ArticlePloS one2022
Micro-hub location selection for sustainable last-mile delivery.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sustainable Last-Mile Delivery (LMD) is one of the key phases in city logistics. Micro-hubs in cities are new emerging solutions for an easier and viable last-mile delivery process. The important question in smart and modern cities is the determination of the best micro-hub location for the LMD. This paper solves the micro-hub location selection for sustainable LMD using the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. The main reason for solving the micro-hub location selection is to make the last-mile delivery process in Pardubice as easier and effortless as possible. The Best-Worst Method (BWM), Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method, and Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method are coupled to solve the micro-hub location selection for sustainable LMD. First, five criteria and alternatives are identified and discussed with the experts. Second, the hybrid criteria importance is determined by combining the BWM and CRITIC methods. Third, the obtained hybrid weights are integrated within the WASPAS method to rank the micro-hub locations. The findings of the Hybrid BWM-CRITIC-WASPAS model show the Alternative 2 ("Hůrka") as the best possible location for Pardubice in the context of the LMD. In addition, a comparative analysis with some of the existing MCDM approaches is conducted for the same problem and its results show a high level of matching with the applied hybrid BWM-CRITIC-WASPAS method, which means that Alternative 2 ("Hůrka") is strongly recommended as a micro-hub location for sustainable LMD in Pardubice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.