Behavioral Modeling of Urban Freight Transport

Decision makers in urban goods movement (UGM) typically need to assess the impact new policy interventions might have on freight distribution. The effects of policy changes are inextricably related with the extant regulatory framework that also influences the relationships among the various actors interacting along the supply chain. The operators commonly considered important, given the crucial role they play in UGM, are: retailers, transport providers, and own-account. Notwithstanding the admittedly important role that a detailed knowledge of these three agent categories has for a correct policy implementation there is a limited knowledge concerning the specific preferences and behavior of each agent-type. It is de facto assumed that retailers, own-account and transport providers have homogenous preferences and can be seamlessly treated. The upsurge of behavioral models and the acquisition of data necessary to predict goods and vehicle flows both under the current and, more importantly, under altered policy/regulatory conditions explains the progressive importance that is attributed to an agent-based perspective. This research reports the result of a stated ranking exercise conducted in the Limited Traffic Zone in 2009 in the city center of Rome focusing on retailers which demand freight transport services and play an important role in extended supply chains. This paper proposes a comparison between two different Multinomial Logit model specifications where non-linear effects for the variations of the levels of the attributes considered are studied and detected. A meaningful comparison between willingness to pay measures derived by the two model specifications is proposed so to avoid known scale problems. The results obtained are very interesting and meaningful from a policy perspective since they show potentially differentiated effects of the policy implemented in deep contrast with the, often assumed, homogenous effect hypothesis.

[1]  Kazushi Sano,et al.  Commodity Distribution Model Incorporating Spatial Interactions for Urban Freight Movement , 2006 .

[2]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[3]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[4]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction , 1990 .

[5]  Edoardo Marcucci,et al.  Regional airport choice: Consumer behaviour and policy implications , 2011 .

[6]  E. Marcucci,et al.  INTR-AGENT HETEROGENEITY IN URBAN FREIGHT DISTRIBUTION: THE CASE OF OWN ACCOUNT OPERATORS , 2013 .

[7]  Christian Ambrosini,et al.  Estimated Data Production for Urban Goods Transport Diagnosis , 2014 .

[8]  K. Ogden Urban Goods Movement: A Guide to Policy and Planning , 1991 .

[9]  Christian Ambrosini,et al.  Objectives, Methods and Results of Surveys Carried out in the Field of Urban Freight Transport: An International Comparison , 2004 .

[10]  B. Efron Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 1979 .

[11]  Amelia C. Regan,et al.  State-of-the art of freight forecast modeling: lessons learned and the road ahead , 2010 .

[12]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[13]  Romeo Danielis,et al.  The potential demand for a urban freight consolidation centre , 2008 .

[14]  Rinaldo A. Cavalcante,et al.  A conceptual framework for agent-based modelling of logistics services , 2010 .

[15]  E. Marcucci,et al.  Dissecting preference heterogeneity in consumer stated choices , 2012 .

[16]  John M. Rose,et al.  Design and development of a stated choice experiment for interdependent agents: accounting for interactions between buyers and sellers of urban freight services , 2007 .

[17]  Edoardo Marcucci,et al.  I modelli a scelta discreta per l'analisi dei trasporti , 2005 .

[18]  S. Shanmugalingam,et al.  On the Analysis of the Ratio of Two Correlated Normal Variables , 1982 .

[19]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  A micro-simulation model of shipment size and transport chain choice , 2007 .

[20]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[21]  Romeo Danielis,et al.  Testing for nonlinearity in the choice of a freight transport service , 2012 .

[22]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. , 2007, Health economics.

[23]  H. J. Quak,et al.  Delivering Goods in Urban Areas: How to Deal with Urban Policy Restrictions and the Environment , 2009, Transp. Sci..

[24]  R. Gray,et al.  Behavioural approaches to freight transport modal choice , 1982 .

[25]  Agostino Nuzzolo,et al.  Ex-ante assessment of urban freight transport policies , 2010 .

[26]  R. Danielis,et al.  L’accettabilità del centro di distribuzione urbana delle merci. Un’analisi sulle preferenze dei negozianti nella città di Fano , 2007 .

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[29]  D. Hensher,et al.  Behavioural insights into the modelling of freight transportation and distribution systems , 2007 .

[30]  Francesco Russo,et al.  Measures for Sustainable Freight Transportation at Urban Scale: Expected Goals and Tested Results in Europe , 2011 .

[31]  Edoardo Marcucci,et al.  URBAN FREIGHT TRANSPORT POLICIES: JOINT ACCOUNTING OF NON-LINEAR ATTRIBUTE EFFECTS AND DISCRETE MIXTURE HETEROGENEITY , 2013 .

[32]  G. Liedtke,et al.  Segmentation of the transportation market with regard to activity-based freight transport modelling , 2004 .

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

[34]  H Sonntag A COMPUTER MODEL FOR URBAN COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC-ANALYSIS, BASIC CONCEPT AND APPLICATION , 1985 .

[35]  C. Macharis,et al.  City Distribution and Urban Freight Transport: Multiple Perspectives , 2011 .

[36]  Valerio Gatta,et al.  Centri urbani di distribuzionedelle merci e politiche del traffico: una valutazione empirica tramite le preferenze dichiarate , 2006 .

[37]  John M. Rose,et al.  Interactive stated choice surveys: a study of air travel behaviour , 2012 .

[38]  Valerio Gatta,et al.  Valutare la qualità dei servizi. Un nuovo approccio basato sulla Conjoint Analysis , 2006 .

[39]  Edoardo Marcucci,et al.  Stakeholder reactions to urban freight policy innovation , 2012 .

[40]  G. Corò,et al.  Le politiche per la logistica , 2001 .

[41]  Agostino Nuzzolo,et al.  Urban freight transport demand modelling : a state of the art , 2012 .

[42]  Edoardo Marcucci,et al.  A Stated Ranking Experiment to Study Policy Acceptance: The Case of Freight Operators in Rome’s LTZ , 2012 .

[43]  K. Kawamura,et al.  Integrating supply chain management concept in a goods movement microsimulation , 2009, 2009 IEEE/INFORMS International Conference on Service Operations, Logistics and Informatics.

[44]  Andrew Daly,et al.  Calculating Errors for Measures Derived from Choice Modeling Estimates , 2012 .

[45]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks for Studying Agent Interaction and Choice Revelation in Transportation Studies , 2007 .

[46]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .