SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Turkish Operations Management / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

A GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Location Selection of Urban Micro-Consolidation Centers Under Sustainability

Sürdürülebilirlik Temelinde Kentsel Mikro Konsolidasyon Merkezlerinin Yer Seçimi İçin CBS Tabanlı Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımı

Türkan Müge Özbekler(YEDİTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1127-4325
Arzu Karaman Akgül(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4606-6756
Pages
158–180
Publication Date
2025-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that accessibility in economic criteria, traffic density in social criteria, and land topography in environmental criteria come to the fore in UMC location selection under sustainability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:With the boom in e-commerce, the urban micro-consolidation center (UMC) stands out for fast and flexible solutions in last-mile logistics (LML).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The location selection of UMCs is one of the problematic issues in urban freight distribution in terms of its effects on the flow of logistics activities in urban areas and the stakeholders affected by this flow.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that accessibility in economic criteria, traffic density in social criteria, and land topography in environmental criteria come to the fore in UMC location selection under sustainability.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:son kilometre lojistiği · sürdürülebilirlik · kentsel mikro konsolidasyon merkezi

Abstract

With the boom in e-commerce, the urban micro-consolidation center (UMC) stands out for fast and flexible solutions in last-mile logistics (LML). The location selection of UMCs is one of the problematic issues in urban freight distribution in terms of its effects on the flow of logistics activities in urban areas and the stakeholders affected by this flow. This paper aims to present an evaluation system that will minimize negative externalities while facilitating logistics activities based on economic, social, and environmental sustainability for the UMC location selection problem in LML. Hence, a three-step solution approach is developed. Firstly, criteria affecting the UMC location are determined under the sustainability dimensions using expert opinions and literature. Secondly, the criteria indicators are prioritized using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach, and simultaneously, spatial analysis of the indicators is carried out using Geographic Information System (GIS). At this step, two methods are combined with weighted overlay analysis in GIS software to develop a suitability map for alternative UMC locations. Lastly, potential UMC locations are ranked using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) for the case of the İzmir region, Turkey. The results indicate that accessibility in economic criteria, traffic density in social criteria, and land topography in environmental criteria come to the fore in UMC location selection under sustainability. In addition, since no such center exists in the region where the case study was conducted, it is expected to guide the industry and municipality in initiatives in the proposed places.

Özet

E-ticarette yaşanan yoğunluk ile birlikte kentsel mikro konsolidasyon merkezleri (UMC), son kilometre lojistiğinde (LML) hızlı ve esnek çözümlerle öne çıkmaktadır. UMC'lerin lokasyon seçimi, kentsel alanlardaki lojistik faaliyetlerinin akışı ve bu akıştan etkilenen paydaşlar üzerindeki etkileri açısından kentsel yük dağıtımındaki sorunlu konulardan biridir. Bu makale, LML'deki UMC konum seçimi problemi için ekonomik, sosyal ve çevresel sürdürülebilirliğe dayalı lojistik faaliyetleri kolaylaştırırken olumsuz dışsallıkları en aza indirecek bir değerlendirme sistemi sunulması amaçlamaktadır. Bu nedenle, üç adımlı bir çözüm yaklaşımı geliştirilmiştir. İlk olarak, uzman görüşleri ve literatür kullanılarak sürdürülebilirlik boyutları altında UMC konumunu etkileyen kriterler belirlenmiştir. İkinci olarak, kriter göstergeleri Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) yaklaşımı kullanılarak önceliklendirilmiş ve eş zamanlı olarak, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi (CBS) kullanılarak göstergelerin mekansal analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu adımda, alternatif UMC konumları için bir uygunluk haritası geliştirmek üzere CBS yazılımında ağırlıklı çakıştırma analizi ile iki yöntem birleştirilmiştir. Son olarak, potansiyel UMC lokasyonları, Türkiye'de İzmir bölgesi için İdeal Çözüme Benzerliğe Göre Sıra Tercihi Tekniği (TOPSIS) kullanılarak sıralanmıştır. Sonuçlar, ekonomik kriterlerde erişilebilirliğin, sosyal kriterlerde trafik yoğunluğunun ve çevresel kriterlerde arazi topoğrafyasının sürdürülebilirlik altında UMC lokasyon seçiminde ön plana çıktığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, çalışmanın yürütüldüğü bölgede böyle bir tesis bulunmadığından, önerilen yerlerdeki girişimlerde sanayi ve belediyeye rehberlik etmesi beklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özbekler, T. M., Akgül, A. K. (2025). A GIS-based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Location Selection of Urban Micro-Consolidation Centers Under Sustainability. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 158–180. https://doi.org/10.56554/jtom.1615906

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Al-Abadi, A. M., Handhal, A. M., Abdulhasan, M. A., Ali, W. L., Hassan, J. J., and Al Aboodi, A. H. (2025). Optimal siting of large photovoltaic solar farms at Basrah governorate, Southern Iraq using hybrid GIS-based Entropy-TOPSIS and AHP-TOPSIS models. Renewable Energy, 241, 122308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.122308
  2. Aljohani, K., and Thompson, R. G. (2018). Optimizing the Establishment of a Central City Transshipment Facility to Ameliorate Last‐Mile Delivery: a Case Study in Melbourne CBD. City Logistics 3: Towards Sustainable and Liveable Cities, 23-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119425472.ch2
  3. Anderluh, A., Hemmelmayr, V. C., and Rüdiger, D. (2020). Analytic hierarchy process for city hub location selection-The Viennese case. Transportation Research Procedia, 46, 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.03.166
  4. Arrieta‐Prieto, M., Ismael, A., Rivera‐Gonzalez, C., and Mitchell, J. E. (2021). Location of urban microconsolidation centers to reduce the social cost of last‐mile deliveries of cargo: A heuristic approach. Networks, 79(3), 292-313. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.22076
  5. Bayliss, C., Bektaş, T., Tjon-Soei-Len, V., and Rohner, R. (2023). Designing a multi-modal and variable-echelon delivery system for last-mile logistics. European Journal of Operational Research, 307(2), 645-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.08.041
  6. Bertolini, M., De Matteis, G., and Nava, A. (2024). Sustainable Last-Mile Logistics in Economics Studies: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 16(3), 1205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031205
  7. Boston Consulting Group (2023). Winning Formulas for E-Commerce Growth. Retrieved from: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/winning-formulas-for-e-commerce-growth (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  8. Çakmak, E., Önden, İ., Acar, A. Z., and Eldemir, F. (2021). Analyzing the location of city logistics centers in Istanbul by integrating Geographic Information Systems with Binary Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9(1), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.07.004
  9. Capgemini Research Institute (2019). The Last-Mile Delivery Challenge. Retrieved from: https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Report-Digital-%E2%80%93-Last-Mile-Delivery- Challenge1.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  10. Çetinkaya, C., Özceylan, E., Erbaş, M., and Kabak, M. (2016). GIS-based fuzzy MCDA approach for siting refugee camp: A case study for southeastern Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18, 218- 231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.004
  11. Ersoy, P.,and Çetiner, B. (2022). Performance Measurement in Cargo Distribution Center A Case Study. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 6(1), 1056-1064. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jtom/issue/70951/1012119 (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  12. Haktanır, E., and Kahraman, C. (2024). Integrated AHP and TOPSIS methodology using intuitionistic Z-numbers: An application on hydrogen storage technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 239, 122382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122382
  13. He, Y., Zhou, F., Qi, M., and Wang, X. (2020). Joint distribution: service paradigm, key technologies and its application in the context of Chinese express industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 23(3), 211-227.https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2019.1667314
  14. Hwang, C. L., Yoon, K., Hwang, C. L., and Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey, 58-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
  15. International Energy Agency (2021). Global CO2 Emissions from Transport by Sub-Sector in the Net Zero Scenario 2000–2030, 270; IEA: Paris, France, 2021; Retrieved from: https://www.iea.org/data-andstatistics/ charts/global-co2-emissions-from-transport-by-sub-sector-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2000-2030 (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  16. İzmir Governorship (2024). Türkiye'nin 3. Büyüğü, Retrieved from: http://www.izmir.gov.tr/ilcelerimiz (accessed on 05 December 2024).
  17. İzmir Metropolitan Municipality (2020a). İzmir Sustainable Urban Logistics Plan (LOPİ 2030). Retrieved from: https://www.izmirlojistikplan.com/lopi-2030 (accessed on 05 December 2024) İzmir Metropolitan Municipality (2020b). Nazım İmar Planı Duyuruları. Retrieved from: https://www.izmir.bel.tr/tr/NazimImarPlanlari/131 (accessed on 05 December 2024)
  18. Katsela, K., Güneş, Ş., Fried, T., Goodchild, A., and Browne, M. (2022). Defining urban freight microhubs: A case study analysis. Sustainability, 14(1), 532. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010532
  19. Kaya, Ö., Tortum, A., Alemdar, K. D., and Çodur, M. Y. (2020). Site selection for EVCS in Istanbul by GIS and multi-criteria decision-making. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 80, 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102271
  20. Kedia, A., Kusumastuti, D., and Nicholson, A. (2020). Locating collection and delivery points for goods’ last-mile travel: A case study in New Zealand. Transportation Research Procedia, 46, 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.03.167
  21. Kumar, A., and Anbanandam, R. (2019). Location selection of multimodal freight terminal under STEEP sustainability. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 33, 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100434
  22. Muerza, V., Larrodé, E., Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., and Jiménez, A. (2018). Modelling the problem of parcel distribution in urban environments and analysis of the determining factors. Transportation research procedia, 33, 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.112
  23. Novotná, M., Švadlenka, L., Jovčić, S., and Simić, V. (2022). Micro-hub location selection for sustainable lastmile delivery. Plos one, 17(7), e0270926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270926
  24. Nyimbili, P. H., Erden, T., and Karaman, H. (2018). Integration of GIS, AHP and TOPSIS for earthquake hazard analysis. Natural hazards, 92, 1523-1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3262-7
  25. Özbekler, T. M., and Akgül, A. K. (2020). An ex-ante assessment of city distribution alternatives based on multi actor multi criteria framework. Business and Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(5), 4241-4272. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i5.1650
  26. Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Korkmaz, I. B. H., and Cetinkaya, C. (2019). A GIS-based DANP-VIKOR approach to evaluate RandD performance of Turkish cities. Kybernetes, 48(10), 2266-2306.https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09- 2018-0456
  27. Ozturk, D., and Batuk, F. (2011). Implementation of GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis with VB in ArcGIS. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 10(06), 1023-1042. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622011004695
  28. Pun, K. F., and Hui, I. K. (2001). An analytical hierarchy process assessment of the ISO 14001 environmental management system. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12(5), 333-345. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005711
  29. Ramya, S., and Devadas, V. (2019). Integration of GIS, AHP and TOPSIS in evaluating suitable locations for industrial development: A case of Tehri Garhwal district, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of cleaner production, 238, 117872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117872
  30. Rao, C., Goh, M., Zhao, Y., and Zheng, J. (2015). Location selection of city logistics centers under sustainability. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 36, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.008
  31. Rosenberg, L. N., Balouka, N., Herer, Y. T., Dani, E., Gasparin, P., Dobers, K.,. and van Uden, S. (2021). Introducing the shared micro-depot network for last-mile logistics. Sustainability, 13(4), 2067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042067
  32. Rudolph, C., Nsamzinshuti, A., Bonsu, S., Ndiaye, A. B., and Rigo, N. (2022). Localization of Relevant Urban Micro-Consolidation Centers for Last-Mile Cargo Bike Delivery Based on Real Demand Data and City Characteristics. Transportation Research Record, 2676(1), 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211036351
  33. Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 9(3- 5), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
  34. Saaty, T. L., and Özdemir, M. S. (2014). How many judges should there be in a group?. Annals of Data Science, 1, 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-014-0026-4
  35. Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, USA, 1980. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com.tr/books/about/The_Analytic_Hierarchy_Process.html?id=Xxi7AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc =y (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  36. Saaty, T.L. (1988) What Is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? In: Mitra, G., et al., Eds., Mathematical Models for Decision Support, Springer, Berlin, 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83555-1_5
  37. Sawik, B. (2024). Optimizing Last-Mile Delivery: A Multi-Criteria Approach with Automated Smart Lockers, Capillary Distribution and Crowdshipping. Logistics, 8(2), 52.https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031205
  38. TÜİK (2024). İzmir İli Nüfusu. Retrieved from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=nufus-vedemografi- 109anddil=1 (accessed on 05 December 2024).
  39. Urban Freight Lab (2020). Common MicroHub Research Project: Research Scan. Retrieved from: https://www.urbanfreightlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCTL-Microhub-Research-Scan.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  40. Wang, Y., Li, Y., and Lu, C. (2023). Evaluating the effects of logistics center location: An analytical framework for sustainable urban logistics. Sustainability, 15(4), 3091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043091
  41. Więckowski, J., and Sałabun, W. (2023). Sensitivity analysis approaches in multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review. Applied Soft Computing, 148, 110915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110915
  42. World Economic Forum (2020). The Future of the Last-Mile Ecosystem. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-the-last-mile-ecosystem/ (accessed on 05 November 2024).
  43. Yavuz, N., and Baki, B. (2019). Patent değerlerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile sıralanması: Otomotiv sektöründe bir uygulama. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(17), 27-52.
  44. Zolekar, R.B. and Bhagat, V.S. (2015). Multi-criteria land suitability analysis for agriculture in hilly zone: remote sensing and GIS approach. Comput. Electron. Agric. 118, 300e321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.09.016.
  45. Rosenberg, L. N., Balouka, N., Herer, Y. T., Dani, E., Gasparin, P., Dobers, K.,. and van Uden, S. (2021). Introducing the shared micro-depot network for last-mile logistics. Sustainability, 13(4), 2067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042067