Location of logistics companies : a stated preference study to disentangle the impact of accessibility

Due to the globalization and the fragmentation of industrial production processes, the logistics sector, organizing the linkages between different production plants and the market, is growing fast. This results in an increasing demand for suitable new business locations. Previous research has indicated that accessibility is a key factor in the location decision making process. Though the literature on this subject is extensive, little research has been done to quantify the impact of the different dimensions of accessibility on the location decision process of logistics companies. This paper aims to fill this void in the literature by means of a revealed preference study (using a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis) and a stated preference study (using a designed discrete choice experiment) in Flanders (Belgium). The results of the revealed preference study served as input to the design of the choice situations in the stated preference study. In the stated preference study, the respondents were confronted with a series of choice situations described by means of accessibility variables as well as land rent information. An analysis of the resulting data by means of discrete choice modeling revealed that land rent is the most important factor in the location choice of logistics companies in Flanders. Access to a port is the second most important factor, followed by access to a motorway, the location in a business park and an inland navigation terminal, which are all about equally important. Access to a rail terminal plays no significant role in the location choice of logistics companies in Flanders.

[1]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands , 2010 .

[2]  Dietrich Earnhart,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations , 2001, Land Economics.

[3]  Peter Goos,et al.  Optimal designs for conjoint experiments , 2008, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[4]  Michiel C.J. Bliemer,et al.  Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs , 2009 .

[5]  Arne Henningsen,et al.  maxLik: A package for maximum likelihood estimation in R , 2011, Comput. Stat..

[6]  M. Bliemer,et al.  Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations , 2010 .

[7]  Bert van Wee,et al.  High-speed rail and office location choices. A stated choice experiment for the Netherlands , 2011 .

[8]  Jose Manuel Vassallo,et al.  Nature or nurture: why do railroads carry greater freight share in the United States than in Europe? , 2007 .

[9]  P. Pellenbarg,et al.  Core centra en vestigingsplaatskeuze , 2001 .

[11]  Markus Hesse,et al.  Land For Logistics: Locational Dynamics, Real Estate Markets And Political Regulation Of Regional Distribution Complexes , 2004 .

[12]  Peter Goos,et al.  An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Bayesian Optimal Choice Designs , 2009 .

[13]  Anthony T.H. Chin,et al.  Modeling the location choices of foreign investments in Chinese logistics industry , 2007 .

[14]  F. Lagneaux.  Economic Importance of Belgian Transport Logistics , 2008 .

[15]  B. Slack,et al.  The Geography of Transport Systems , 2006 .

[16]  An Investigation on the Aggregate Behavior of Firm Relocations to New Jersey (1990–1999) and the Underlying Market Elasticities , 2005 .

[17]  Robert M. Solow,et al.  Congestion, Density and the Use of Land in Transportation , 1972 .

[18]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[19]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Transparency, flexibility, simplicity: From buzzwords to strategies for real PSS improvement , 2012, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[20]  William Alonso,et al.  A THEORY OF THE URBAN LAND MARKET , 2005 .

[21]  James Faulconbridge,et al.  Global shift. Mapping the changing contours of the world economy (5th edition) , 2007 .

[22]  John D. Nelson,et al.  The influence of transport on industrial location choice: a stated preference experiment , 2000 .

[23]  P. Krugman,et al.  Trade Policy and the Third World Metropolis , 1992 .

[24]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[25]  Olli-Pekka Hilmola,et al.  European railway freight transportation and adaptation to demand decline: Efficiency and partial productivity analysis from period of 1980‐2003 , 2007 .

[26]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Presentation of information for spatial decision support: a survey on the use of maps by participants in quantitative water management in the IJsselmeer region, the Netherlands , 2003 .

[27]  M. Hesse,et al.  The transport geography of logistics and freight distribution , 2004 .

[28]  M. Beckmann.  Equilibrium models of residential land use , 1973 .

[29]  Bert van Wee,et al.  Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions , 2004 .

[30]  Junjie Hong.  Location Determinants and Patterns of Foreign Logistics Services in Shanghai, China , 2007 .

[31]  Junjie Hong,et al.  Transport and the location of foreign logistics firms : The Chinese experience , 2007 .

[32]  Rico Maggi,et al.  Logistics Strategy and Transport Service Choices: An Adaptive Stated Preference Experiment , 2003 .

[33]  Thierry Vanelslander,et al.  Accessibility to freight transport networks in Belgium: A geographical approach , 2003 .

[34]  Peter Goos,et al.  Rejoinder: The usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments , 2011 .

[35]  Kazushi Sano,et al.  Location Choice Model for Logistic Firms with Consideration of Spatial Effects , 2010 .

[36]  Peter Goos,et al.  A comparison of partial profile designs for discrete choice experiments with an application in software development , 2012 .

[37]  J. Holguín-Veras,et al.  Role of Transportation Accessibility in Attracting New Businesses to New Jersey , 2007 .

[38]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands , 2003, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[39]  Peter Hall,et al.  Reexploring the Interface between Economic and Transport Geography , 2006 .

[40]  Paul E. Green,et al.  On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives , 1974 .

[41]  Masahisa Fujita,et al.  Multiple equilibria and structural transition of non-monocentric urban configurations , 1982 .

[42]  Chin-Shan Lu,et al.  Comparison of Investment Preferences for International Logistics Zones in Kaohsiung, Hong Kong, and Shanghai Ports from a Taiwanese Manufacturer's Perspective , 2006, Transportation Journal.

[43]  Ronald W McQuaid,et al.  Transport and industrial and commercial location , 1995 .

[44]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[45]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[46]  Jean-Claude Thill,et al.  Intermodal containerized shipping in foreign trade and regional accessibility advantages , 2010 .

[47]  Martin Clarke,et al.  Retail Geography and Intelligent Network Planning , 2002 .

[48]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs , 2005 .

[49]  Hyunwoo Lim,et al.  Intermodal Freight Transportation and Regional Accessibility in the United States , 2008 .

[50]  Peter Goos,et al.  The usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments , 2011 .

[51]  Peter Goos,et al.  Recommendations on the use of Bayesian optimal designs for choice experiments , 2008, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int..

[52]  Peter Goos,et al.  Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments with partial profiles , 2011 .

[53]  Peter O. Barnard,et al.  THE ROLE OF STATED PREFERENCE METHODS IN STUDIES OF TRAVEL CHOICE , 1987 .

[54]  Paul Schot,et al.  Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems , 2005 .