & Spatial Economics, 5, 147–178.
Zhang, Y., & Kwon, O. (2011). Selecting a location for a city logistics facility: A fuzzy synthetic evalu-
ation method. Journal of International Logistics and Trade, 9(1), 115–130.
Zhou, Y. W., & Wang, X. K. (2014). Decision-making process for developing urban freight consolida-
tion centers: Analysis with experimental economics. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 140(2),
1–7. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000632
Zunder, T., Aditjandra, P., & Carnaby, B. (2014). Developing a local research strategy for city logistics
on an academic campus. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(2), 262–277. doi:10.1080/
12265934.2014.926830

Stakeholder-Specific Data Acquisition and Urban Freight Policy Evaluation Evidence Implications and New Suggestions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stakeholder-Specific Data Acquisition and Urban Freight Policy Evaluation Evidence Implications and New Suggestions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transport Reviews

ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20

Stakeholder-specific data acquisition and urban

Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1126385

Published online: 05 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

Download by: [University of Newcastle] Date: 15 March 2016, At: 07:40

Stakeholder-speciﬁc data acquisition and urban freight policy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

need to deﬁne and implement more efﬁcient urban freight

CONTACT Valerio Gatta valerio.gatta@uniroma3.it

2. UFT policy-evaluation techniques and data-acquisition needs

Figure 1. Selection and partitioning of the UFT literature review.

Table 1. Classiﬁcation of the UFT policy-related papers

detection and measurement of the behavioural changes accompanying the policies

2.1. Case studies

2.2. Multi-criteria decision analysis

2.3. Personal critical assessment

theoretical setting. Acknowledging the relevance of the interactions between stakeholders

2.4. Stated preferences

ategy. This approach, based on stakeholder-speciﬁc trade-offs, fosters the achievement of

3. Stakeholder-speciﬁc vs. stakeholder-generic data acquisition and policy

3.1. Data acquisition process

3.2. Stakeholder-speciﬁc vs. stakeholder-generic

alternatives is equivalent to two choice observations. An incomplete ordering, instead, cor-

3.3. Econometric results and policy implications of data acquisition process

Table 2. Single MNL based on stakeholder-generic data acquisition process

Table 3. Two MNL results based on stakeholder-generic data acquisition process

PLUBF 0.501 0.132 3.79 −10.12 (2.51)

Table 4. Two MNL results based on stakeholder-speciﬁc data acquisition process

Table 5. Potential distortions due to the adoption of a stakeholder-generic approach

are tested. Nonetheless, a stakeholder-speciﬁc data acquisition should also be adopted

Asian Development Bank.

European Transport, 46, 114–146.

ging. Transportation, 32(6), 573–602. doi:10.1007/s11116-004-7615-6

Cities, 29(2), 133–141. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.03.004

You might also like