Environmental impact assessment for city logistics distribution systems

  • Guo, Jidong (Department of Economics and Management, Institute of Disaster Prevention Science and Technology) ;
  • Ma, Shugang (Business School, Hebei University of Economics and Business)
  • Received : 2016.10.05
  • Accepted : 2017.04.22
  • Published : 2017.12.31


The external diseconomy is hampering sustainable development of the city logistics sector. Burdens on urban environment imposed by the city logistics industry have been put in the spotlight. Based on the principle of Life Cycle Analysis, the comprehensive environment impact for city logistics systems is measured. Firstly, with the city logistics service chain as a whole, its business processes and their interactions with environment are analyzed. In total four types of major environment impact categories are determined. Secondly, case study is made on three city logistics operators located in Jing-Jin-Ji region of China with different business modes, respectively self-operation mode, joint distribution mode and the $3^{rd}$ Party Logistics or 3PL mode. Through analysis of energy consumption and emissions for various business processes, their comprehensive environmental impact values are finally obtained. Thirdly, horizontally comparative analysis is carried out to these three modes of the urban logistics distribution systems. Results show the advantages of the 3PL and the joint distribution modes in developing greener urban logistics distribution. Future research avenues and policy suggestions are proposed finally.


Environmental impact;Joint distribution;Life cycle analysis;Urban logistics distribution;3PL


Supported by : Hebei Province Social Science Foundation


  1. Stephen A, Julian A, Michael B. Urban logistics-how can it meet policy makers' sustainable objectiveness? J. Transp. Geogr. 2005;13:71-81.
  2. Hirohito K, Akira E, Eiichiro I. Logistics facility, road network and district planning: Establishing comprehensive planning for city logistics. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010;2:6251-6263.
  3. Zhang QF, Crooks R. Towards an environmentally sustainable future: People's Republic of China national environment analysis. Beijing: China Finance and Economic Press; 2012. p. 54-57.
  4. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Delivering the goods: 21st century challenges to urban goods transport. OECD Publishing; 2003. p.1-10.
  5. Crainic TG, Ricciardi N, Storchi G. Models for evaluating and planning city logistics systems. Transport. Sci. 2009;4:432-454.
  6. Norgate T, Haque N. Using life cycle assessment to evaluate some environmental impacts of gold production. J. Clean. Prod. 2012;8:53-63.
  7. Mcauliffe GA, Chapman DV, Sage CV. A thematic review of life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to pig production. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016;56:12-22.
  8. Christophe R, Eric C, Michael B, Jacques L. GHG emissions of supply chains from different retail systems in Europe. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010;3:6154-6164.
  9. Guinee JB. Life cycle assessment: An operational guide to the ISO standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. p. 3-47.
  10. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China energy statistics. Beijing: China Statistics Press; 2011. p. 341-346.
  11. IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC; 2006. p. 11-41.
  12. Penningtona DW, Pottingb J, Finnveden G, et al. Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environ. Int. 2004;30:721-739.