CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Comparative Study of the Impacts of Conventional and Online Retailing on the Environment: A Last Mile Perspective

by Ahmad Nabot, Firas Omar
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 138 - Number 3
Year of Publication: 2016
Authors: Ahmad Nabot, Firas Omar
10.5120/ijca2016908720

Ahmad Nabot, Firas Omar . Comparative Study of the Impacts of Conventional and Online Retailing on the Environment: A Last Mile Perspective. International Journal of Computer Applications. 138, 3 ( March 2016), 6-12. DOI=10.5120/ijca2016908720

@article{ 10.5120/ijca2016908720,
author = { Ahmad Nabot, Firas Omar },
title = { Comparative Study of the Impacts of Conventional and Online Retailing on the Environment: A Last Mile Perspective },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { March 2016 },
volume = { 138 },
number = { 3 },
month = { March },
year = { 2016 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 6-12 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume138/number3/24357-2016908720/ },
doi = { 10.5120/ijca2016908720 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T23:38:40.217672+05:30
%A Ahmad Nabot
%A Firas Omar
%T Comparative Study of the Impacts of Conventional and Online Retailing on the Environment: A Last Mile Perspective
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 138
%N 3
%P 6-12
%D 2016
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

Online shopping has an increasing impact on the environment in terms of the related ‘last mile’ processes, which lies in the CO2 emissions. Thus, this study compares transport-related CO2 emissions of online and conventional shopping in terms of supply, home delivery and travel data from consumers to a physical store branches in the capital of Jordan “Amman”. Real data were collected from consumers and analyzed to highlight the different factors that affect CO2 emissions, such store supply, consumer trip distance to physical store, first-attempt failed delivery, returns. The results show that online shopping play an important role in minimizing CO2 emissions including all the related processes to such shopping mode. However, conventional hopping can be more environmentally friendly shopping mode in case the store distance to travel is short. In addition, the use of public transport mode for traditional shopping and the shopping behavior of the consumers are considered as advantages for such shopping mode.

References
  1. Agatz, N., Campbell, A., Fleischmann, M. and Savelsbergh, M., 2011. Time slot management in attended home delivery. Transportation Science, 45(3), pp.435-449.
  2. Cairns, S., 1996. Delivering alternatives: Successes and failures of home delivery services for food shopping. Transport Policy, 3(4), pp.155-176.
  3. Cairns, S., 2005. Delivering supermarket shopping: more or less traffic?. Transport Reviews, 25(1), pp.51-84.
  4. Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kirkbride, A. and Goodwin, P., 2004. Smarter choices-changing the way we travel.
  5. Campbell, A.M. and Savelsbergh, M., 2003. Decision support for home delivery.
  6. Campbell, A.M. and Savelsbergh, M., 2006. Incentive schemes for attended home delivery services. Transportation science, 40(3), pp.327-341.
  7. Carling, K., Han, M., Håkansson, J., Meng, X. and Rudholm, N., 2015. Measuring transport related CO 2 emissions induced by online and brick-and-mortar retailing. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,40, pp.28-42.
  8. Carling, K., Han, M., Håkansson, J., Meng, X. and Rudholm, N., 2014. Measuring CO2 emissions induced by online and brick-and-mortar retailing.
  9. Cullinane, S., 2009. From bricks to clicks: the impact of online retailing on transport and the environment. Transport Reviews, 29(6), pp.759-776.
  10. Edwards, J.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Cullinane, S.L., 2009. Carbon Auditing the ‘Last Mile’: Modelling the Environmental Impacts of Conventional and Online Non-food Shopping. Green Logistics Report, Heriot-Watt University.
  11. Edwards, J.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Cullinane, S.L., 2010. Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints of conventional and online retailing: A “last mile” perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(1/2), pp.103-123.
  12. Farag, S., Schwanen, T., Dijst, M. and Faber, J., 2007. Shopping online and/or in-store? A structural equation model of the relationships between e-shopping and in-store shopping. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(2), pp.125-141.
  13. Foley, P., Alfonso, X., Brown, K., Palmer, A., Lynch, D. and Jackson, M., 2003. The Home Delivery Sector in the UK 1995 to 2010. De Montfort University and the Freight Transport Association, Leicester.
  14. Gould, J. and Golob, T.F., 1997. Shopping without travel or travel without shopping? An investigation of electronic home shopping. Transport reviews,17(4), pp.355-376.
  15. Hill, N., 2013. Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting: Methodology Paper for Emission Factors. DEFRA and DECC.
  16. IMRG (2008). Valuing Home Delivery: E-retail Industry Review. IMRG, London.
  17. Kämäräinen, V., Saranen, J. and Holmström, J., 2001. The reception box impact on home delivery efficiency in the e-grocery business. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 31(6), pp.414-426.
  18. Li, F. and Yousept, I., 2004. Online supermarkets: emerging strategies and business models in the UK. BLED 2004 Proceedings, p.30.
  19. McKinnon, A.C. and Tallam, D., 2003. Unattended delivery to the home: an assessment of the security implications. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(1), pp.30-41.
  20. Meschi, M., Irving, T. and Gillespie, M., 2011. Intra-community cross-border parcel delivery. FTI Consulting, London.
  21. Nabot, A. and Garaj, V., 2014. Effect of Online Purchased Goods Delivery Service on Environment. In The Second International Conference on Green Computing, Technology and Innovation (ICGCTI2014) (pp. 1-7). The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communication.
  22. Park, M. and Regan, A., 2004. Issues in emerging home delivery operations. University of California Transportation Center.
  23. Punakivi, M. and Tanskanen, K., 2002. Increasing the cost efficiency of e-fulfilment using shared reception boxes. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(10), pp.498-507.
  24. Punakivi, M., 2003. Comparing alternative home delivery models for e-grocery business.
  25. Robusté, F., Galván, D. and López-Pita, A., 2003. Modeling e-Logistics for urban B2C in Europe. In Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.
  26. Rotem-Mindali, O. and Salomon, I., 2007. The impacts of E-retail on the choice of shopping trips and delivery: Some preliminary findings. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(2), pp.176-189.
  27. Royal Mail (2007). Home Shopper Tracker 2007. RAPID Marketing Services.
  28. Siikavirta, H., Punakivi, M., Kärkkäinen, M. and Linnanen, L., 2002. Effects of E‐Commerce on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Grocery Home Delivery in Finland. Journal of industrial ecology, 6(2), pp.83-97.
  29. Smithers, R., 2007. Supermarket home delivery service promotes its green credentials. The Guardian.
  30. Van Loon, P., Deketele, L., Dewaele, J., McKinnon, A. and Rutherford, C., 2014. A comparative analysis of carbon emissions from online retailing of fast moving consumer goods. Journal of Cleaner Production.
  31. Visser, E.J. and Lanzendorf, M., 2004. Mobility and accessibility effects of B2C e‐commerce: a literature review. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 95(2), pp.189-205.
  32. Weber, C., Hendrickson, C., Jaramillo, P., Matthews, S., Nagengast, A. and Nealer, R., 2008. Life cycle comparison of traditional retail and E-commerce logistics for electronic products: a case study of buy. com. Green Design Institute. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. http://valcoprams.com/images/static_images/green_study. pdf. Last accessed Dec, 15, p.2015.
  33. Weltevreden, J.W. and RIETBERGEN, T.V., 2007. E‐SHOPPING VERSUS CITY CENTRE SHOPPING: THE ROLE OF PERCEIVED CITY CENTRE ATTRACTIVENESS. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie,98(1), pp.68-85.
  34. Weltevreden, J.W., 2008. B2c e-commerce logistics: the rise of collection-and-delivery points in The Netherlands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(8), pp.638-660.
  35. Wiese, A., 2013. Sustainability in Retailing-Environmental Effects of Transport Processes, Shopping Trips and Related Consumer Behaviour (Doctoral dissertation, Niedersächsische Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen).
  36. Xia, X., Huang, Y. and Zhu, H., 2010, January. Consumer logistics tradeoffs in EGS environment. In Logistics Systems and Intelligent Management, 2010 International Conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 1549-1552). IEEE.
  37. Zairi, M., 1992. Measuring success in AMT implementation using customer-supplier interaction criteria. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 12(10), pp.34-55.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Online shopping Conventional shopping CO2 emissions Emission factors Amman

Powered by PhDFocusTM