EU cities’ potentials for formulation and implementation of sustainable urban freight transport strategic plans

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Green Cities 2018 Green Cities 2018

EU cities' potentials for formulation and implementation of EU cities' potentials forfreight formulation andstrategic implementation sustainable urban transport plans of sustainable urban freight transport strategic plans a a

Maja Kiba-Janiaka,* Maja Kiba-Janiak ,*

Wroclaw University of Economics, Nowowiejska 3, Jelenia Góra 58-500, Poland Wroclaw University of Economics, Nowowiejska 3, Jelenia Góra 58-500, Poland

a

Abstract Abstract The increasing rate of freight transport in cities causes many problems in terms of sustainability, such as: noise, CO2 emissions, congestion (environmental), increaseinincities transport costs (economic) the risk accident (social), etc.noise, (Russo, Comi, 2012). The increasing rate of freightantransport causes many problemsand in terms of of sustainability, such as: CO2 emissions, Local government, which is an responsible fortransport mobilitycosts and quality of life, an important role in solving problems. Therefore, congestion (environmental), increase in (economic) andplays the risk of accident (social), etc. (Russo, Comi, 2012). urban freight transport should be includedforinto a city strategic management. Unfortunately, shows that there isTherefore, still a big Local government, which is responsible mobility and quality of life, plays an importantresearch role in solving problems. difference between EUshould cities be in included the formulation andstrategic implementation of strategic plans forresearch sustainable urban freightis transport. urban freight transport into a city management. Unfortunately, shows that there still a big These differences different levels and of potentials of citiesofassociated the possibilities of freight a giventransport. town, its difference betweenmay EUresult citiesfrom in the formulation implementation strategic with plansboth for sustainable urban economy, society, may environment, as different well as the possibilities of city administration the experience and skills of of the These differences result from levels of potentials of cities associated- with both the possibilities of employees a given town, its office andsociety, its organizational units. The as aim the article of is city to use the analysis- of Successand Factors to assess economy, environment, as well theofpossibilities administration theKey experience skills (KSF) of employees of the potential selected capitals ofunits. the European andofimplementation of strategic plans the area office andofits organizational The aim Union of the countries article isintothe useformulation the analysis Key Success Factors (KSF) to in assess the of sustainable urban capitals freight of transport. DuringUnion the analysis, gapsformulation between the of KSFofand their assessment potential of selected the European countriesthe in the andrelevance implementation strategic plans in thewere area presented. Based on the analysis, the strengths andanalysis, weaknesses selected cities also identified. Thetheir tool assessment presented inwere this of sustainable urban freight transport. During the the of gaps between thewere relevance of KSF and article mayBased support governments during the analysis necessary develop urban presented. on local the analysis, the strengths and strategic weaknesses of selected citiestowere also strategic identified.plans The for toolsustainable presented in this freight may transport. Thelocal papergovernments is the result of the National Science Centrenecessary in Poland.toDEC-2013/09 / B / HS4 article support during the strategic analysis develop strategic plans/ 01284. for sustainable urban freight transport. The paper is the result of the National Science Centre in Poland. DEC-2013/09 / B / HS4 / 01284. © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) © 2018 The Authors. by Elsevier B.V. This is an open accessPublished article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of Green Green Logistics Logistics for for Greener Greener Cities Cities 2018. 2018. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of Green Logistics for Greener Cities 2018. Keywords: sustainable urban freight transport; Key Success Factors; Potential of a city; strategic plans. Keywords: sustainable urban freight transport; Key Success Factors; Potential of a city; strategic plans.

1. Introduction 1. Introduction Urban freight transport (UFT) according to L. Dablanc (2007) can be defined as flows of materials and goods in Urban freight transport (UFT) according to L. Dablanc (2007) can be defined as flows of materials and goods in

* Corresponding author: Maja Kiba-Janiak. Tel.: +48757538223. E-mail address:author: [email protected] * Corresponding Maja Kiba-Janiak. Tel.: +48757538223. E-mail address: [email protected] 2352-1465 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 2352-1465 © 2018 Thearticle Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection under responsibility of the scientific of Green Logistics for Greener Cities 2018. This is an and openpeer-review access article under the CC BY-NC-ND licensecommittee (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of Green Logistics for Greener Cities 2018. 2352-1465  2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of Green Logistics for Greener Cities 2018. 10.1016/j.trpro.2019.06.017

2

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 Maja Kiba-Janiak/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

151

the city organized by professional institutions. According to Behrends (2011) UFT can be viewed from three perspectives: from the demand side (demand for goods and services), supply (delivery of goods and services) and its physical environment regulated by local government (Bandeira et a., 2018). In this article, urban freight transport will be considered from the perspective of local government, which has the possibility to regulate it by means of regulations and other activities related to the construction of transport infrastructure, etc. (Dou and Wang, 2013). Local government is responsible for the quality of life in the city, which is influenced by urban freight transport. UFT is responsible for 25% emission of CO2 in a city (ALICE/ERTRAC, 2015).UFT is believed to be the one more polluting the air than long distance transport due to short distance and stops required by the organization of traffic and city distribution (Bandeira et al., 2018). Moreover, the increased traffic causes fatal road accidents, which in some cities exceed 100 persons per million inhabitants (http://ec.europa.eu, 2018). Additionally, according to the European Commission's calculations, congestion costs in European cities amount to almost EUR 100 billion, or approximately 1% of EU GDP annually (European Commission, 2018). A sustainable approach to urban freight transport is required to solve these problems. In the literature of the subject you can find numerous publications on sustainable urban freight transport (Kin et al., 2018; Lindholm, 2010; Kijewska and Johansen, 2014; Iwan and Kijewska, 2014; Lindholm and Ballantyne, 2016; Jedlinski and Kijewska, 2016; Bandeira et al., 2018; HolguínVeras et al., 2016). According to S. Behrends et al. (2008) sustainable urban freight transport should be a system for ensuring the availability for all transport category, for reducing air pollution, improving resource efficiency, profitability and energy efficiency in the transport of goods (including external costs) and contributing to the quality of the urban environment (e.g. safety, minimizing the use of land, etc.). According to M. Lindholm (2010) in particular local government should take action in this area on the basis of the strategic plan for sustainable urban freight transport (Lindholm and Ballantyne, 2016) developed in close cooperation with stakeholders (Quak, 2011). In the literature of the subject exist multiple classifications of stakeholders of urban freight transport (Taniguchi and Tamagawa, 2005; Muńuzuri et al., 2012, etc.). The author would like to list (Kiba-Janiak, 2016): local authority, residents, consumers, visiting city, shippers, receivers, transport companies and public transport operators. Nevertheless, the local government, due to its role in the city, is a key stakeholder, that by taking action in the field of the UFT takes into account the needs of different stakeholders, and not a single company. Therefore, the local government should develop, in collaboration with stakeholders, strategic plan for the UFT. A strategic plan for the UFT is a complementary executive document to the logistics strategy, covering the flows of cargo, services and information connected therewith. This plan includes goals and objectives, along with specific deadlines for their implementation. Both goals and tasks should be consistent with the city's logistics strategy. The process of formulation and implementation of strategic plans in the field of UFT depends not only on the stakeholders, but predominantly on the tangible and intangible resources of the local government, which is its potential. The aim of the article is to use the analysis of Key Success Factors (KSF) to assess the potential of selected capitals of the European Union countries in the formulation and implementation of strategic plans in the area of sustainable urban freight transport. In the course of the analysis the gaps were presented between the significance of the KSF and their rating, which provided the basis for the identification of strengths and weaknesses of individual cities. The tool presented in this article may support local governments during the strategic analysis necessary to develop strategic plans for sustainable urban freight transport. This work consists of six parts. The next section contains the assumptions for strategic UFT plans with particular attention to the concepts of SUTP, SUMP and SULP. The third section presents general assumptions to research the potential of a town/city using the analysis of the key success factors. The author proposes here a modification of this method. In the further part of this work the methodology of research is presented. The next section shows the results of the research, and presents them in the form of gaps between the rating and the significance of the KSF and the significance levels were compared to the KSF rating with regard to individual factors, in relation to the individual cities. The last part of the work presents the conclusions. 2. Assumptions for sustainable UFT strategic plans in selected EU projects In recent years, the European Union is increasingly focused on the development of sustainable urban freight transport by introducing legislation and formal directives. As a result of these activities, there are many strategic documents containing long-term goals of freight transport and the environment protection (Kiba-Janiak, 2017). In

152

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

3

White Paper , specific targets for ecological transport in the city were developed (Kiba-Janiak, 2015). The ultimate goal is the organisation of free from CO2 cargo transportation in large cities to 2030 (European Commission, 2011). In response to the guidelines of the European Commission, several projects have been created (ENCLOSE, CLIEGE, NOVELOG, CIVITAS, STRAIGHTSOL etc.) which have developed guidance and policies to develop transportation plans, including the sustainable urban freight transport. Among these guidance, you can highlight the three main ones(Fossheim, Andersen, 2017): Sustainable Urban Transport Plans (SUTP), Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP) and Sustainable Urban Logistics Plans (SULP). The foundation for the development of Sustainable Urban Transport Plans (SUTP) were developed by a group of experts appointed by the European Commission (Wolfram, 2004). They represent the basic guidelines for clean transport in (covering both flows of people and cargo, and services and information associated with them), taking into account the security, access to goods and services, the local situation of the city and individual needs of stakeholders (European Commission, 2007). Another concept developed by the European Commission is Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP) (European Commission, 2013), which strongly emphasises developing plans in cooperation with various stakeholders. In the framework of this concept guidelines to support local authorities in developing such plans have been developed . Information about this concept are updated on a regular basis within the framework of The Urban Mobility Observatory Elits (http://www.eltis.org/, 2018). In addition, as part of the CIVITAS SUMPs-Up project, the guidance for beginner, intermediate and advanced cities have been developed. The guidance present the stages of implementation of individual solutions for the movement of people and cargo. It should be noted that both of these initiatives have focused much more on the transport people than cargo (although both conceptions emphasize the need for an integrated approach to these two areas of the movement). The most recent concept of Sustainable Urban Logistics Plans (SULP) complements the SUTP and SUMP for urban freight transport. SULP concept puts the emphasis first and foremost on the development of plans for urban freight transport in order to reduce the degradation of the environment, enhance safety and the efficiency of cargo flows. SULP assumptions were developed in several EU projects, such as: ENCLOSE, NOVELOG or SULPiTER. Especially NOVELOG developed a very sophisticated "and modular integrated evaluation framework for city logistics that will portray the complexity of the life cycle of the UFT systems and implement it to assess the effectiveness of the policies and measures" (http://novelog.eu /, 2018). A tool developed in the framework of the project NOVELOG allows cities to identify solutions in the field of urban freight transport, which could be implemented in a particular city (having given parameters) and shows what is the impact of these solutions on the environment, etc. (on the basis of the experience of cities with similar characteristics). In this work, special attention will be paid to the strategic plans for urban freight transport, which, in accordance with the presented concepts, most correspond to the concept of SULP. 3. KSF as a tool for analysing city’s potential in the formulation and implementation of sustainable UFT strategic plan The concepts presented in point 2 are general assumptions to formulate plans for transport in the cities constituting executive plans to the logistics strategy of a city (Kiba-Janiak, 2015). It must be stressed, however, that the final shape of both strategy and the executive plans depends on the characteristics of a city resulting from the experience of the city authorities, the different social, economic, environmental conditions, etc. Those factors constitute the potential of the city. According to Oxford Dictionaries the term potential means "having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future" (Oxford Dictionaries, 2018). According to the author, the term potential in relation to the city can be considered both through the prism of the city as a city (the territorial range of the city) and its administration (president / mayor, city office and organizational units). The potential in relation to a city can be defined as the configuration of its resources (e.g. the infrastructure, natural resources) and capabilities (e.g. for investment, development). With regard to the administration of this term means a configuration of resources (for example, tangible and intangible ones), abilities (e.g. to take action), experience and attitude of the staff of the city office and its organizational units. The city's potential in formulating and implementing strategic plans for sustainable UFT, both in relation to the city as a town and the administration, reflects its strategic development

4

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 Maja Kiba-Janiak/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

153

opportunities. In this work, due to its limited range, the attention will be paid to the potential of the city's administration. To explore the potential of the city, as in the case of businesses, the methods and analyses used in the strategic management can be applied (Gierszewska and Romanowska, 2002). One of such methods is the analysis of key success factors (KSF, also known as critical factors) (Wilson and Daniel, 2007), whose aim is to identify and evaluate those factors that significantly affect the prosperity of the organization (they can both stimulate and inhibit its development) (De Resende et al., 2018). According to A. Boynton and R. Zmud (1984) KSF are "these actions that must be implemented well to ensure success" (Boynton and Zmud, 1984). These factors constitute the potential of the organization. The analysis of key factors for success requires to limit the study to a group of criteria that are considered as the most important and decisive on the development of the city. The method uses the well-known Pareto rule "80-20", according to which 20% of the events decide about 80% of the effects and vice versa. Therefore, it is assumed that it is sufficient to examine approximately 20% of the success factors in order to be able to evaluate a given organization (Gierszewska and Romanowska, 2002). According to W. Ketelhöhn (1998), key success factors are used to distinguish the organization. At the same time, this author emphasizes that one can distinguish key success factors for a given sector, industry (Ketelhöhn, 1998). Key success factors for development and implementation of a strategic sustainable plan for UFT can be defined as those factors that significantly affect the development of a city in this regard. They represent the potential stimulating or inhibiting its strategic development. When the factors are favourable, they ensure the achievement of the goal, and when they are unfavourable, they can cause difficulties in achieving it. The author on the basis of research carried out pursuant to a Delphi method among international expert has identified key success factors for urban logistics from the perspective of local government (Kiba-Janiak, 2016). Among these factors are the ones that are crucial for the formulation and implementation of the strategic objectives in the field of urban freight transport by local government. The most important, according to the experts, key success factors (Kiba-Janiak, 2016 ) together with their indicators were presented in table 1. Among them are those relating to: • the experience of local government in terms of the formulation of the plans which take into account environmental aspects (KSF1, F1) and urban freight transport (KSF2, F2) • the involvement of employees of the local government (KSF4, F4) • inclusion of a workstation in the organizational structure, to which are assigned to tasks related to the UFT (KSF3, F3) • cooperation of the representatives of the local government with stakeholders UFT (KSF5, F5) • accessibility of the infrastructure enabling the use of ecological freight transport (KSF6, F6), etc. Table 1. Examples of key success factors and indicators for city logistics from the perspective of local authorities (Kiba-Janiak 2016) Key Success Factors (xi)

Selected indicators (xj) for KSF assessment

KSF1. Including targets for environmentally friendly transport in the city development strategy KSF2. Urban space planning and organisation taking into account the intensity of road traffic (for example planning factories outside the city centre) KSF3. Inclusion of departments or workplaces responsible for individual and freight transport in the organisational structure of local authority KSF4. The involvement of representatives of local government (assuming the role of a coordinator) for the implementation of activities in the field of urban logistics KSF5. Cooperation of city logistics stakeholders during planning, implementation and controlling of projects related to the passenger and freight transport KSF6. Accessibility of the infrastructure enabling the use of ecological freight transport in a more effective and efficient way

The inclusion of environmental aspects in transport policies and plans Inclusion of freight transport in the city in the zoning plan Number of workplaces in the organisational structure of local authority responsible for freight transport in a city Number of projects related to urban freight transport in which the local authority has been involved The scope of cooperation of the city with experts / institutions / entities specializing in UFT Access to distribution centres, the possibility of movement of cargo by public transport

KSF7. Accessibility to information on urban freight transport and stakeholders needs

The frequency of the collection of data on freight transport

KSF8. Local government regulations affecting urban freight transport KSF9. Financial situation of the local government

Conditions of access to the selected zones in a city Revenue of the local authority

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159

154

5

Despite the fact that the key success factors presented in table 1 can be considered as universal in the study of city potentials in the formulation and implementation of strategic UFT plans, it should be remembered that both their significance levels and the indicators can be different in individual cities. Therefore, it is important that local government, when analyzing key success factors, both determine their significance and evaluate them. In the literature of the subject, it is proposed to calculate the weighted values (weight times the score) for each success factor. According to the author more interesting information on key success factors can provide a matrix grouping factors according to their importance and the assessment. In this matrix, the 9 groups can be highlighted: H /L, H/M, H/H, M/L, M/M, M/H, L/L, L/M, L/H (table 2). This way of presentation of the obtained results enables the identification of factors that are important for local government and allows to refer them to the obtained assessments. In addition, the matrix shows the strengths and weaknesses of the local government and provides the basis for further strategic actions in the area of the UFT. For example, those factors that are important for the city and, at the same time, their scores are high are its strengths. Local government should maintain the level of these factors and, where possible, reinforce them. On the other hand, factors that are not important for local government and at the same time have been poorly evaluated should be monitored. It should also be noted that a low significance for some success factors may also result from the lack of experience or knowledge of local government representatives. Therefore, the cooperation of local governments with other local governments and stakeholders to exchange knowledge, experience and different kinds of information is recommended. Table 2. Matrix of KSF importance and KSF assessment Assessment of KSF (Indicator value)

High (H)

Importance of KSF

Medium (M)

Low (L)

Low (L) H/L - These factors are relevant from the point of view of the local government, but unfortunately have been poorly evaluated. They represent the weaknesses of the city. They should be a priority and a challenge for the local government. M/L - These factors are moderately relevant and they have been poorly evaluated. They represent the weaknesses of the city. Local government should make a detailed analysis of the individual factors and identify the ways for their improvement. L/L - These factors are not relevant and they have been poorly evaluated. These factors should not be completely underestimated because their significance may increase. Local government should monitor them.

Medium (M) H/M - These factors are relevant, but unfortunately have been moderately evaluated. Local government should focus on their improvement so as they constitute a strength in the area of the UFT.

High (H) H/H - Factors which are the strengths of the city. These are the areas both very important and well-functioning in the local government. These are the factors which distinguish the local government against the others. Local government should maintain their level and possibly reinforce them.

M/M - These are the factors, whose both the relevance and the importance have been rated at the medium level. Local government can monitor and check whether the importance of these factors increased or not.

M/H - These are the factors whose significance was determined at a medium level, while the importance have been rated at high level. These are the factors, which comprise the strengths of a city in strategic management in the area of the UFT. Local government should monitor and check whether the importance of these factors increased or not. L/H - Factors in this group are not relevant but have been rated very well. The scope of resources involved should be verified. It may be worth to transfer this energy and resources to other important factors. It is also necessary to monitor these factors and check whether their importance have increased.

L/M - These factors are not relevant and they have been moderately evaluated. Local government can monitor and check whether the importance of these factors increased or not.

4. Research procedure In the paper four stages to implement the study have been developed: Stage 1. The development of research methodological foundations. In this stage the author has analysed the domestic and foreign literature in the field of urban freight transport planning. The research concerning the key factors of the success in the city logistics and conducted by the Delphi method constituted the basis of starting the research on the inclusion of UFT issues into city strategic planning

6

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 Maja Kiba-Janiak/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

155

(Kiba-Janiak, 2015). On the basis of to the research results, the list of the key success factors for sustainable urban freight transport strategic planning has been obtained. Stage 2. Development of the research tool. Research tool has been developed on the basis of the relevant literature (Kiba-Janiak, 2017), knowledge and personal experience of the author. The purpose of the survey was to obtain information from European capital cities about the approach to freight transport in a city. The questionnaire consisted of the list of KSF and indicators enabling to obtain information on strategic planning and on activities undertaken in the field of UFT, frequency of information gathering, etc. Stage 3. Gathering the study results . The research was conducted from 17th May 2015 to 15th March 2016. This extended period of the study was determined by difficulties which arose during the collection of the completed questionnaires. The questionnaire were sent via e-mail to mayors of 28 EU capital cities. The respondents were asked to give their opinion on KSF importance (KSF1 to KSF 8 on the scale 1 to 5, where 1 is negligible and 5 is significant) and provide information for each KSF assessment (see tab. 3). As a result, fifteen completed questionnaires have been obtained. However only 14 questionnaires have fully filled in (in one case the part of the questionnaire regarding importance on KSF was not completed). Therefore to the final analysis fourteen cities have been qualified. Table 3. Indicators’ description KSF

Indicators’ description for KSF assessment

The period from when the local council began planning the organization of urban traffic in terms of reducing environmental pollution (the inclusion of environmental aspects in transport policies and plans for more than 20 years – 7, in the period from 10 to 20 years – 6, KSF 1 from 5 to 10 years-5, from 2 to 5 years – 4, in the period up to 2 years – 3, local government so far has not involved these aspects but intends to do so within the next year-2, the local council does has not involved these aspects and does not intend to do so-1 , 2015-2016, (max)) KSF 2 In the zoning of the freight transport needs are included in (1-Yes, 0-no, 2015-2016, (max)) KSF 3

Number of workplaces in the organisational structure of local authority responsible for freight transport in a city (yes – 1, no – 0, 20152016, max)

KSF 4 Number of projects related to urban freight transport in which the local authority has been involved (max 16 types of the projects , (max)) KSF 5

The scope of the cooperation of the city with experts/institutions/entities specializing in logistics transport in order to improve passenger transport and/or trademark (number of types of experts/institutions, max = 6, 2015/2016, (max))

Accessibly of the infrastructure: KSF 6A. Access to distribution centres (yes -1, no - 0). KSF 6B. Access to infrastructure for transport and / or production enterprises located outside the city centre (local government offers land at attractive conditions for investments on the outskirts of the city, thanks to which one can eliminate the traffic from the centre, yes - 1, no - 0). KSF 6C. the possibility of cargo KSF 6 movement by public transport, yes – 1 no – 0, 2015/2016. Indicator for KSF 6 is the mean of three elementary criteria. KSF 6 = mean (KSF 6A+KSF 6B+KSF+6C), (max) The frequency of collecting data on freight transport (4- yes, collects data in real time / daily, 3 - yes, cyclically, 2 - yes, sometimes, 1 KSF 7 no, 2015-2016, (max)) The conditions of access to the selected zones in a city: KSF 8A. Spatial restrictions for freight vehicles depending on the weight and size (e.g. the prohibition of entry to the city centre for vehicles above 3 .5T) (1-Yes, 0-no, 2015-2016, (max)). KSF 8B. The introduction of loading and unloading zones for vans (separation of the special bays for loading/unloading vehicles) (1-Yes, 0-no, 2015-2016, (max)). KSF 8C. The introduction of toll zones for entry to the city centre for trucks (1- yes, 0 - no, 2015-2016, (max)). KSF 8D. Low emissions KSF 8 zone (the so-called. Low Emission Zones-LEZ)-for vehicles over 3.5 t (for example, to the centre of the city are allowed to enter only commercial vehicles with Euro sticker-6) (1-Yes, 0-no, 2015-2016, (max)). KSF 8E. The introduction of time limits (time window within which delivery can be made) for urban freight transport (1-Yes, 0-no, 2015-2016, (max) Indicator for KSF 8 is the mean of five elementary criteria. KSF 8 = mean (KSF 8A+ KSF 8B+ KSF 8C+ KSF 8D+ KSF 8E), (max)

Stage 4. Analysing the study results The results obtained in a survey regarding KSFs’ importance and indicators’ assessments have been elaborated in Excel spread sheet. On the basis of the obtained study results the gaps between particular KSF assessment and KSF importance (for each city) have been calculated. For that purpose, the ratings referring to the establishment of KSF importance and KSF assessment (F) had to be reduced to the same scale. For this reason the data normalization for particular KSF has been conducted with the use of zero unitarization method (ZUM) (Kukula, 2012) with the use of formula:

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159

156

𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ =

7

𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 −𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

(1)

𝑅𝑅

where: xil – the number of scores given to the particular KSF importance or KSF assessment for i-th city in l-th dimension (i = 1, 2, 3, …, 15; l =1, 2), R – range, the difference between the maximum and minimum. In addition each KSF (𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖′ and 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗′ ) for each city have been classified to one of nine classes (see table 2): H/L, H/M, H/H, M/L, M/M, M/H, L/L, L/M, L/H, according to following rules: H - high importance of KSF/high assessment of indicator for KSF, where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ ≥ 0,75, M – medium importance of KSF/medium assessment of indicator for KSF, where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ ∈ (0,25; 0,75), L – low importance of KSF/low assessment of indicator for KSF, where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ ≤ 0,25. The boundaries of the compartments have been designated on the basis of standardized indicators, which can range from 0 to 1. It was assumed, that the second interval to which the classified will be the cities of average results in terms of importance of KSF/medium assessment will consist of cities different both in plus and in minus from the average value standardized indicators. Thus, this range will be the widest. 5. Study results As a result of the studies information about the significance of individual KSF for the town was obtained, and the calculation of indicators for the evaluation of these factors was made. After the adoption of the values for individual KSF, the differences between the evaluation of the KSF and their significance (Table 4) were calculated for each of the analysed city. In the case of key success factors, in the case of which the difference came out negative it means that the significance of the factor was higher than his score. Therefore, the local government should improve actions in this area. Especially the value of-1 means that the significance of the factor is very high and its assessment very low. Those are the factors that are most problematic for the local government. Therefore, it should focus its attention on these factors in order to improve them in the future. Factors for which the value of the difference amounted to zero are belong to group of factors for which both score and significance are at the same level. Therefore, the local government can monitor these factors, in terms of changes in their relevance and assessment. Factors for which the value was positive belong to the group of factors, whose rating exceeds their importance. Local government should verify its activity in this area and consider whether to reduce its commitment on behalf of other key success factors (which have been poorly evaluated and their significance is high). Table 4. Gaps between KSF assessment and KSF importance Cities Athens Berlin Budapest Bucharest Dublin Helsinki Lisbon London Prague Riga Stockholm Tallinn Warsaw Vienna Mean

KSF1. -1 0 -0,5 0 0,25 0,25 -0,5 -0,25 0,25 0 0 -0,25 0 0 -0,13

KSF2. -0,5 0,25 0 -0,25 -1 0 -1 -1 0,25 -0,5 0,25 -0,25 0 0 -0,27

Gaps between KSF assessment and KSF importance KSF3. KSF4. KSF5. KSF6. KSF7. 1 -0,71 -0,42 -1,00 -0,75 0 0,21 0,00 0,17 -1 0 -0,65 -0,83 -0,33 0 -0,25 0,04 0,00 -0,25 0 0 -0,56 -0,33 -0,67 -1 0 -0,17 0,33 -0,67 -0,5 0 -0,84 -0,33 -1,00 -1 0 -0,25 0,25 -0,50 -0,75 0,5 -0,29 0,50 -0,75 -0,5 1 -0,25 0,33 -0,75 0 0,25 -0,17 0,75 0,17 -1 -0,5 -0,67 0,08 -1,00 -0,75 0,25 -0,41 -0,17 -1,00 -0,5 0 -0,36 -0,50 -0,33 -0,75 0,16 -0,36 -0,02 -0,57 -0,61

KSF8. -0,55 -0,35 -0,4 -0,3 -0,15 0,05 -0,2 0,5 0,05 -0,25 0,5 -0,35 -0,8 0,3 -0,14

Mean -0,49 -0,09 -0,34 -0,13 -0,43 -0,09 -0,61 -0,25 0,00 -0,05 0,09 -0,46 -0,33 -0,21 -0,24

The average of differences between KSF assessment and KSF importance was also calculated for each city. Studies show that the largest average for all KSF differences between their significance, and evaluation has been obtained

8

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 Maja Kiba-Janiak/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

157

for such cities as: Lisbon (mean-0.61), Athens (mean-0.49), Tallinn (mean-0.46) and Dublin (mean-range 0.43) average calculated for those four cities have values with the minuses. This means that the average importance of all KSF is higher than the average assessment of the activities carried out in these areas. In the case of Prague the average difference between the KSF assessment and KSF importance for all factors was zero. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of individual KSF shows that there are differences between their assessment and significance in this city. However, for the majority of KSF the difference between the evaluation and significance of is positive. Only in the case of the KSF 6 and KSF 7 there is a significant difference between the evaluation and significance. Among the cities that have a fairly low average difference between the evaluation and significance of the KSF one can mention: Berlin (-0.09), Helsinki (-0.09), Riga (-0.05) and Stockholm (0.09). Among the key factors for success for which appeared the biggest differences between the evaluation and significance are the following: KSF6. Accessibility of the infrastructure enabling the use of ecological, more efficient and effective ways of freight transport and KSF7. Accessibility to information on urban freight transport. In both cases the average differences have negative values, which means that the evaluation of these two indicators are for more researched cities low and their importance high. Research shows that these two key success factors are the biggest problem for the majority of the analysed local authorities. The differences between KSF assessment and KSF importance should be considered first of all in relation to an individual city. This information is primarily useful for the city authorities, who want to compare the current state of individual factors with their significance (from the perspective of the city). This can be done in the matrix presented in table 2. Due to the limited scope of this work, the author presented this information in a slightly modified version (table 5). Key success factors for each city were classified into one of nine groups, taking into account the assessment and significance of these factors. It should be noted that local governments assess the significance of the same key success factors differently. For example, in the case of the factor KSF 2 Urban space planning and organizing taking into account intensity of road traffic, ten cities rated it as very important and two cities as medium and also two as insignificant. These cities, which rated this factor as low or medium have also obtained a poor assessment for this factor. In these cities, for which this factor is very important, in most of them, it was also highly rated. In the case of the KSF factor 1 Including targets for environmentally friendly transportation in the city development strategy all of the cities are in agreement that it is extremely important from the perspective of the formulation and implementation of a strategic plan in sustainable urban logistics. Pursuant to Table 5 each city can identify its strengths and weaknesses. For example the strengths of such cities as Berlin, Helsinki, Stockholm, Warsaw and Vienna are the activities connected with targets for environmentally friendly transport in the city development strategy (KSF1), taking into account the intensity of road traffic during urban space planning and organizing(KSF2) and including departments or workplaces responsible for freight transport in the organizational chart (KSF3). These factors obtained a high level of significance as well as high rating these five cities. The downside of these cities (in a slightly lesser extent, in the case of Warsaw and Helsinki) is in turn factor KSF7 associated with collecting data on urban freight transport in the city. This is the problem of the majority of analysed cities, which do not have standards for collecting information on cargo flows. Table 5. KSF position according to their assessment and importance Capital city Athens

L/L

Berlin Budapest Bucharest Dublin Helsinki

KSF2, KSF3, KSF5, KSF6, KSF7, KSF4

KSF importance (𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖′ ) / KSF assessment (𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗′ ): L- low, M - medium, H - High L/M L/H M/L M/M M/H H/L H/M KSF3 KSF2 KSF1, KSF,4, KSF5 KSF6, KSF7, KSF8 KSF4, KSF7 KSF8 KSF6 KSF5 KSF1, KSF6, KSF8, KSF4 KSF8

KSF5

KSF2, KSF4, KSF7

KSF5, KSF6, KSF8 KSF4, KSF6, KSF7

H/H

KSF1, KSF3, KSF5, KSF2 KSF2, KSF3, KSF7 KSF1 KSF1, KSF3 KSF1, KSF3, KSF8, KSF2

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

158

Lisbon

KSF2, KSF6, KSF7, KSF4 KSF2, KSF7

KSF1, KSF5

KSF3, KSF8

KSF4 KSF4

KSF1, KSF3, KSF5 KSF1, KSF2, KSF8 KSF1

London

KSF6

KSF8

Prague

KSF7

KSF3, KSF5

KSF6

KSF8

KSF7

Riga Stockholm

KSF4, KSF7, KSF8

Tallinn Warsaw Vienna

KSF2

KSF5

KSF3

KSF2

KSF5

KSF6 KSF3 KSF4

KSF8

9

KSF6

KSF4, KSF6, KSF7 KSF6, KSF8

KSF8

KSF7

KSF5, KSF4, KSF6

KSF7

KSF1, KSF3, KSF4, KSF2 KSF1, KSF5 KSF1, KSF3, KSF5, KSF2 KSF1, KSF2, KSF3

6. Conclusion The article proposes the implementation of the analysis of Key Success Factors (KSF) to assess the potential of selected capitals of the European Union countries in the formulation and implementation of strategic plans in the area of sustainable urban freight transport. This method allows not only to compile the assessment of a given KSF with its significance but also to indicate gaps between them. This analysis in a clear and simple way enables the identification of strengths and weaknesses of the city. This is a tool that can assist local governments at the stage of strategic analysis prior to the formulation and implementation of a plan for sustainable UFT. The research presented in this paper shows that the significance of the individual KSF for analysed cities is varied. The same KSF is very important for one local government and insignificant for another one. On the one hand, this may signify different needs of cities and, on the other hand, the absence of their awareness and knowledge of the importance of certain factors. Therefore, the city with a lower potential should learn from those who have more experience and knowledge in the given scope. The analysis shows that the city, which has the strongest position in terms of the assessment of key success factors is Stockholm. Of 14 factors, 12 were rated high, one average (while the significance of this factor was also assessed at the medium level) and one low (the significance for this factor was assessed at a high level). In fact, it seems that the only major problem of Stockholm is the lack of standards for collecting information on UFT. The analysis of the KSF presented in this paper, refers primarily to the assessment of the potential of a single city. In order to determine the strategic position of a city against the other ones the same weight for all the KSF (as average, median or determined by the experts) should be applied. In addition, in the strategic analysis, the study of the potential of the city as a town also plays a significant role. These two aspects comprise for the author the direction of further research in the field of the UFT. References ALICE/ERTRAC, 2015. Urban Freight research & innovation roadmap. http://www.etp-logistics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/W56mayokopie.pdf, 15.06.18. Bandeira, R. A.M., D'Agosto, M. A., Ribeiro, S. K., Bandeira, A. P.F., Goes G. V., 2018. A fuzzy multi criteria model for evaluating sustainable urban freight transportation operations, Journal of Cleaner Production 184 (2018) 727-739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.234. 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. Boynton, A. and Zmud, R., 1984. An assessment of critical success factors, Sloan Management Review, Tom. 2, nr 4, 17-27. Dablanc, L., 2007. Goods transport in large European cities: Difficult to organize, difficult to modernize, Transportation Research Part A, 280– 285. De Resende, L. M. M., Volski, I., Betim, L. M., de Carvalho, G. D. G., de Barros, R., Senger, F. P., 2018. Critical success factors in coopetition: Evidence on a business network, Industrial Marketing Management 68, 177–187. Dou, X., Li S., Wang, J., 2013. Ecological Strategy of City Sustainable Development, ICESD 2013: January 19-20, Dubai, UAE, APCBEE Procedia 5, 429 – 434.

10

Maja Kiba-Janiak / Transportation Research Procedia 39 (2019) 150–159 Maja Kiba-Janiak/ Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

159

European Commission, 2013. A Concept for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, Annex to Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility, Brussels, 17.12.2013, COM(2013) 913 final, 12.06.18. European Commission, 2011. White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system Brussels, 28.3.2011 COM(2011) 144 final. European Commission, 2007. Sustainable Urban Transport Plans. Preparatory Document in relation to the follow-up of the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment, European Communities, 2007 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/studies/doc/2007_sutainable_urban_transport_plan.pdf, 12.06.18. European Commission, 2018. Mobility and Transport, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility_en, 16.07.2018. Fossheim, K., Andersen, J., 2017. Plan for sustainable urban logistics – comparing between Scandinavian and UK practices, Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 9:52, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0270-8. Gierszewska, G. Romanowska, M., 2002. Strategic Analysis of an Enterprises (translated from Polish), PWE, Warszawa, 169. Holguín-Veras, J., Sánchez-Díaz, I., Browne, M., 2016. Sustainable Urban Freight Systems and Freight Demand Management, Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 12, Pages 40-52. http://ec.europa.eu , 19.03.2018. http://novelog.eu/, 12.06.18. http://www.eltis.org/, 12.06.18. http://www.enclose.eu/content.php?p=5, 12.06.2018. Iwan S., Kijewska K. (2014). The Integrated Approach to Adaptation of Good Practices in Urban Logistics Based on the Szczecin Example. 8th International Conference on City Logistics, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 125, 212-225 Jedliński, M., Kijewska, K., 2016. The Concept of Binary Evaluation of Freight Quality Partnership Impact on the Principles of Sustainable Urban Development, Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 16, 130-145. Ketelhöhn, W., 1998. What is a Key Success Factor?, European Management Journal Vol. 16, No. 3, 335–340. Kiba-Janiak, M., 2016. Key success factors for city logistics from the perspective of various groups of stakeholders, The 9th International Conference on City Logistics, Tenerife, Canary Islands (Spain), 17-19 June 2015, Transportation Research Procedia 12, 557 – 569. Kiba-Janiak, M., 2015. The importance of logistics in urban development strategies (translated from Polish), Logistyka 1/2015, 18-24. Kiba-Janiak, M., 2017. Urban freight transport in city strategic planning, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 24, Elsevier, s. 416, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.05.003. Kijewska, K., Johansen, B. G., 2014. Comparative Analysis of Activities for More Environmental Friendly Urban Freight Transport Systems in Norway and Poland, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 151, 30 October 2014, 142-157. Kin, B., Spoor, J., Verlinde S., Macharis, C., Van Woensel, T., 2018. Modelling alternative distribution set-ups for fragmented last mile transport: Towards more efficient and sustainable urban freight transport, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Volume 6, Issue 1, March 2018, 125-132. Kukuła K., 2012. Propozycja budowy rankingu obiektów z wykorzystaniem cech ilościowych oraz jakościowych, Metody ilościowe w badaniach ekonomicznych, red. B. Borkowski, K. Kukuła, Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego, Wydział Zastosowań Informatyki i Matematyki, Katedra Ekonometrii i Statystyki, Tom XIII/1, Warszawa Lindholm, M., 2010. A sustainable perspective on urban freight transport: Factors affecting local authorities in the planning procedures, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 2, Issue 3, 6205-6216. Lindholm, M., Ballantyne, E. E. F., 2016. Introducing Elements of Due Diligence in Sustainable Urban Freight Transport Planning, Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 12, 66-78. Muńuzuri, J., Cortés, P., Guadix, J., Onieva, L., 2012. City logistics in Spain: Why it might never work, Elsevier. Cities 29, 133–141. Oxford Dictionaries, 2018, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/potential, 12.06.18. Quak, H., 2011. Urban freight transport: the challenge of sustainability. In: Macharis, C., Melo, S. (Eds.), City Distribution and Urban Freight Transport: Multiple Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, 37–55. Russo, F. and Comi, A., 2012. City characteristics and urban goods movements: A way to environmental transportation system in a sustainable city, The Seventh International Conference on City Logistics, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 39, 61 – 73. Taniguchi, E., Tamagawa, D., 2005. Evaluating Toll Measures on Urban Expressways Considering the Behaviour of Several Stakeholders Associated With Urban Freight Transport. Recent Advances in City Logistics, Proccedings of the 4th International Conference on City Logistics (Langkawi, Malaysia, 12-14 July, 2005), edited by Eiichi Taniguchi, Russel G. Thompson, 221-232. Wilson, H., Daniel, E., 2007. The multi-channel challenge: A dynamic capability approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(1), 10–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.015. Wolfram, M., 2004. Expert working group on sustainable urban transport plans. Final report, Deliverable D4, Rupprecht consult, Cologne, Germany.