Article

Innovative Delivery Methods in the Last-Mile: Unveiling

Consumer Preference
Halil Karlı 1, * and Mehmet Tanyaş 2

1 International Trade and Logistics Department, Bartın University, 74100 Bartın, Türkiye
2 International Trade and Logistics Department, Maltepe University, 34858 Istanbul, Türkiye;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Background: Consumer preferences are one of the most dominant factors shaping the
implementation of last-mile delivery innovations. This study investigates how innovative delivery
methods affect consumers’ last-mile delivery preferences and focuses on understanding consumer
expectations for integrating these methods. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was implemented.
Data from 480 participants in Istanbul were analyzed by multinomial logistic regression using the
Apollo package in R Studio. Results: For the selection of delivery to the address, the delivery price,
delivery term, and the delivery time window are significant attributes. However, the delivery method
and information and tracking attributes do not emerge as decisive attributes in this choice. For
the selection of delivery points, the delivery price, delivery term, distance, pick-up accessibility,
information and tracking, and the delivery method have been identified as key influencing attributes.
Conclusions: The study suggests actionable recommendations aimed at improving negative percep-
tions of delivery points, advocating for harmonized regulatory frameworks, strategically integrating
technology, and developing delivery schedules to enhance overall service quality. This study fills a
gap in the literature by examining different last-mile delivery attributes and locations. It also provides
valuable insights in understanding consumer expectations and innovative delivery methods.

Keywords: last-mile delivery; consumer preferences; drone; autonomous robot; smart parcel lockers

1. Introduction
Citation: Karlı, H.; Tanyaş, M.
The last-mile delivery process is crucial in establishing direct physical interaction
Innovative Delivery Methods in the
between consumers and e-commerce companies. This pivotal process facilitates this in-
Last-Mile: Unveiling Consumer
teraction and significantly influences overall e-commerce satisfaction. According to [1],
Preference. Future Transp. 2024, 4,
152–173. https://doi.org/10.3390/
approximately 75% of consumers are willing to spend more with e-commerce companies
futuretransp4010009
if satisfied with the last-mile delivery service. Similarly, a report [2] from the United
Kingdom revealed that 50% of consumers express reluctance to make future purchases
Received: 9 December 2023 from e-commerce companies following dissatisfaction with the last-mile delivery experi-
Revised: 9 January 2024
ence. Consequently, last-mile delivery services have become a focal point for e-commerce
Accepted: 30 January 2024
companies striving to increase market share and enhance the consumer experience.
Published: 8 February 2024
However, the increasing demands placed on traditional last-mile delivery method,
coupled with the limitations of existing infrastructure, present formidable challenges. These
challenges include, e.g., congestion, environmental impact, and operational costs [3–6].
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
In light of these challenges, there is a growing need to explore alternative strategies to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. enhance the efficiency and sustainability of last-mile delivery processes. Recognizing these
This article is an open access article challenges, the authors of [7] argue that a new approach to last-mile delivery is essential,
distributed under the terms and giving rise to innovative methods designed to mitigate the negative impacts of traditional
conditions of the Creative Commons practices. In the traditional delivery method, shipments are delivered to recipients by
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// delivery workers using vehicles that follow predetermined routes from delivery centers.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Innovative last-mile delivery methods encompass a variety of strategies, technologies, or
4.0/). combinations, all aimed at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of last-mile delivery.

Future Transp. 2024, 4, 152–173. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4010009 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/futuretransp

Future Transp. 2024, 4 153

In some innovative delivery methods, such as smart parcel lockers and service points, the
primary focus is the last-mile delivery location. Conversely, the focus is on the vehicles
in bicycle, drone, and autonomous robot deliveries. As documented in [8], extensive
research underscores the benefits of these innovative delivery methods, demonstrating their
effectiveness in reducing emissions, alleviating congestion, lowering costs, and providing a
more consumer-friendly form of delivery.
Despite all these advantages that innovative delivery methods offer or promise to
offer, one of the main factors to consider is consumers. In today’s world of ever-increasing
consumer demands, last-mile delivery research on consumer preferences and behavior
is more critical than ever [9]. The authors of [10] argue that without solid evidence, it
may be difficult for last-mile delivery firms to take advantage of drone delivery and
adapt their business models to a more competitive environment. This assertion applies
to various other innovative delivery methods. Although there is research on the benefits
of these delivery methods, their limited use in practice and how consumers will react
to the innovative delivery methods implemented are not clearly known. Therefore, it is
necessary to consider consumers’ expectations in the creation phase of innovative delivery
methods. Researchers emphasize the need for studies to assess consumer behavior for
different innovative delivery methods [11–16].
There is a growing body of literature examining consumer behavior toward innovative
delivery methods from a psychological perspective [11,12,15–17]. However, one stream
of studies examining consumer behavior is the discrete choice experiment studies that
quantitatively examine their sensitivities and trade-offs regarding innovative delivery
methods with econometric models outside of psychological studies. When the discrete
choice experiment literature is evaluated, the studies include the following: studies that
examine a single delivery method/location [18–28], different delivery methods [3,10,29,30],
and consumer preferences for different delivery locations [13,14,31,32].
In last-mile delivery, firms typically decide on the delivery method, while consumers
determine the delivery address. Therefore, investigating consumer expectations regarding
the place of delivery is crucial [7]. In the studies on delivery locations, the authors of [32]
focused only on post offices, while the authors of [14] presented the two highly correlated
delivery methods of service points and smart parcel lockers as separate alternatives. The
authors of [31,33,34] did not focus on innovative delivery methods used in delivery to
the address, although delivery points, service points, and smart parcel lockers were not
presented as separate methods. Despite the introduction of innovative delivery methods
in various markets, their impact on the choice of last-mile delivery and their potential to
replace traditional delivery method have been studied to a limited extent and are not yet
fully understood. For innovative delivery methods to work effectively, they need to reach a
certain level of consumer preference. As in the case of Sainsbury’s, Somerfield, Asda, eBay,
Google, and Webvan, last-mile delivery methods without a sustainable economic structure
will struggle to balance pricing, consumer expectations, and service levels, jeopardizing
sustainability [35]. These cases highlight the importance of the delivery context in which
innovative delivery methods are offered. Incorporating innovative delivery methods into
last-mile delivery without a comprehensive understanding of consumer expectations poses
a significant challenge for companies aiming to implement these innovative methods
successfully. Therefore, in order to make innovative delivery methods as practical as
possible, understanding consumers’ preferences for last-mile delivery is essential. From a
consumer perspective, the acceptance and effectiveness of these methods are not yet well
understood, while there is a growing literature indicating their operational advantages.
From an empirical perspective, there is a significant gap in understanding consumers’
reactions to innovative last-mile delivery methods and their impact on their preferences.
Moreover, the attributes used in the studies may vary from region to region as a result of
local conditions [13,15]. Consequently, it warrants investigation within the framework of a
developing country where e-commerce is experiencing rapid growth.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 154

This study aims to investigate how innovative delivery methods influence consumer
preferences in last-mile delivery, and to offer insights into seamlessly integrating these
methods into sustainable delivery structures. Through discrete choice experiments, this
research quantitatively assesses consumers’ sensitivities to innovative delivery methods
and the trade-offs they have to make. Properly establishing the attributes and levels of
the last-mile delivery when presenting innovative delivery methods to consumers can
significantly increase the likelihood of their adoption. Having extensive insights into
consumer preferences helps e-commerce and last-mile delivery companies to implement
these methods more effectively. For this aim, two research questions were formulated:
Firstly, how do innovative last-mile delivery methods impact consumer preferences for
last-mile delivery? Secondly, which attributes and levels of last-mile delivery need to be
combined to shift consumer preferences from delivery to the addresses to delivery points?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Discrete Choice Experiment
Numerous attributes influence decision-makers’ selection of products or services. The
total utility an individual derives from a good or service is determined by these attributes,
which are shaped by varying levels of attributes [34]. The discrete choice experiment is a
method employed to unveil the general preferences of decision-makers. This inference is
achieved by transforming data regarding the choices made by a group of decision-makers
among multiple alternatives with differing attributes into an indirect utility function [35].
This method facilitates the elicitation of preferences for alternatives that are currently
unavailable while acknowledging the potential for cognitive dissonance between the
decision-maker’s expressed preferences and their actual behavior [36]. This study uses a
discrete choice experiment to elucidate consumers’ preferences for the last-mile delivery.
Companies typically decide on the delivery method for last-mile delivery, while
consumers determine the delivery address. Consequently, it is imperative to explore
consumer expectations concerning the delivery location [7]. Given the variations in delivery
locations, we employed the term “labeled alternative”. This approach aims to enhance the
precision and reliability of research results by presenting participants with distinct and
tailored alternatives. Two options were identified: delivery to the address, currently the
most prevalent method, and delivery points, which have rapidly evolved in recent years
as a significant alternative to delivery to specific addresses. Delivery points encompass
diverse delivery methods, with service points and smart parcel lockers being the most
widely utilized [14]. The authors of [14] found a high correlation between these two
delivery methods. Therefore, the delivery points are presented as a single alternative in the
broader scope.
Drawing from interviews with drone operators and insights from Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International, the authors of [10] concluded that the technical feasibility of de-
livering packages weighing up to 5 kg by drone has been extensively tested worldwide.
Additionally, the authors of [3] established that drones can serve as an effective last-mile
delivery solution for small and lightweight packages. Conversely, smart parcel lockers
have inherent package size and weight constraints due to locker dimensions. Furthermore,
as highlighted in [27,36], a substantial portion of e-commerce products are characterized
by small volume and weight. In light of these limitations, a product was chosen for each
product group, tailored for packages ranging from 1 to 3 volumetric weight, a range com-
mon in e-commerce transactions and suitable for universal use regardless of gender. The
taxonomy proposed in [37], which categorizes products as convenience, shopping, and
specialty products, was employed for product classification. The researchers carried out
the product selection for each category based on the products that women and men use
in common. The chosen products included deodorant, as a representative of convenience
products, shoes for shopping products, and cell phones for specialty products.
The study concentrates on discerning the attributes and levels deemed significant by
consumers in their selection of a delivery alternative. This phase of the research involves
W Future Transp. 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4
W Future Transp. 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4
product selection for each category based theonproductthe productsselection thatfor women
each category
and menbased use on the products that women and men use
product selection for each category
ommon. The chosen products included deodorant, based the on product
in common. the products
selection
asThe that
a representativefor
women
each
chosen products category
and men
of convenience
included based
use on the products
deodorant, that women
as a representative ofand men use
convenience
product
ommon.
ducts, shoes selection
The
Future chosen
for for each
products
shopping
Transp. category included
2024, 4 products, and cell based the on
deodorant,
in product
the
common.
products, products
phonesshoesas selection
The
a that for
representative
chosen
for specialty
for shoppingwomen
each products, and cell phones for specialty products. men155use
products
of
products.category
and men
convenience
included based
use on
deodorant, the products
as a that women
representative ofand
convenience
product
ommon.
ducts, selection
The chosen
shoesconcentratesfor each
products
for shoppingon category
products, includedbased
andthe the on
deodorant,
in
cell product
the
common.
products,phones products
as selection
shoes
forThe
a that for
representative
chosen women
each
products
ofcategory
and menand
convenience
included based
use onphones
deodorant, the products
asfor that women
a representative and men use
ofsignificant
convenience
The study discerning attributes
The study andspecialty
for shopping
concentrates
levels products.
deemed onproducts,
significant
discerning by cell
the attributes and specialty products.
levels deemed by
ommon.
ducts, The
shoes
The study chosen
for products
shopping
concentrates products, includedand deodorant,
in
cell common.
products,phones as
shoes
forThe
a representative
chosen
specialty
for shoppingproducts
of
products. convenience
included
products, and deodorant,
cell phones asfora representative
specialty of
products. convenience
sumers in their selection on of adiscerning the
delivery alternative. attributes
consumers The study
Thisand
in concentrates
theirlevels
phase ofdeemed
selection on
of significant
the researchadiscerning
delivery
involves by
the attributes
alternative. Thisand levels
phase ofdeemed significant
the research by
involves
ducts, shoes
The study for selection
shoppingon
concentrates ofproducts,
adiscerning and cell
products,phones shoes
for specialty
for shoppingproducts.
products, and cell phones for specialty products.
sumers in their
identification of attributes and delivery the identification of attributes and levels likely to hold importance for consumers. An initialby
the
levels likely the attributes
alternative.
consumers
to The study
This
identification
hold and
in
importanceconcentrates
theirlevels
phase of deemed
selection
of the
attributes
for on significant
discerning
research
of a
consumers.
and delivery
involves
levelsAn by
the attributes
alternative.
likely
ini- to hold Thisand levels
phase
importance ofdeemed
the
for significant
research
consumers. involves
An ini-
The
sumers study
identification concentrates
in review
theirofselection
attributes on
ofanddiscerning
a deliverylevels the attributes
alternative.
likely consumers
the The study
Thisand
in concentrates
theirlevels
phase deemed
selection
of on significant
adiscerning
theconsumers.
research
ofto delivery
involves by
the attributes
alternative. holdThis and levels
phase ofdeemed significant
theconsumers.
research by
involves
literature was conducted to pinpoint tialtoidentification
literature hold
literature
these importance
wasofconducted
attributes,
review review attributes
for
encompassing
was and
conducted levelsAn
previous
to
pinpoint likely
ini-
pinpoint
these to these importance
attributes,
attributes, encompassing for
encompassing
previous An ini-
previous
stud-
sumers in
identification their selection
of attributes of a delivery
and levels alternative.
likely consumers This
in their
phase selection
of the research
of a delivery
involves alternative. This phase of the research involves
literature
dies review
that employed was conducted
preference methods iesthe
to pinpoint tial
studies
for toidentification
that hold
literature
these
last-mile
that
employedimportance
attributes,
review
employed of attributes
delivery.
preference for consumers.
encompassing
wasArticles,
preferenceand
conducted
methods levels
books, toAn
previous
methods
for likely
ini- fortodelivery.
pinpoint
book
last-mile hold attributes,
these
last-mileimportance
delivery.
Articles, for consumers.
encompassing
Articles,
books, bookbooks, Anbook
ini-
previous
chapters,
identification
literature
dies reviewof attributes
was and
conducted levels
to likely
pinpoint the
tial toidentification
hold
literature
these importance
attributes,
review of attributes
for consumers.
encompassing
was and
conducted levelsAn
previous
to likely
ini-
pinpoint to hold
these importance
attributes, for consumers.
encompassing An ini-
previous
pters,that employed
theses, preference employing
and dissertations methods studies
for
thelast-mile
chapters,
theses, that
stated
and employed
theses,delivery.
preference
dissertations Articles,
preference
and dissertations
methods
employing books,
were methods
employing
the bookpreference
consid-
stated for
thelast-mile delivery.
statedmethods
preference were Articles,
methods
consideredbooks,
were book
consid-
within
literature
dies that review
employed was conducted
preference to pinpoint
methods tial
studies
for literature
these
last-mile
thatattributes,
review
employed
delivery. encompassing
was conducted
Articles,
preference previous
books, to
methodspinpoint
book for these
last-mileattributes,
delivery. encompassing
Articles, previous
books, book
dpters,
withintheses, and dissertations employing
this context. thischapters,
ered the stated
within
context. theses,
preference and dissertations
this context. methods were employing
consid- the stated preference methods were consid-
dies
dpters, that
within employed
theses,
this preference employing
andalldissertations
context. methods studies for
chapters,
ered the last-mile
that
stated
within employed
theses,delivery.
preference
this Articles,
preference
andidentified
context.dissertations
methods books,
were methods
employingbookfor
consid- thelast-mile
stated delivery. methods
preference Articles, were
books, book
consid-
Incorporating identified attributes and levels
Incorporating
Incorporating into the
all all
survey
identified
was not
attributes
attributes feasible. and
and levels levels into
into the the survey
survey was not was not feasible.
feasible. Con-
pters,
dsequently,theses,
within thisthe
Incorporating and dissertations
context.
all identified employing
attributes chapters,
ered
and the stated
within
levels theses,
preference
Incorporatingthisthe
into and
context.
the alldissertations
methods
survey wereemploying
consid- the stated preference methods were consid-
chosen attributes formed sequently,
the
Consequently,
core the chosen
components ofidentified
attributes
chosen was
formed
theattributesnot
attributes
questionnaire feasible.
the core
formed in-and
the levels
components
core intoof the questionnaire
components survey
of the was not feasible.
intended
questionnaire in-
dsequently,
within thisthe
Incorporating context.
all
chosenidentified
attributesattributes
formed ered
and
the within
levels
Incorporating
Consequently,
fortended core
participant
this
into
components thecontext.
the all
survey
chosen
presentation. of identified
the was not
attributesattributes
questionnaire
Determining feasible.
formed in-and
the
which attributes levels
core into
components the survey
of the was not feasible.
questionnaire in-
ded for participant presentation. Determining which
for participant
attributes and
presentation.
levels to include,
Determining which and levelsand
attributes to include,
levels to aligned
include,
ded Incorporating
sequently, the all
chosenidentified
attributesattributes
formed and
the levels
Incorporating
Consequently,
core into
components the
the all
survey
chosen
of identified
the was not
attributesattributes
questionnaire feasible.
formed in-and
the levels
core into
components the survey
of the was not feasible.
questionnaire in-
ned for participant
with the study’s presentation. Determining
aim, was author-defined, withtended
aligned thewhichfor
study’s
andwith participant
attributes
aim,
subsequently
the was
study’s and
presentation.
levels toauthor-defined,
author-defined,
refined
aim, was by include,
Determining
incorpo- which
and subsequently attributes
and subsequently refined andby levels to incorpo-
include,
incorporating
refined by
dedsequently,
for
nedfeedback the
participant
with thefrom chosen
study’s attributes
presentation. formed
Determining the
Consequently,
tended corewhichcomponents
for the
participant
attributes chosen
of the
and attributes
questionnaire
presentation.
levels to formed
include,in-
Determiningthe core components
which attributes of the
and questionnaire
levels to Thein-
include,
ng fiveaim, was author-defined,
mid-level managers aligned
feedback
ratingemployedandwith
from
feedbacksubsequently
bythe
five study’s
mid-level
last-mile
from refined
aim, was
managers
fivedelivery
mid-level by author-defined,
incorpo-
employed
companies.
managers byand
employed subsequently
last-mile refined
deliverydelivery
by last-mile by
companies. incorpo-
companies.
ded
ned
ng for participant
with the
feedback study’s
from presentation.
aim,
fivecorresponding
mid-level Determining
was author-defined,
managers tended
aligned
rating
attributes which
employed for
andwith
feedback
and participant
attributes
subsequently
bythe
their study’s
last-mile
from and
presentation.
levels
refined
aim, was
fivecorresponding
delivery
corresponding mid-level to
by include,
Determining
author-defined,
incorpo-
companies.
managers
levels are which
employed
delineated and attributes
in subsequently
by last-mile
Table and levels
refined by
delivery to include,
incorpo-
companies.
attributes and their levels The are attributes
delineated andin Table
their 1. levels are delineated in1.Table 1.
ned
ng with the
feedback
attributes andstudy’s
from
their aim, was author-defined,
fivecorresponding
mid-level levelsaligned
managers rating
The employed
are andwith
feedback
attributes
delineated subsequently
bythe study’s
last-mile
and from
in Table
their refined
aim, was
fivecorresponding
delivery
1.mid-level by author-defined,
incorpo-
companies.
managers
levels are employedand subsequently
delineatedby last-mile
in Table 1. refined by
delivery incorpo-
companies.
ng feedback
eattributes from
and their
1. Alternatives, five mid-level
corresponding
attributes, managers
and levels. levels rating
The
Table
Table employedfeedback
are1.attributes
delineated by
Alternatives, last-mile
and
1. Alternatives, from five
inattributes,
Table
their delivery
mid-level
corresponding
1. andand
attributes, companies.
managers employed by
levels. levels are delineated in Table 1.
levels. last-mile delivery companies.
eattributes and their
1. Alternatives, corresponding
attributes, and levels. levelsTable The are attributes
delineated and
1. Alternatives, in Table
their corresponding
1. and levels. levels are delineated in Table 1.
attributes,
Alternatives/
eeAddress
1. Alternatives, attributes, and levels.
Alternatives/
Alternatives/ Delivery toTable Delivery
Delivery
1. Alternatives, attributes, and levels.
the Address Points
to the Address Delivery Points
Delivery Points
Attributes
e 1. Alternatives,
e Address Alternatives/ attributes, and levels.
Attributes Delivery toDelivery Table 1. Alternatives, attributes, and levels.
the Address Points Delivery Points
e Address Attributes
Alternatives/ •Delivery 20 ₺ to•Delivery
•the Address
20 ₺ Points
20 •Delivery
• 20 ₺ Points
20
e Address Attributes •
Delivery 20
30 ₺ to•Delivery
•the Address
20
30
30 ₺ Points • Delivery
• 30 ₺ Points
20
30
Attributes
Delivery
Delivery price
price •• 20 ₺
30 ₺ ••• 20 40 ₺
30 ••• 20 40 ₺
30
Delivery price 40 40 ₺ 40 ₺
•• 20
30 ₺₺ •• 20 50 ₺ • • 50 ₺
20
Delivery price 40
50 • 30
40
50 ₺ • 30
50 ₺
40
•• 40 ₺₺ •• ••
50 ₺₺ 50 ₺₺
30
50 30
40 30
40
Delivery price
workers •• 50 ₺ ••• workers
Delivery
40 Delivery
40
50 ₺ workers • 40
50 ₺ points
Service
Drone points •• ServiceService points
workers Delivery Delivery method ••
method
Drone
50 ₺ ••• workers
Delivery 50 ₺
Service points • •• 50 ₺ parcel
Smart
Service points lockers
Smart parcel lockers Smart parcel lockers
ous robot Delivery method •
workers Delivery
Drone
Autonomous •
• workers
Autonomous
robot
Service
Smart points
parcel
robot
lockers • Service
Smart points
parcel lockers
ous robot Delivery method ••
workers Delivery
Drone
Autonomous workers
•• Service
Smartrobot points
parcel lockers •• Service points
hous robot Delivery method • Within• 2 h Within
Drone
Autonomous Within
robot 2 2h
h • Within 2 h lockers
Smart
Within parcel
2 h
hous • Within • ••2 h Within
Smart
Within parcel
242 h lockers • •• WithinSmart
Within parcel
2 hh lockers
24
h robot
Delivery term
• Autonomous 24 h robot24 h 24
h5h and 48 h Delivery term •• Within
Between •••22425 Within
and 482h25
hhBetween
Between24 hhand
25 and4848h h ••• BetweenWithin
Between24 225hhand
25 and4848h h
h5h •
• dateWithin • •2 h Between24 23hand 7 days, but the delivery • • Between24 23hand 7 days, but the delivery
3 and 48 h Delivery
7 days, but thetermdelivery Betweenof• 25 24 hWithin
3 Between
and 48 h25
7 days, h
3 andand 748
but h delivery
days,
the date of•
but the delivery Within
Between 25 h
3 andand 748 h but the delivery
days,
3 5h and 48 h Delivery
7 days, but thetermdelivery •
• dateWithin
Between • 24
of• 3 date of
25h date of choice
Within
Between
and 48 24
h 25h and
3 andbut
7 choice
days, 48
7 days,h date of•
but the delivery
the delivery • date of choice
Within
Between 2425 h
3 and 748
and h but the delivery
days,
choice date of choice
3 5 and 48 h Delivery term
7 days, but the delivery date • Between
choice • 25
of 3 date of Between
and 48 h 25 and
3 andbut
7 choice
days, 48
7 days,h but the delivery
the delivery date of • Between 25
date of choice and 48
3 and 7 days, h but the delivery
• Day delivery during weekdays
3ery andduring weekdays
7 days, but the (09:00–18:00)
delivery • dateDay
Between
choice of •
delivery 3 date during
Between
and 7 3weekdays
days,
of choice and 7
but (09:00–18:00)
days,
the but the
delivery delivery
date of • Between
date of choice3 and 7 days, but the delivery
(09:00–18:00)
ery duringbetween
choose weekdays day(09:00–18:00)
delivery • during
Day
Option delivery
choice • date to during
choose of to weekdays
between
choice day(09:00–18:00)
delivery during date of choice
Option choose between day delivery
ery duringbetween
choose
(09:00–18:00) weekdays day
or evening (09:00–18:00)
delivery
delivery • during
Day
Option
weekdaysdelivery during
to (09:00–18:00)
choose weekdays
between day
or evening (09:00–18:00)
delivery
delivery during
during weekdays (09:00–18:00) or evening
ery duringbetween
choose
(09:00–18:00) weekdays day
or evening (09:00–18:00)
delivery
delivery • during
Day
Option
weekdaysdelivery duringbetween
to (09:00–18:00)
choose weekdays day
orweekdays
evening (09:00–18:00)
delivery
delivery during
(18:00–22:00) (18:00–22:00)
delivery during (18:00–22:00)
choose
(09:00–18:00)between
or day
evening delivery
delivery • Option
during
weekdays to choose
(09:00–18:00) between or day
evening delivery
delivery
(18:00–22:00)
choose from day delivery during • week- •to choose
Option (18:00–22:00)
Option from to choose dayfrom duringduring
day delivery
delivery week-
(09:00–18:00)
(18:00–22:00)
choose from or evening delivery
day delivery during • during
weekdays
Option
week-(09:00–18:00), (09:00–18:00)
(18:00–22:00)
during
to choose from weekdays or evening delivery
(09:00–18:00),
day delivery during eveningduring
week-
0–18:00), evening days evening
(18:00–22:00)
choose Delivery
fromDelivery time
day deliverywindow
time
delivery during • weekdays
Option
week- (18:00–22:00)
deliveryfrom
to choose during day weekdays
delivery(18:00–22:00),
during week-
0–18:00),
0–22:00), evening
or day during days
week- (09:00–18:00),
(18:00–22:00), evening
or day delivery during week-
choose from
0–18:00), Delivery
window
evening time during
day delivery
delivery • Option
week-
days or day delivery
to choose
(09:00–18:00), from
evening day during weekends
delivery during week-
0–22:00), or day
0–18:00) Delivery time during week- (18:00–22:00),
ends (09:00–18:00) or day delivery during week-
0–18:00), window
evening delivery during
during days week-(09:00–18:00) (09:00–18:00)
(09:00–18:00), evening delivery during
during week-
0–22:00),
0–18:00)
choose from or day delivery
day delivery
time during • ends
Option (18:00–22:00),
week- •to choose or day delivery
Delivery
window Option from to choose dayfrom delivery during week-
day delivery
0–22:00),
0–18:00)
choose from or day
day delivery
delivery during
during • days
week-(09:00–18:00)
ends
Option
week- (18:00–22:00),
to choose or day delivery
delivery during week-
0–18:00), evening
window days during from
(09:00–18:00), evening
weekdays day (09:00–18:00), during
evening week-
0–18:00)
choose
0–18:00), from
0–22:00), evening day delivery during
day delivery during weekends • ends
Option
week- (09:00–18:00)
to
days (09:00–18:00), choose from
evening
delivery during
(18:00–22:00), day
day delivery delivery
weekdays during
(18:00–22:00),
during week-
weekends
choose from
0–18:00),
0–22:00), day day
evening delivery
delivery during
during •weekends
Option
week-(09:00–18:00),
days to choose
dayor from
evening
delivery day
dayduring delivery
weekends during week-
00), or evening delivery during week-(18:00–22:00),
(09:00–18:00), evening delivery
delivery during
duringweekends
week-
0–18:00),
0–22:00),
00), or evening
day
evening delivery
delivery
delivery during
during
during days
week-
weekends (09:00–18:00),
(09:00–18:00),
(18:00–22:00),
(09:00–18:00),
week- or evening
day
evening or delivery
evening
delivery
delivery during
delivery
during
during week-
during
weekends
week-
0–22:00) ends (18:00–22:00)
0–22:00),
00), day delivery
or evening deliveryduring
during weekends
days
(09:00–18:00),
week-(18:00–22:00) weekends
(18:00–22:00), day
or evening (18:00–22:00)
delivery
delivery during
duringweekends
week-
0–22:00) ends
00),
0–22:00)or evening delivery during (09:00–18:00), •
week-(18:00–22:00)
ends Available
or evening delivery during week- •
for collection Available for collection during week-
0–22:00) Pick-up •
ends (18:00–22:00) Available
days (09:00–22:00) for collection during week- •• Available Available
days forfor
(09:00–22:00)collection
collectionduring
during week-
•• Available for collection
Available for collection during week- •
days (09:00–22:00) during week- • weekdays
Available (09:00–22:00)
Available for collection during
days for
(09:00–22:00) collection during week-
week-
Pick-up
accessibility •• Available for collection during week- • • Available
Available forforcollection
collectionduring
during week-
Pick-up days
Available
days (09:00–22:00)
for collection
(09:00–22:00) and during week- •
Saturdays days
days (09:00–22:00)
Available for collection
(09:00–22:00) andduring week-
Saturdays
accessibility weekdays (09:00–22:00) and Saturdays
Pick-up
Pick-up
accessibility • days
Available
days (09:00–22:00)
(09:00–22:00) for collection
(09:00–22:00) and during week- •
Saturdays days
days (09:00–22:00)
Available for collection
(09:00–22:00)
(09:00–22:00) andduring week-
Saturdays
accessibility (09:00–22:00)
• Available
days
(09:00–22:00) for collection during
(09:00–22:00) and Saturdays • days week- • Available for collection
(09:00–22:00)
(09:00–22:00) during
and days week-
Saturdays
accessibility Available for collection seven a
days
(09:00–22:00) (09:00–22:00) and Saturdays days (09:00–22:00)
(09:00–22:00)
week (09:00–22:00) and Saturdays
(09:00–22:00) • (09:00–22:00)
Available for collection 24/7
Future Transp. 2024, 4 156

Table 1. Cont.

Alternatives/
Delivery to the Address Delivery Points
Attributes

• Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the • Notifications by SMS or e-mail when

package is received for shipping and the the package is received for shipment
package is shipped to the consumer and placed at the delivery points
Information and traceability • Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the • Notifications by SMS or e-mail when
package is received for shipping and the the package is received for shipment
package is shipped to the consumer and and placed at the delivery points and
live location tracking live location tracking

• 500 m from your home/workplace

• 1000 m from your home/workplace
Distance
• 1500 m from your home/workplace
• 2000 m from your home/workplace

2.2. Survey and Sample

The discrete choice experiment involved the creation of a questionnaire administered
to participants. The experimental design, generated through the Ngene program, employs
a D-efficient design. A pilot study was conducted to enhance precision, following the
approach in [10], utilizing 12 sets of alternatives (scenarios) comprising 5 blocks for each of
the 3 product groups. A total of 75 participants contributed to collecting 375 data points in
the pilot study. Analysis using a multinomial logistic regression model yielded β values.
Subsequently, these β values were employed to renew the D-efficient design to derive the
final design. For practical considerations, the ultimate design comprised 2 blocks, each
containing 12 sets of alternatives (scenarios) created separately for the 3 product groups
(e.g., Figure 1).
Subsequently, the scenarios were integrated with sociodemographic, e-commerce, and
last-mile delivery questions, shaping the questionnaire’s basis. Google Forms, an online
survey platform, facilitated the dissemination of these questionnaires. The study’s target
population comprises individuals aged 18 and above residing in Istanbul and engaging in
online product purchases within the last year. Istanbul was chosen as the focal point due
to its substantial population, a significant portion of Türkiye’s inhabitants being actively
involved in e-commerce, and its early adoption of innovative delivery solutions. The study
enrolled 480 participants in Istanbul (Türkiye), employing convenience sampling as the pre-
ferred technique. Following the sample calculation method proposed in [37], a minimum
of 100 respondents, with a minimum of 30 respondents per subgroup, was stipulated to
conduct the subsequent analysis for each category. Furthermore, convenience sampling’s
selective nature compromises the findings’ generalizability and questions the sample’s rep-
resentativeness [38]. The selection of convenience sampling was driven by its expediency,
accessibility, ease of implementation, and cost-effectiveness. This research marks the initial
stride in evaluating innovative delivery methods from a consumer perspective, validating
the appropriateness of convenience sampling for this exploratory phase.
Two distinct survey scenarios were formulated, creating six survey versions across
three diverse products, and subsequently distributed through various social media plat-
forms. The average time to complete the survey was approximately five minutes, and
participants did not require specialized technical skills. Before commencement, participants
received a briefing note on innovative delivery methods. The survey was accessible and
could be completed on either computers or smartphones. Thus, 480 individuals success-
fully participated, with an equal distribution among the 6 survey versions. The surveys
distributed via social media apps and WhatsApp version 2.23.2.71.
Future Transp. 2024, 42024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW
Future Transp. 6 157

Figure 1. Example of choice scenario.

Figure 1. Example of choice scenario.

Subsequently,
2.3. Model Estimation the scenarios were integrated with sociodemographic, e-commerce,
and last-mile delivery questions, shaping the questionnaire’s basis. Google Forms, an
Various models are available for estimating participant preferences (parameter values)
online survey platform, facilitated the dissemination of these questionnaires. The study’s
in atarget
discrete choicecomprises
population experiment, including
individuals agedbinary
18 and probit and logistic
above residing regression,
in Istanbul and en-multi-
nomial
gaging in online product purchases within the last year. Istanbul was chosen as the focal The
logistic regression, nested logistic regression, and mixed logistic regression.
authors
point ofdue[39] argued
to its that no
substantial single model
population, is inherently
a significant portionsuperior, butinhabitants
of Türkiye’s they suggest
beingconsid-
ering alternative
actively involved models if the assumption
in e-commerce, of independence
and its early among delivery
adoption of innovative alternatives is violated.
solutions.
TheTheauthors
study of [40,41]480
enrolled asserted that in
participants multinomial logisticemploying
Istanbul (Türkiye), regression (Multinomial
convenience sam-Logit)
pling as theinpreferred
is prevalent nearly halftechnique.
of the Following the sample
studies. Over calculation
the years, method proposed
the multinomial logitin(MNL)
[37], has
model a minimum of 100 respondents,
been increasingly adopted. with a minimum logit
Multinomial of 30 respondents per subgroup,
is a direct extension of binary
was stipulated to conduct the subsequent analysis for each category.
logistic regression, a point highlighted in prior works [42,43]. According to the Furthermore, con-
authors
veniencethis
of [44,45], sampling’s selective
analytical nature finds
approach compromises the findings’
applicability generalizability
in modeling and ques-
dependent variables
tions the sample’s representativeness [38]. The selection of convenience sampling was
featuring not just two but multiple categories. Empirical investigations, such as those
driven by its expediency, accessibility, ease of implementation, and cost-effectiveness.
conducted in [22,26,30,46], have showcased the utilization of multinomial logit in analyz-
This research marks the initial stride in evaluating innovative delivery methods from a
ingconsumer
dependent variables,validating
perspective, presentingthetwo alternativesofwithin
appropriateness distinctsampling
convenience researchforparadigms.
this
Although requiring
exploratory phase. less computational power and providing a simple economic evaluation,
multinomial logit models have an unrealistic error term distribution assumption, leading
to several limitations [46]. However, it appears to demonstrate robustness to deviations of
the random component distribution from the model [47].
Respondents’ preferences and other variables were quantified to analyze the survey
data. Subsequently, a multinomial logit discrete choice model was estimated using the
Apollo package in RStudio [48].
 Future Transp. 2024, 4 158

Equations (1) and (2) depict the utility functions for the two alternatives:

VDA = ASCDA + DAP ∗ β DAP + DAM2 ∗ β DAM2 + DAM3 ∗ β DAM3 + DAT1 ∗ β DAT1 + DAT2 ∗ β DAT2 + DAT3
(1)
∗ β DAT3 + DAW2 ∗ β DAW2 + DAW3 ∗ β DAW3 + DAW4 ∗ β DAW4 + DAI2 ∗ β DAI2

VDP = ASCDP + DPP ∗ β DPP + DPP2 ∗ β DPP2 + DPT1 ∗ β DPT1 + DPT2 ∗ β DPT2 + DPT3 ∗ β DPT3 + DPA2∗
(2)
β DPA2 + DPA3 ∗ β DPA3 + DPAA4 ∗ β DPA4 + DPI2 ∗ β DPI2 + DPD2 ∗ β DPD2 + DPD3 ∗ β DPD3 + DPD4 ∗ β DPD4

3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Results
4 sample based on sociodemographic variables.
Table 2 illustrates the distribution of the
EW 4
EVIEW Table 2. Sociodemographic variables of the sample.
4 4
4
uct selection for each category based on the products
Sample = 480 that women and men use
Frequency Percentage (%)
e product selection for
mon. The chosen products included deodorant, each category based on the products
Gender as a representative of convenience
that women and men use
oductthe
s,common.
shoes product
selection
forThe selection
for
chosen
shopping each for
category
eachand
products
products, category
based
included
cell Maleon based
the products
deodorant,
phones on specialty
for the asproducts
athat women
representativethat 222
products. and
women ofmen andusemen use
convenience 46%
roduct
mon.
in
roducts, selection
common.
The chosen
shoes The
for for each category
products
chosen
shopping products
included
products, based
included
and on
deodorant, cellthe products
deodorant,
as
phones a that
representative
for as
Female and levels deemed significant a women
representative
specialty of and men
convenience
products.
258 of use
convenience 54%
study concentrates on discerning the attributes by
mmon.
cts, The chosen products onincluded deodorant, as aspecialty
representative ofproducts.
convenience
ersproducts,
shoes
The
in their for
study shoes
shopping for
concentrates
selection shopping
of products,
a delivery products,
and
discerning cell
alternative. and
phones
the
Age cell for
attributes
This phones
phase and for
of specialty
levels
the products.
deemed
research significant by
involves
ucts,
he shoes
study The for shopping
concentrates
instudy concentrates
on products, andthecell phones
1945–1964 for specialty products. 18 4%
onsumers
tification of their
attributes anddiscerning
selection of aon
levels discerning
delivery
likely toattributes
theimportance
alternative.
hold attributes
and Thislevels and
fordeemed
phase levels
of thedeemed
consumers. significant
researchAn significant
by
involves
ini- by
The
mers study concentrates on discerning the 1965–1982
attributes and levels deemed 133
significant by 28%
econsumers
ature in their selection
identification
review in their
was selection
ofconductedof a delivery
attributes toofpinpoint
and alevels
delivery
alternative.
likely
these alternative.
This
holdphase
toattributes, This
importance ofphase
the research
encompassing forofconsumers.
theprevious
research
involves An involves
ini-
mers in their selection of a delivery 1983–2000This phase of the research
alternative. 193 involves 40%
ntification
al the
that identification
literature
employed ofreview
attributes of
was
preference attributes
and levels
conducted
methods and likely
tolevels to likely
pinpoint
for holdthese
last-mile importance
todelivery.
hold importance
attributes, for consumers.
Articles, for
encompassing
books, consumers.
An
book ini- An ini-
previous
>2001 136 28%
entification
rature
tial literature
udies review
that of was
attributes
review
employed conducted
wasand
preference levels
conducted likely
to pinpoint
methods to
toEducationhold
pinpoint
these
for importance
attributes,
these attributes,
last-mile for consumers.
encompassing
delivery. encompassing
Articles, An ini-
previous
books, previous
book
, theses, and dissertations employing the stated preference methods were consid-
erature
that
studies
hapters, review
employed
theses, was
that employed
and conducted
preference preference
dissertations toemploying
methods pinpoint
methods
for Primary
these
last-mile
thefor attributes,
last-mile
stated
school delivery.
preference encompassing
delivery.
Articles,methodsArticles,
31books, previous
were book
books,
consid- book 6%
hin this context.
es
rs, that
chapters,
theses,employed
ed within this and
theses, preference
dissertations
and methods
dissertations
employing
context. attributes andHigh for
employing
the last-mile
stated the
school delivery.
preference
stated preferenceArticles,
methods books,
methods
were consid-
219 feasible. book
were consid- 46%
orporating all identified levels into the survey was not
ers,
ithin
ered theses,
this
within and
context.
Incorporating thisdissertations
context.
all identified employing
attributes the andstated
Associate’s levels preference
degree into the methods
survey 25 werenot
was consid-feasible. 5%
uently, the chosen attributes formed the core components of the questionnaire in-
Bachelor’s degree
within
corporating
onsequently,this context.
Incorporating
or participant all
the identified
chosen all identified
presentation. attributes
attributes
Determining attributes
and
formed levels
theand
which coreinto
levelsthe into
components
attributes survey
and thelevels
ofwas the153
survey not was
feasible.
questionnaire
to include, not feasible. in- 32%
ncorporating all theidentified Graduate
andcore levels degree
into components
the survey was 52 notquestionnaire
feasible. 11%
quently,
Consequently,
nded
with forthe
the chosen
participant
study’s aim, attributes
chosen attributes
presentation.
wasREVIEW formed
author-defined, the
formed
Determining and the
components
core
which
subsequently of refined
attributes the questionnaire
andofby the
levels
incorpo- in-
to include, in-
uture Transp. 2024, 4, FOR PEER Future Employment
Transp. 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 4
equently,
for
tended
igned with thethe
participant
for chosen
participant
study’s attributes
presentation.aim, was formed
presentation.
Determining the core
Determining
author-defined, which components
attributes
and which of thelevels
attributes
subsequently and questionnaire
and
refined tolevels
include, toin-include,
by incorpo-
edback
4, FOR
from
PEER
five
REVIEW
mid-level managers employed
Public by last-mile delivery companies.
90 19%4
dd forfeedback
with
aligned
ting
butes
participant
thewith
and study’s the
theirfrom
presentation.
aim,
study’s
fivewas
corresponding aim,
mid-level Determining
author-defined,
was
levels author-defined,
managers
arePrivate
which
and
employed
delineated
attributes
subsequently
and
in
and levels
bysubsequently
Table 1. refined
last-mile by
delivery
167 toincorpo-
refined include,
by incorpo-
companies. 35%
ed
he with
feedback
rating
attributesthe study’s
feedback
from andfive from
theiraim,
mid-levelwas author-defined,
five mid-level
managers
corresponding managers
employed
Student
levels and subsequently
employed
by last-mile
are delineated by refined
last-mile
delivery
in Table 1. 112 by
delivery incorpo-
companies. companies. 23%
gAlternatives,
feedback
ributes andfrom
The attributes five
theirand mid-level
corresponding
attributes, their themanagers
product
corresponding
and levels. levels are employed
Housewife
selection
levels
delineatedarefor byin last-mile
each
delineated Table 1.delivery
category
the
in product
Table 541. companies.
based selection
on the products for eachthat category
women11% based
andon men theuse
products that wome
ttributes
able and their
1. Alternatives, corresponding
the product
attributes, selection
in common.
and levels
levels. for each Retired
are
Thedelineated
category
chosen products in Table
based onin 1.
the
included
common. 11 deodorant,
products Thethat chosen women
as products and men
a representative 2%
useof deodorant,
included convenienceas a representative
. Alternatives,
Table 1. Alternatives,
attributes,
in common. attributes,
and The
levels. and levels.
chosen Self-employed
products included 31a representative of convenience 7%
dress products, shoes
Delivery for shoppingdeodorant,
Points products,
products, as
and shoes
cell phones
for shopping for specialty
products,products.
and cell phones for specialty produ
1. Alternatives,products,attributes, shoes and levels. Unemployed 15 3%
he Address for shopping
The study products,
concentrates
Delivery
Monthly Household
and oncell
PointsIncome phones
discerning The for
study
the specialty
attributes
concentratesproducts.
and levels
on discerning
deemed significant
the attributes by and levels deemed
ddress
to the Address The studyconsumers concentrates • Delivery
in20
5500 on
their <Delivery
Points
selectionPoints
₺discerning the
of aattributes
delivery
consumers 4and inlevels
their deemed
alternative. selection
This phase significant
of aofdelivery
the1% by alternative.
research involves This phase of the res
Address consumers in their • Delivery
selection
the identification of
5501–13,000
30 Points
•₺aofdelivery
20 ₺
attributes alternative.
andthe levels This168 phase
identification
likely to holdof the research
attributes
importance and involves
for
levels
consumers.
35%likely toAn holdini-
importance for cons
the identification tialof literature
• •
attributes 13,001•
20and
review
40 ₺ ₺ • 30 ₺
levels
–26,000
was20 ₺ likely
conducted to
tialholdto importance
198
literature
pinpoint review
these for wasconsumers.
attributes,
conducted An ini-
41%
encompassing
to pinpoint previous
these attributes, encompa
tial literature review studieswas that• •conducted
>26,001
•
3020₺•₺40 to
employed ₺30 ₺
pinpoint
preference these
studies
methods 110
attributes,
that foremployed encompassing
last-mile preference
delivery. previous23% books,
Articles,
methods for last-mile
book delivery. Article
• 50 ₺
studies that employed chapters,preference• • 40
theses, • 30 ₺
and•₺ 50 ₺ 40
methods ₺
dissertations for last-mile
chapters,
employing delivery.
theses,
the stated
and Articles,
dissertations
preference books, book
methods
employing were the consid-
stated preference method
ers • • this 5040 ₺•₺ employing ₺
50survey
y workers
chapters, theses, eredandwithin •
dissertations Servicecontext.
While points
the theeredstated
attracted within preference
this context.
slightly more methods
femalewere consid- (54%) than males (46%),
respondents
ered within this context. •
Incorporating•
this •
Smart50
disparity₺ Service
all
parcel identifiedpoints
lockers
remains attributes
close Incorporating
to a and
balanced levels all
50–50into
identified
the survey
attributes
distribution. was not
andfeasible.
Analyzing levels into theage
participant survey wa
rkers
very
obotworkers
orkers Incorporating all
Consequently, •groups
identified •
Service
the •chosen
Smart
revealed points
Service
attributes parcel
that andpoints
attributes40%lockers
levels
Consequently,
formed
were into
born thethe survey
core
the
between chosen was
components
1983 not
attributes
and feasible.
of
2000,the
formed
questionnaire
28% the
between core components
in-
1965 and of the qu
1982,
ne
mous robot •participant
Consequently, the
tended chosen •
for •28% Smart
attributes
in •
Service
2001
Within 2 h parcel
and
points
Smart
formed lockers
presentation.
later,parcel
the core
tended
and lockers
4% components
Determining
for
between participant of
which
1945 the
and questionnaire
presentation.
attributes
1964. and
Regarding in-
Determining
levels to include,
educational which attributes
attainment, and lev
nomous
robot robot • the Smart parcel lockers
2 h
us robot tended for participant
aligned • 46%Within
presentation.
with • Within
study’s
of participants
24 h aim,2
Determining h was which
aligned
author-defined,attributes
with the and
study’s
and levels
subsequently
aim, to
was
completed high school, 32% hold a bachelor’s degree, 11% possess a include,
author-defined,
refined by incorpo-
and subsequently refin
in
24 h
d 48 h2 h aligned with the study’s
rating •
• graduate
feedback aim, •
Within
was
from
Between • 2
WithinWithin
five
degree, h
25 and 24
author-defined,
mid-level
6% h2 h
48havehrating and
managers subsequently
feedback
completed employed
from five
primary refined by incorpo-
bymid-level
last-mile
education, managers
delivery
and companies.
employed
5% obtained by last-mile delive
an associate’s
•mid-level
• •degree. •Within•Notably,
ndin25 2corresponding
724andh 48 but
days, h rating feedbackThe
the delivery from
date five
attributes
of Within
and
Between their 24
3Within
Between h the
managers
and 72524 h
and
The48
employed
survey
days, h bydelivery
attributes
but levels
question
the last-mile
areand delineated
their
concerning delivery companies.
corresponding
in Table
educational 1. levels
statusarewasdelineated
framed asin“the Table 1.
ween
nnd3 48 25hand
and 48The
7 days, h but the delivery
attributes and their date • ofBetween
•school •Within
corresponding • Between
most 24
Between
25 hand
levels
recently 48
3 and 25hdelineated
are and
7 days,
graduated 48 from”,
hbutinthe Tabledelivery
1.
encompassing university students within the high
date of choice
and748
ween
nd h 7but
3days,
and days,the butdelivery
theTabledelivery • Between
of•school
date1. Alternatives,
date • date
Between
ofgraduate 25
Between
3of
attributes,and and 348
7 days,
and
choice
category. h Consequently,
and
Table
levels. but
71.days,
the delivery
but thethe
Alternatives, delivery
attributes,
highestand levels.
rate was attributed to high school
during
ceand 7 weekdays
days, but (09:00–18:00)
the delivery date
Table 1. Alternatives, attributes, of • Between
date ofRegarding
and levels.
education. choice3 and
date of choice 7 days,
employment, but the35% delivery
work in the private sector, 23% are engaged in on-
Alternatives/
ivery between
oose during weekdays day (09:00–18:00)
delivery Alternatives/
during
delivery
during weekdays
during Delivery
weekdays
(09:00–18:00) to the Address
(09:00–18:00) going date education,ofDelivery
choice 19% work to theinAddressthe publicDelivery sector, Points11% are housewives, 7% are self-employed,
Delivery Points
to
Attributeschoose
00–18:00) or between
evening day
delivery delivery during
Attributes
during
Delivery
y during to the
weekdays Address
(09:00–18:00) 3% are unemployed,Delivery and 2% are Points retired. Regarding monthly household income, 41% of
hoose
on
ys to between
choose
(09:00–18:00) between
day
or delivery
day deliveryduring during
00–22:00) • evening
20 ₺ delivery during participants •fall within
20 ₺ the 13,001–26,000 • 20 ₺ range, 35% in the 5501–13,000 • 20 ₺ range, and
choose
kdays
9:00–18:00) between
(09:00–18:00)
ys •(18:00–22:00) or evening day deliverydelivery
or evening
delivery during during
during
ose from 20day ₺ delivery • during
30 ₺ week- 23% with •
incomes 30of₺•26,001 20 ₺ and •
above. 30 ₺
Unfortunately, there is no • 30 ₺ e-commerce
available
09:00–18:00)
elivery
kdays
8:00–22:00)
to priceordelivery
(18:00–22:00)
choose evening delivery during
Delivery price
:00), 30 from
• evening ₺ day• delivery
40 ₺ during
during week- week-
usage data • the40overall
for ₺• 30 ₺
population, • limiting
40 ₺ direct comparisons with• the ₺
40sample. When
18:00–22:00)
on
oose tofrom
9:00–18:00),choose day fromdelivery
dayduring
delivery
duringweek- week-
during week-
2:00), • or40 day ₺ evening
delivery• delivery
50 ₺ during week- • 50 ₺• 40 ₺ • 50 ₺ • 50 ₺
hoose
18:00), from
(09:00–18:00),
8:00–22:00), evening dayevening
delivery
delivery duringweek-
delivery
during week- week-
during
:00) • 50 ₺ or day delivery during week- • 50 ₺
–18:00),
22:00), evening
(18:00–22:00),
9:00–18:00) orday or•dayDelivery
daydelivery delivery
delivery during
delivery
duringweek- week- week-
workers
week-
during • Delivery workers
ose from during • Service points • Service points
• evening
–22:00),
elivery
18:00)
(09:00–18:00)
to choose orfrom
Delivery
method day day • delivery
delivery
workers DroneduringDelivery
duringduring
week- method •
week- week- Drone
:00), delivery • Service points • Smart parcel lockers • Smart parcel lockers
–18:00)
don
oose •tofrom
9:00–18:00), Drone
choose day from
evening • during
delivery
day Autonomous
delivery
during
delivery week-
during
during robot
week- week- • Autonomous robot
:00), day delivery weekends • Smart parcel lockers
hoose
18:00),• from
8:00–22:00), evening dayevening
Autonomous
(09:00–18:00), day delivery
delivery
deliveryrobot duringweek-
delivery
during
during week- week-
during
weekends
Future Transp. 2024, 4 159

comparing the sample to the broader population of Istanbul, a similar distribution was
observed regarding the gender ratio, but notable disparities arose concerning education
levels and age groups. This discrepancy is likely attributed to a higher representation of
educated and young to middle-aged individuals among e-commerce users.
Table 3 presents the findings of the sample on e-commerce and last-mile delivery.
Online shopping frequency among participants varied, with 29% shopping 12–24 times,
26% shopping 53 times or more, 24% shopping 25–52 times, 17% shopping 4–11 times, and
4% shopping 1–3 times annually. Notably, half of the participants (50%) shop online 25 or
more times a year. The vast majority (99%) have used the delivery workers option, 27%
have used service points, and 11% have experienced smart parcel lockers. Drones and
autonomous robots, yet to be widely implemented, received no preference. Participants
generally viewed delivery points as a viable option (65%), with 23% undecided and only
12% holding an unfavorable opinion. Regarding the preferred location for delivery points,
store/grocery/market led at 48%, followed by public transportation stops (27%), chain
markets (17%), gas stations (4%), and shopping malls (4%). Of the respondents, 62%
believed that last-mile delivery methods will enhance the delivery process, 26% remained
undecided, and 12% expressed a negative opinion.

Table 3. Findings on e-commerce and last-mile delivery among the sample.

Sample = 480 Frequency Percentage (%)

How many online purchases, excluding food and grocery orders, do you make annually?
1–3 21 4%
4–11 82 17%
12–24 138 29%
25–52 112 24%
>53 127 26%
Which delivery methods do you use for your current e-commerce purchases? (You can check more than one option)
Delivery workers 476 99%
Drone 0 -
Autonomous robot 0 -
Service points 128 27%
Smart parcel lockers 55 11%
Do you consider delivery points, such as smart parcel lockers or service points, a feasible option for your online shopping?
Yes 309 65%
No 59 12%
Undecided 112 23%
Could you specify your preferences regarding delivery points, including smart parcel lockers or service points?
Supermarket chains 82 17%
Gas stations 21 4%
Public transportation stops 126 27%
Store/Groceries/Market 230 48%
Shopping mall 21 4%
Innovative delivery methods, such as smart parcel lockers, service points, drones, and autonomous robots, will enhance my
delivery experience.
Yes 297 62%
No 58 12%
Undecided 125 26%

3.2. Choice Model Estimation

Choice model estimation findings quantitatively revealed consumers’ preferences
toward last-mile delivery, thus effectively filling the current research gap in understanding
consumer responses to innovative delivery methods in last-mile delivery. Table 4 shows
that the model demonstrated an acceptable fit with the data, as indicated by an adjusted
McFadden R2 value of 0.1607. In the literature, an adjusted R2 value of 0.10 and above
indicates an acceptable-fitting model [24,49,50].
Future Transp. 2024, 4 160

The alternative-specific constant (ASC) represents each alternative’s characteristics in

the not explicitly modeled choice set. Estimated alongside other parameters, it signifies the
difference in fundamental utility when choosing a specific alternative relative to others in
the set, holding all other attributes constant. Considered a fundamental variable influencing
preference for unobservable characteristics, the ASC for delivery to the address was fixed
at “0” with no p-value, indicating its reference status. In contrast, the delivery points’
ASC was −1.4841, a statistically significant value suggesting that individuals, considering
unobserved characteristics, tend to avoid this alternative.

Table 4. Choice model estimation findings.

Model MNL
Parameters Value T. Ratio Std. Err. p-Value
Alternative-specific constants (ASC)
ASC_DA
ASC_DP −1.4841 −4.4910 0.3304 0.00
Delivery to the address (DA)
Delivery price (DAP) −0.0855 −16.4709 0.0051 0.00
Delivery method (DAM)
Delivery workers (DAM1)
Drone (DAM2) −0.1127 −1.2665 0.0890 0.10
Autonomous robot (DAM3) −0.0299 −0.3517 0.0852 0.36
Delivery term (DAT)
Within 2 h (DAT1) 1.9219 9.0271 0.2129 0.00
Within 24 h (DAT2) 1.0245 5.3651 0.1909 0.00
Between 25 and 48 h (DAT3) 0.6487 4.4816 0.1447 0.00
Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery date of choice (DAT4)
Delivery time window (DAW)
Day delivery during weekdays (09:00–18:00) (DAW1)
Option to choose between day delivery during weekdays (09:00–18:00)
1.0280 8.5069 0.1208 0.00
or evening delivery during weekdays (18:00–22:00) (DAW2)
Option to choose from day delivery during week-days (09:00–18:00),
evening delivery during weekdays (18:00–22:00), or day delivery 1.5856 13.8686 0.1143 0.00
during weekends (09:00–18:00) (DAW3)
Option to choose from day delivery during week-days (09:00–18:00),
evening delivery during weekdays (18:00–22:00), day delivery during
1.5952 14.1489 0.1127 0.00
weekends (09:00–18:00), or evening delivery during weekends
(18:00–22:00) (DAW4)
Information and traceability (DAI)
Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the package is received for
shipping and the package is shipped to the consumer (DAI1)
Notifications by SMS or e-mail when thepackage is received for
shipping and the package is shipped to the consumer and live location −0.0025 −0.0350 0.0733 0.48
tracking (DAI2)
Future Transp. 2024, 4 161

Table 4. Cont.

Model MNL
Parameters Value T. Ratio Std. Err. p-Value
Delivery points (DP)
Delivery price (DPP) −0.0609 −8.1564 0.0074 0.00
Delivery method (DPM)
Service points (DPM1)
Smart parcel lockers (DMP2) 0.3372 3.6462 0.0924 0.00
Delivery term (DPT)
Within 2 h (DPT1) 1.4305 6.6063 0.2165 0.00
Within 24 h (DPT2) 1.3612 9.2462 0.1472 0.00
Between 25 and 48 h (DPT3) 1.1543 8.3185 0.1387 0.00
Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery date of choice (DPT4)
Pick-up accessibility (DPA)
Available for collection during weekdays (09:00–22:00) (DPA1)
Available for collection during weekdays (09:00–22:00) and Saturdays
0.2702 2.7468 0.0983 0.00
(09:00–22:00) (DPA2)
Available for collection seven days a week (09:00–22:00) (DPA3) 0.4698 4.7448 0.0990 0.00
Available for collection 24/7 (DPA4) 0.1860 1.8707 0.0994 0.03
Information and traceability (DPI)
Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the package is received for
shipment and placed at the delivery points (DPI1)
Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the package is received for
shipment and placed at the delivery points and live location tracking. −0.3009 −4.4061 0.0682 0.00
(DPI2)
Distance
500 m from your home/workplace (DPD1) 0.8113 6.3929 0.1269 0.00
1000 m from your home/workplace (DPD2) 0.7390 6.6810 0.1106 0.00
1500 m from your home/workplace (DPD3) 0.6452 6.1082 0.1056 0.00
2000 m from your home/workplace (DPD4)
Initial Log-Likelihood: −3992.53
Final Log-Likelihood: −3351.1
Adjusted McFadden’s R2 : 0.1607

The delivery price attribute showed a statistically significant value of −0.0855, aligning
with expectations that an increase in the price of a product or service corresponds to a
decrease in perceived benefit. Consumers are willing to pay less for delivery in the context
of e-commerce shopping. Survey respondents accorded substantial importance to delivery
price when selecting the delivery to the address alternative. Similarly, the statistically
significant value of the delivery price attribute at −0.0609 underscores its significance in
choosing the delivery points alternative.
The delivery method attribute was characterized by three levels for delivery to the
address: delivery workers, drone, and autonomous delivery robot, with the delivery work-
ers set as the reference level, being the most widely used method. The values for drone
(−0.1127) and autonomous delivery robot (−0.0299) were not statistically significant, indi-
cating that the delivery method on selection of delivery to the address was not influenced.
Survey respondents showed no distinct preference among the three delivery methods
when opting for delivery to the address. Conversely, the service points were considered
the reference level for the delivery points alternative, comprising service points and smart
parcel lockers. The statistically significant value of smart parcel lockers (0.3372) suggests
that participants consider the delivery method attribute in choosing the delivery points
alternative, with a preference for smart parcel lockers.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 162

The delivery term attribute, expressed as “within 2 h”, “within 24 h”, “between 25 and
48 h”, and “between 3 and 7 days on the desired day”, designated “3–7 days on the desired
day” as the reference level to assess consumer preferences regarding the right to choose the
delivery day. The levels “within 2 h” (1.9219), “within 24 h” (1.0245), and “between 25 and
48 h” (0.6487) were all statistically significant. As anticipated, delivery term emerged as
a crucial attribute in selecting the delivery to address alternative, indicating a consumer
preference for shorter delivery periods in e-commerce purchases. This suggests that, despite
the option to choose the day, participants prioritized quicker delivery, demonstrating
sensitivity to term constraints over waiting for a preferred day. Similarly, the delivery
term attribute for the service points alternative, expressed as “within 2 h”, “within 24 h”,
“between 25 and 48 h”, and “on the desired day between 3 and 7 days”, designated
“3–7 days on the desired day” as the reference level. The values for “within 2 h” (1.4305),
“within 24 h” (1.3612), and “between 25 and 48 h” (1.1543) were all statistically significant.
This indicates that respondents are influenced by the delivery term attribute when choosing
the service points alternative, showing a preference for shorter delivery times despite the
right to choose a specific day.
The information and traceability attribute, encompassing “Notifications by SMS or
e-mail when the package is received for shipping and the package is shipped to the
consumer”, and “Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the package is received for shipping
and the package is shipped to the consumer and live location tracking”, designated the first
level as the reference level. The choice of this reference level aims to explore differences
between real-time tracking and basic information provided to individuals. The value of the
level “Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the package is received for shipping and the
package is shipped to the consumer and live location tracking” was −0.0025, indicating
statistical insignificance. This suggests that the information and tracking feature is not a
significant factor in participants’ choice of delivery to the address alternative. While live
location tracking reduces utility for participants, the effect needs to be more substantial to
be generalized to the entire population, hinting that participants may perceive this attribute
as unnecessary. The notification and traceability attribute also includes “Notification by
SMS or e-mail when the package is received for shipment and placed at the delivery
points” and “Notification by SMS or e-mail when the package is received for shipment
and placed at the delivery points and live location tracking”, with the first level as the
reference. The value of the level “Notifications by SMS or e-mail when the package is
received for shipment and placed at the delivery points and live location tracking” was
−0.3009 and statistically significant. This signifies that the information and traceability
attribute influences participants’ choice of delivery points alternative. The negative utility
of live location tracking implies that, contrary to expectations, participants perceive real-
time tracking as a less desirable feature. This could stem from respondents considering
the reference value sufficient and viewing the live tracking feature as unnecessary or
cost-creating.
The attribute “Delivery time window” comprised four levels: “Weekdays between
09:00 and 18:00”, “Weekdays between 09:00 and 18:00 or weekdays between 18:00 and
22:00”, “Weekdays between 09:00 and 18:00 or weekdays between 18:00 and 22:00 or week-
end between 09:00 and 18:00”, and “Weekdays between 09:00 and 18:00 or weekdays
between 18:00 and 22:00 or weekend between 09:00 and 18:00 or weekend between 18:00
and 22:00”. The reference level was set as “Between 09:00 and 18:00 on weekdays” to under-
stand consumers’ preferences for delivery options with broader time intervals. The values
for the levels were 1.0280, 1.5856, and 1.5952, respectively. All levels showed statistical sig-
nificance. This indicates that the delivery company’s working hours significantly influence
the selection of a delivery to address alternative. Respondents expressed a preference for
receiving deliveries within extended time intervals. The benefit derived by participants
notably increased with the inclusion of 09:00–18:00 h on weekends, while the inclusion of
18:00–22:00 h on weekends provided limited additional benefit.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 163

The pick-up accessibility, including “Between 09:00 and 22:00 on weekdays”, “Between
09:00 and 22:00 on weekdays and 09:00 and 22:00 on Saturdays”, “Between 09:00 and 22:00
seven days a week”, and “available for collection 24/7”, designated “Weekdays between
09:00 and 22:00” as the reference value to uncover consumer preferences for a broad time
range. The respective values for the levels were 0.2702, 0.4698, and 0.1860. All three levels
were statistically significant, indicating that the hours of delivery availability significantly
influence participants’ choice of delivery points alternative. Contrary to expectations,
available for collection 24/7 level yielded less benefit. Instead, participants derived the
most benefit from the “09:00–22:00 seven days a week” level. This suggests that participants
perceived this time interval as the most ideal. From their perspective, there is no greater
benefit if delivery points are open outside these periods.
The distance attribute of the delivery points comprised the levels “500 m from
your home/workplace”, “1000 m from your home/workplace”, “1500 m from your
home/workplace”, and “2000 m from your home/workplace”. The corresponding level
values were 0.8113, 0.7390, and 0.6452, respectively. All three levels were statistically signif-
icant. The distance of the delivery points plays a crucial role in participants’ choice of the
delivery points alternative. This result indicates that as the distance increases, the benefit
derived by participants from this attribute decreases. However, there was no significant
difference in use between a 500 m distance and a 1500 m distance.

3.3. Relative Importance of Delivery to the Address

Table 5 indicates that for the delivery to the address alternative, the delivery term,
delivery price, and delivery time window emerged as the most crucial attributes in respon-
dents’ responses to the choice tasks, making a statistically significant contribution to the
model. These three attributes collectively represent 98% of the relative importance. The
delivery method held a 2% share among the remaining two attributes, while information
and traceability did not carry any weight. Notably, delivery term (41%) and delivery
price (31%) stood out as the most influential attributes, followed by delivery time win-
dow (26%). However, delivery method, information, and traceability attributes were not
statistically significant.

Table 5. Relative importance of delivery to the address.

Lowest Utility Highest Utility Utility Contribution

Attributes Relative Importance
Contribution Contribution Range
Delivery price −4.275 −1.71 2.565 41%
Delivery term 0 1.9219 1.9219 31%
Delivery time window 0 1.5952 1.5952 26%
Delivery method −0.1127 0 0.1127 2%
Information and
−0.0025 0 0.0025 -
traceability

Table 6 presents that in the context of the delivery points alternative, delivery price and
delivery term emerged as the most impactful attributes influencing respondents’ decisions
in the choice tasks. These two attributes collectively contribute to 66% of the relative
importance. The remaining four attributes (distance, pick-up accessibility, delivery method,
and information and traceability) constitute 34% of the overall importance. Specifically,
delivery price (37%) and delivery term (29%) take precedence as the most crucial attributes,
followed by distance (16%). Pick-up accessibility (9%) ranks fourth, while information and
traceability (6%) and delivery method (3%) are considered the least important attributes.
Importantly, all attributes were deemed statistically significant.
 Future Transp. 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW
Future Transp. 2024, 4 164

the product selection for each category based on the products

Table 6. Relative importance of delivery points.
in common. The chosen products included deodorant, as a rep
Lowest Utility Highest Utilityproducts,Utility
shoesContribution
for shopping products, and cell phones for spe
Attributes The study Range Relative Importance
concentrates on discerning the attributes and le
Contribution Contribution
Delivery price −3.045 −1.218 consumers in their
1.827
selection of a delivery37%
alternative. This pha
Delivery term 0 1.4305 the identification of
1.4305attributes and levels likely
29% to hold importa
Distance 0 0.8113 tial literature review 0.8113 was conducted to pinpoint
16% these attribut
Pick-up accessibility 0 0.4698 studies that employed 0.4698 preference methods 9% for last-mile deliv
Information and
0 −0.3009 chapters, theses,0.3009 and dissertations employing 6% the stated prefer
traceability
ered within this context.
Delivery method 0 0.1561 0.1561 3%
Incorporating all identified attributes and levels into th
Consequently, the chosen attributes formed the core compone
3.4. Martket Share Simulation tended for participant presentation. Determining which attrib
The simulation results revealed aligned with the study’s
how consumer aim, shift
preferences was author-defined,
under various sce- and subseq
narios, enabling firms to understand rating feedback
consumer from five
reactions andmid-level
adaptation managers
processes employed
better, by las
thereby helping the creation of newThe attributes
last-mile and designs.
delivery their corresponding
Table 7 shows levels
thatare delineated in
diverse
scenarios were formulated to discern participant preferences regarding various delivery
Table 1.
methods. The initial scenario (reference), Alternatives,
designed attributes,
to mirror and levels. market condi-
contemporary
tions, notably saw over three-quarters of participants opting for delivery to their addresses,
Alternatives/
with the remaining preferring
Delivery delivery to delivery points. The subsequent exploration
to the Address Delivery Points
Attributes
centered on a price-centric scenario, aiming to elucidate the influence of pricing on the
transition toward delivery• points
20 ₺ selection. Upon reducing the price discrepancy • by 20
30 ₺,
•
favoring the delivery points, 30 ₺observable shift occurred, with 42% of respondents
an • alter-
30 ₺
Delivery price
•
ing their preference. Another ₺ of investigation delved into the technology-oriented
40facet • 40 ₺
scenario, scrutinizing the•impact
50 ₺of both the delivery method and the incorporation • of50 ₺
live
tracking attributes. The findings revealed a lack of discernible influence exerted by these
• Delivery workers
attributes on decision-makers’ preferences. Moreover, the focus shifted to a distance-centric • Service point
Delivery method • Drone
scenario, whereby a reduction in the proximity of the delivery points to 1500 m correlated • Smart parcel
• Autonomous robot
with a 13% uptick in participant inclinations toward the delivery points. Conversely, sce-
narios featuring distances• below
Withinthis
2 hthreshold exhibited only marginal enhancements • Within 2 h
•
favoring the delivery points. Lastly,24
Within analysis
h of the delivery term scenario underscored • Within 24 h
that expedited delivery •timesBetween
Delivery term toward 25 theand
delivery
48 h points elicited a surge in participant• Between 25 a
•
preferences for this specific Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery date of•
delivery locale. Between 3 an
choice date of choic
• Day delivery during weekdays (09:00–18:00)
• Option to choose between day delivery during
weekdays (09:00–18:00) or evening delivery during
weekdays (18:00–22:00)
• Option to choose from day delivery during week-
days (09:00–18:00), evening delivery during week-
Delivery time
days (18:00–22:00), or day delivery during week-
window
ends (09:00–18:00)
• Option to choose from day delivery during week-
days (09:00–18:00), evening delivery during week-
days (18:00–22:00), day delivery during weekends
(09:00–18:00), or evening delivery during week-
ends (18:00–22:00)
• Available fo
Pick-up days (09:00–2
• Available fo
accessibility
days (09:00
(09:00–22:00)
 issertations
ection employing
ofcategory
a delivery the stated
alternative. preference
This phase ofmethods wereinvolves
the research consid-
or each based on the products that women and men use
t.
nributes andincluded
products levels likely to hold importance
deodorant, for consumers.
as a representative An ini-4
of convenience
wasidentified
conducted attributes and levels
to pinpoint into the survey
these attributes, was not feasible.
encompassing
opping products, and cell phones for specialty products. previous
sen attributes
preference formed
methods the core components of the questionnaire in-
trates on discerning thefor last-mileand
attributes delivery. Articles,
levels deemed books, book
significant by
presentation.
issertations Determining
employing the which
stated attributes
preference and
methods levels to include,
wereinvolves
consid-
ection
or of a delivery
Future
each was
categoryTransp.alternative.
2024,
based on the 4 This
productsphase of the
that women research 165
’s
t. aim, and author-defined, and subsequently refinedandby men use
incorpo-
nributes
ve products
mid-level
levels likely
included
managers
to hold importance
deodorant,
employed as a for consumers.
representative
by last-mile of
delivery
An ini-4
convenience
companies.
wasidentified
conducted attributes and
to pinpoint levels into the survey
these attributes, was not
encompassing feasible.
opping
r products,
corresponding and cell
levels are phones for specialty
delineated in Table products. previous
1.
sen attributesmethods
preference formed the for core components
last-mile delivery.
Table of the questionnaire
Articles,
7. Market books,
share in-
book
simulation.
trates on discerning the attributes and levels deemed significant by
presentation.
issertations Determining
employing which
the stated attributes
preference and
methods levels to include,
wereinvolves
consid-
ection
or of
eachand a delivery
category alternative.
levels. based on the This
productsphase of the
that women research
and
ibutes,
’s
t. aim, and
was author-defined,
Scenario
Delivery
and Delivery
subsequently refined by men
Delivery use
incorpo- Pick-Up Delivery Delivery
nributes
products levels likely
included to Price
deodorant, hold importance
as a for consumers.
representative
Method of An ini-Delivery Time Window
convenience
Term Accessibility
Information and Traceability Distance
to Address Point
ve mid-level
identified managers
attributes and employed
levels by last-mile
into the survey delivery
was notcompanies.
feasible.4
was
opping conducted
products, to pinpoint
and cell these Points
phones
Delivery attributes,
for encompassing
specialty products. previous
r corresponding
sen attributesmethodslevelsthe
formed arecore
delineated
components in Table 1. questionnaire Option
ofArticles,
the in- Notifications by SMS or e-mail
preference
trates on discerning thefor last-mile
attributes delivery.
and levels deemed books, book
significant
Between by to choose between day
when (1) the package is
presentation.
issertations Determining
Reference
employing the which
stated attributes and
Delivery
preference methods levels to
were include,
consid-delivery during weekdays
ection
ibutes,ofanda delivery
levels. •
alternative. 30 ₺ This phase of the research
20 25 andinvolves received for shipping and
’s scenario workers (09:00–18:00) or evening delivery
t. aim,
or
ributes
was
each and author-defined,
category
levelsbased
likely • on 30
and
the
to hold
subsequently
₺products
importance thatfor refined48
women by
and
consumers.
incorpo-
h men use
An ini- (2) the package is shipped to
during weekdays (18:00–22:00)
nve
was
mid-level
products
identified
conducted
managers
included
attributes and
to pinpoint
employed
deodorant, levels
•Delivery as by
into
40 ₺ Points
these
last-mile
a representative
the survey
attributes,
delivery
was
encompassing
companies.
of not
convenience
feasible.
previous the consumer
78% 22%
r corresponding
opping
sen products,
attributes levels
and cell
formed the arephones
delineated in Table
fordelivery.
specialty 1.
products.
preference methods •for core
50 ₺components
last-mile ofArticles,
the questionnaire
books, book
Between
in- Available for Notifications by SMS or e-mail
2000 m from
trates on discerning
presentation. the
Determining
Reference
issertations employing•the stated attributes
which and levels
attributes
Servicedeemed
and significant
levels to by
include, collection during when the package is received
ibutes,ofand levels. 30 ₺ preference methods
20 25were
and consid- your
ection
’s
t. aim, a
was delivery
scenario alternative.
author-defined,•• andThis
Service phase
subsequently
points of
points the research
refined by involves
incorpo- weekdays for shipment and placed at the
30 ₺ 48 h
(09:00–22:00) delivery points
home/workplace
ributes
ve
identifiedandattributes
mid-level levels likely
managers and tolevels
hold
•• employed
Smart importance
by last-mile
parcel
into the fordelivery
lockers
survey consumers.
was An ini-
companies.
not feasible.
40 ₺ Points
Delivery
was conducted
r corresponding
sen to
attributes formedpinpoint
levelsthe these attributes,
are delineated encompassing
in Table 1. previous Notifications by SMS or e-mail
• core 50 ₺components of the questionnaire in-
Option to choose between day
preference methods
Price- • for last-mile
Within
presentation. Determining which attributes 2delivery.
h Articles, books,
Between book
and levels to include,delivery during weekdays
Delivery
when (1) the package is
issertations focused •the stated 50 ₺ preference methods
20 25 and consid- received for shipping and
’s aim, was employing
ibutes, and levels. ••
author-defined, Within 24 h workers refinedwere
and subsequently
Service points 48by
(09:00–18:00) or evening delivery
h incorpo-
t. scenario • 30 ₺ (2) the package is shipped to
ve mid-level managers•• employed Between
Smart by25
parcel and 48 hdelivery companies.
last-mile
lockers during weekdays (18:00–22:00)
the consumer
identified attributes and •Delivery
40 ₺ Points
levels into the survey was not feasible. 36% 64%
r the delivery date
corresponding of•are delineated
levels Between 3 in and 7 days,
Table 1. but the delivery
sen attributes Price-
formed the • core 50 ₺components of the questionnaire
Between in- Available for Notifications by SMS or e-mail
2000 m from
• date of choice
Within 2 h Service collection during when the package is received
presentation. Determining
focused
ibutes, and levels. • 20
20 ₺
which attributes and levels
25 to
and include, your
ys (09:00–18:00) •• Within
Service 24 h points
points weekdays for shipment and placed at the
’s aim, was scenario
author-defined, • ₺ subsequently
30and refined48byh incorpo- home/workplace
day delivery during • • Between
Smart 25
parcel and 48 h
lockers (09:00–22:00) delivery points
ve mid-level managers•Delivery 40 ₺ Points
employed by last-mile delivery companies.
the delivery
deliverydate of• Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery Notifications by SMS or e-mail
rening
corresponding during
levels
Innovation- •
• are ₺
delineated
50 in Table 1. Between Option to choose between day
when (1) the package is
date
Withinof 2choice
h Delivery delivery during weekdays
focused • 30 ₺
20 25 and received for shipping and
delivery
ibutes,
ys during
and levels.
(09:00–18:00) week- •• Within
Service 24 h workers
points (09:00–18:00) or evening delivery
scenario • 30 ₺ 48 h (2) the package is shipped to
delivery week-••
duringduring Between
Smart 25 and 48 h during weekdays (18:00–22:00)
day delivery • 40 ₺ parcel lockers the consumer
78% 22%
the delivery
delivery duringdate week-of•Delivery Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery
ening delivery during • 50 ₺ Points Available for
Notifications by SMS or e-mail
Innovation- • date of
Within 2 hchoice Between when the package is received 2000 m from
Smart parcel collection during
delivery
delivery during week-
focused
during
ys (09:00–18:00) week- •• 20
30 ₺
Within 24
Service pointsh 25 and for shipment and placed at the your
lockers weekdays
delivery during
delivery during week-••
scenario
week- 30 ₺
Between 25 and
Smart parcel lockers 48 h 48 h delivery points and live home/workplace
day delivery during (09:00–22:00)
verythe during
delivery weekends
date of • 40 ₺
Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery location tracking.
delivery duringduring
ening delivery week-
elivery during week-•• 50 ₺
date
Withinof 2choice
h
delivery
delivery during week-
during week-
ys (09:00–18:00) • Within 24 h
delivery during week- •• Service
Between points
delivery duringduring
day delivery week- Available25for andcollection
48 h during week-
verythe during
delivery weekends
date of • • Smart parcel
Between 3 lockers
and 7 days, but the delivery
delivery during
ening delivery during week- days (09:00–22:00)
elivery during week-• date of choice
Available for collection during week-
• Within 2 h
delivery during
delivery during week-
week- days (09:00–22:00) and Saturdays
ys (09:00–18:00) • Within 24 h
delivery during
delivery during week-
week-• (09:00–22:00)
Available
day delivery during• Between 25forandcollection
48 h during week-
very
delivery during weekends
during week- days (09:00–22:00)
the delivery date of•
ening delivery during Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery
elivery during week-• Available for collection during week-
date of choice
 issertations
ection employing
of a delivery the stated
alternative. preference
This phase ofmethods
the researchwereinvolves
consid-
t.
ributes
or each and levelsbased
category likely on to hold importance
the products thatfor consumers.
women and men An ini-
use
nidentified
was conducted
products attributes and levels
to pinpoint
included deodorant, into the survey
these attributes,
as was
encompassing
a representative of not feasible.
previous
convenience
sen attributes
preference
opping formed
methods
products, the
and cell for core components
last-mile
phones fordelivery. ofArticles,
specialty the questionnaire
products. books, book in-4
presentation.
issertations
trates on Future Determining
employing
discerning thethe
Transp. 2024,
which attributes
4 stated preference
attributes and levels to
methodssignificant
and levels deemed include,
were consid- by 166
’s
t. aim, was author-defined, and subsequently refined
ection of a delivery alternative. This phase of the research involves by incorpo-
ve mid-level
identified
ributes
or each and managers
attributes
levels
category and
likely
based employed
tolevels
on hold by last-mile
into thethat
importance
the products survey
for delivery
was and
consumers.
women companies.
not feasible.
An ini-
men use
r
sencorresponding
attributes levels
formed are
the core delineated
thesecomponents in Table
of 1.
was conducted
n products to pinpoint
included deodorant, attributes, 7. the
Cont.questionnaire
Tableencompassing
as a representative previous
of convenience in-
presentation.
preference
opping products,Determining
methods
and cell whichfor
for phones
last-mile attributes
specialtyand
delivery. levelsbooks,
Articles,
products. to include,
book
ibutes, and levels. Delivery Delivery Delivery Pick-Up Delivery Delivery
’s aim,onwas
issertations
trates author-defined,
employing
discerning
Scenario thethe and subsequently
stated
attributes preference
and levels refined
methods
deemed by incorpo-
were consid-
significant byDelivery Time Window Information and Traceability Distance
ve mid-level managers Price by last-mile
employed Method delivery Termcompanies. Accessibility to Address Point
t.
ection of a delivery alternative. This phase of the research involves
rributes
corresponding Delivery Points
identified levelslevels
andattributes and
likely are delineated
tolevels in Table
into the
hold importance for1.consumers.
survey was not feasible.
An ini-
Option to choose between day
Notifications by SMS or e-mail
senconducted
was Distance-
attributes formed the core
to pinpoint thesecomponents
attributes, of the Between
questionnaire
encompassing previousin-delivery during weekdays when (1) the package is
Delivery
ibutes, focused •
and levels. 30 ₺
20 25 and received for shipping and
presentation.
preference Determining
methods for which attributes
last-mile delivery.
workersand levelsbooks,
Articles, to include,
book
(09:00–18:00) or evening delivery
scenario • 30 ₺ 48 h (2) the package is shipped to
’s aim, was employing
issertations author-defined, and subsequently
the stated preference methods refinedwere during weekdays (18:00–22:00)
by incorpo-
consid-
•Delivery
40 ₺ Points the consumer
ve
t. mid-level managers employed by last-mile delivery companies. 65% 35%
• 50 ₺ Available for Notifications by SMS or e-mail
ridentified
corresponding levelsand
Distance-
attributes arelevels
delineated inService
into the Table
survey 1. wasBetween
not feasible. collection during when the package is received
1500 m from
sen attributesfocused
formed the • core 30 ₺components of the questionnaire
20 25 and in- your
scenario • Service points points weekdays for shipment and placed at the
ibutes, and levels.
presentation. Determining • 30 ₺
which
48 h
attributes and levels to include, (09:00–22:00) delivery points
home/workplace
•• Smart parcel lockers
₺ subsequently
40and
’s aim, was author-defined, refined by incorpo-
Between
ve mid-level managers•Delivery 50 ₺ Points
employed by last-mile delivery 3 companies.
and Notifications by SMS or e-mail
• Within 2 h Option to choose between day
r corresponding levels are delineated inDelivery
Time- Table 1. 7 days, when (1) the package is
•• Within
Service 24 h
points delivery during weekdays
focused • 30 ₺
20 but the received for shipping and
scenario • Between workers
25 and 48 h (09:00–18:00) or evening delivery
ibutes, and levels. •• Smart
30 ₺ parcel lockers delivery (2) the package is shipped to
the delivery date of• Between 3 and 7 days, but the during weekdays (18:00–22:00)
• 40 ₺ date of delivery the consumer
50% 50%
date
••Delivery
Withinof 2choice
h choice
50 ₺ Points
ys (09:00–18:00) • Within 24 h Available for Notifications by SMS or e-mail
Time- 2000 m from
day delivery during•
focused • Between
Service
30 ₺
20 pointsService
25 and 48 h Within collection on when the package is received
your
the delivery date of • Between 3 points
and 7 days, but 2the
h delivery weekdays for shipment and placed at the
ening delivery during•
scenario Smart
30 ₺ parcel lockers home/workplace
(09:00–22:00) delivery points
• date
40 ₺ of choice
delivery during week-• • Within
50 ₺ 2h
ys (09:00–18:00)
delivery duringduring
week- • Within 24 h
day delivery
delivery duringduring
week- • Between 25
Service points and 48 h
ening delivery
the delivery date of• Between
Smart parcel 3 and 7 days, but the delivery
lockers
delivery during week- date of choice
delivery during week-
delivery
delivery week-•
during week-
during
ys (09:00–18:00)
Within 2 h
very • Within 24 h
dayduring
delivery weekends
during
delivery week-
during
elivery week-•
during during
ening delivery
Between 25 and 48 h
the delivery
delivery during week-date of • Between 3 and 7 days, but the delivery
date of choice
delivery during week-• Available for collection during week-
very during
delivery weekends
during
ys (09:00–18:00) week- days (09:00–22:00)
elivery
delivery during
duringduring
day delivery week-• Available for collection during week-
ening delivery during days (09:00–22:00) and Saturdays
delivery during week- (09:00–22:00)
• Available for collection during week-
delivery during week-
days (09:00–22:00)
very during
delivery weekends
during week-• Available for collection during week-
Future Transp. 2024, 4 167

4. Discussion
Last-mile delivery is an important urban logistics activity that directly and indirectly
affects the lives of many urban residents, whether they are e-commerce consumers or not.
Problems experienced in last-mile delivery create internal and external costs and negatively
affect economic, environmental, and social issues, the three pillars of sustainability. In order
to reduce these negativities, innovative solutions are proposed at different stages of the
last-mile delivery. Achieving the expected contribution from these innovations depends on
the consumers, who have a key role in the last-mile delivery. This study investigated how
innovative delivery methods influence consumer preferences in last-mile delivery.
When evaluating the delivery locations, it became clear that participants generally pre-
fer deliveries to their own addresses. This trend suggests that consumers are increasingly
opting for home delivery services, which are both familiar to them and frequently utilized.
This preference aligns with existing literature [22–24,28,47] and reflects consumers’ inclina-
tion toward the convenience of shopping from home. E-commerce provides consumers
with great convenience, such as shopping without leaving home. Home delivery service
shows the consumers’ tendency to maintain the habit of not having to travel to pick up the
order. Additionally, with growing competition in the Turkish last-mile delivery market and
consumer-friendly legal developments, delivery services have evolved to prioritize con-
sumer satisfaction. Attributes such as advance notifications, follow-up calls, and repeated
delivery attempts further enhance consumer contentment, potentially driving increased
demand for delivery to the address.
The first evaluated attribute was the delivery price. Our study confirmed that delivery
price is a crucial factor influencing consumer choices for both delivery to the address
and delivery to the delivery points. Analogous to delivery to the address, an increase
in the price of delivery points corresponds to a decrease in consumer-perceived bene-
fit. Notably, delivery price emerged as one of the most pivotal attributes for delivery
to the address and delivery to the delivery points. These findings align with existing
literature [3,10,22,25,26,28,29,31,51,52] and highlight the persistent importance of delivery
cost in consumers’ decision-making processes. This emphasis on delivery price can be at-
tributed to consumers’ price sensitivity [10]. Research in [53] indicated that approximately
three-quarters of consumers opt for the cheapest delivery option. This consumer behavior,
akin to seeking affordable products through e-commerce, underscores the significance of
last-mile delivery in pursuing cost-effective solutions. Additionally, the prevalence of free
delivery options by many e-commerce companies may deter last-mile delivery charges for
them, fostering a heightened sensitivity among consumers. The authors of [54] suggest
that despite competitive product prices, consumers exhibit a reluctance to pay for delivery,
reinforcing the feasibility of incorporating last-mile delivery charges into the total price as
a strategic policy.
The second evaluated attribute was the delivery method. Our findings revealed an
interesting perspective on the influence of the delivery method on consumer preferences.
Contrary to prior literature [3,10,29], we found that the delivery method did not signifi-
cantly affect the choice of delivery to the address. This could be due to consumers placing
higher priority on delivery terms and prices. Notably, our study added a new dimen-
sion to the existing literature by suggesting that consumers show no strong preference
between traditional delivery method and more technologically advanced ones, such as
autonomous robots and drones, for home deliveries. This indicates a potential shift in
consumer attitudes toward delivery technology, differing from the significant adaptation
challenges reported in existing literature regarding the acceptance of autonomous robots
and drones. In contrast to delivery to the address, participants leaned toward a delivery
method without human interaction, potentially influenced by the perception that smart
parcel lockers operate similarly to user-friendly bank ATMs. Notably, the delivery method
emerged as a crucial attribute for the delivery points alternative, aligning with previous
studies [10,23]. Participants preferred smart parcel lockers over service points options,
Future Transp. 2024, 4 168

a trend supported by similar findings in [14]. This preference could be attributed to the
perceived ease of use and accessibility of smart lockers, similar to bank ATMs.
The third evaluated attribute was the delivery term. Our research underscored the
significant role of the delivery term in consumer decision-making for both delivery to the
address and delivery points. This finding is in line with previous research [3,10,25,29,51],
which identified delivery speed as a critical competitive factor in e-commerce. Notably,
the study in [1] highlighted the impact of delivery time on consumer loyalty, revealing
that faster delivery services can persuade over half of consumers to switch brands or
retailers. This emphasizes the strategic importance for companies to focus on expediting
their delivery processes to align with consumer expectations.
The fourth evaluated attribute was information and traceability. Our findings revealed
an interesting distinction in how consumers value information and traceability in last-mile
delivery. While this attribute appeared not critical when consumers chose delivery to the
address, it became significant in the context of choosing delivery points. This observation
aligns with some studies [28] that report no substantial impact of tracking on delivery
choices for delivery to the address, yet contrasts with others [19,25,48] that highlight the
importance of information and traceability. One possible explanation for the diminished
emphasis on tracking for delivery to the address could be that consumers find the standard
level of information provided to be adequate. They may view additional tracking features
as either superfluous or as adding unnecessary costs.
The fifth evaluated attribute was the delivery time windows. Our study highlighted
the significance of delivery time windows in shaping consumer preferences for delivery
to the address. The authors of [14] support the idea that increasing the hours of operation
enhances utility, consistent with the findings of this study. However, the utility increase
was noticeably limited after weekdays between 09:00 and 18:00 or weekdays between 18:00
and 22:00. This suggests that certain levels of working hours offered by firms are sufficient
to satisfy consumers.
The sixth evaluated attribute was the pick-up accessibility. Our findings indicated
that the accessibility of pick-up points, particularly the hours available for collection, plays
a significant role in consumer preference for delivery points options. This is in line with
the authors of [14], who found that extending pick-up hours generally enhances customer
utility. The most contributing level of utility was “Between 09:00 and 22:00 h, seven
days a week”. Interestingly, the available for collection 24/7 option provided less benefit,
especially with an extended delivery timeframe. Participants may consider “Seven days a
week between 09:00 and 22:00” the most suitable time interval, choosing based on when
they can receive deliveries rather than broader time intervals.
The last evaluated attribute was distance. Our research confirmed that the proximity
of delivery points is a key determinant in consumer choice, echoing the findings of prior
studies [14,21,23,30,31]. This emphasizes the need for e-commerce and last-mile delivery
companies to focus on the strategic placement of delivery points to ensure convenience and
accessibility. The significance of location convenience is such that if consumers find smart
parcel locker locations too distant or difficult to access, they are likely to seek alternative
delivery services, as suggested in [51]. Consequently, the effective positioning of delivery
points, ensuring they are within a reasonable distance for consumers, is crucial. This can
significantly enhance the attractiveness and usage of these delivery options, contributing
to their broader adoption in the market.

4.1. Theoretical Contributions

In an era where last-mile delivery solutions are evolving, this study emerges as a bea-
con of theoretical exploration, probing the uncharted territories of consumer preferences
and decision-making within innovative delivery methods. While scholarly literature has
experienced a surge in studies centered on these solutions since 2017, a substantial portion
has predominantly evolved within the technology acceptance framework, leaving a gap in
exploring these solutions through econometric models. This research makes a significant
Future Transp. 2024, 4 169

contribution by addressing this gap, employing and contextualizing econometric models

within this domain, thereby enriching the literature on innovative delivery methods. An ad-
ditional substantial contribution stems from the discrete choice experiment method, which
traditionally concentrates on presenting delivery vehicle options or combining vehicles
with delivery locations as alternatives. The literature on delivery locations remains under-
developed [14,31,32,34], making this study a pioneering attempt to scrutinize innovative
delivery methods explicitly tailored to the delivery location alternative.
Furthermore, while the prevalent delivery to address currently involves delivery
workers, the imminent integration of drones and autonomous robots as innovative delivery
solutions signals a transformative shift. This study is one of the few inquiries that delve
into discerning consumer preferences between human-driven and machine-based delivery
alternatives [3,10,29,30].
Recognizing the regional and cultural variations in consumer preferences, this study
marks an initial attempt to utilize the discrete choice experiment method to explore last-
mile delivery solutions in the context of Türkiye. The unique focus on Istanbul’s population
offers distinctive insights, especially within the context of mega-cities, contributing signifi-
cantly to the understanding of consumer behavior in densely populated urban areas.
In summary, this study significantly contributes to the academic domain by shedding
light on the primary factors influencing consumer choice in last-mile delivery alternatives.
Identifying and ranking key attributes for both delivery to the address and delivery points
alternatives enriches the existing theoretical framework within the field of last-mile delivery.
Additionally, this study offers insights into the nuanced differences in attribute impor-
tance between these two delivery modes, providing a deeper understanding of consumer
preferences.

4.2. Practical Contributions

This study delineates a structured guide tailored for last-mile delivery enterprises,
policymakers, and industry participants, facilitating navigation through the complex realm
of consumer perception and operational efficacy. Embedded within this framework is a
clarion call, a convergence of pragmatic measures stemming from meticulous analysis and
strategic anticipation.
Firstly, last-mile delivery companies should implement comprehensive promotional
campaigns to counter the initial negative perception of delivery points among consumers.
Leveraging diverse methods, mainly through social media platforms, is pivotal to effectively
reaching a wider audience. Additionally, introducing incentive-based practices, such as
scoring systems and bonuses, could further encourage the adoption of delivery points.
Secondly, policymakers are crucial in mitigating the negative externalities caused by
consumers’ preference for delivery to the address. Implementing regulations aligned with
the characteristics identified in this study could significantly address these challenges; thus,
positively impacting urban logistics.
Thirdly, strategic technology adoption is critical. The consumer acceptance of au-
tonomous delivery robots and drones is likely to be more favorable if these technologies are
integrated into an appropriate delivery structure, facilitating a smoother adoption process.
Moreover, considering that the live tracking attribute is less valued by consumers, based
on this study, firms should cautiously assess their usage data in pilot phases to ensure
alignment with consumer expectations before scaling up investments.
Fourthly, the “09:00–22:00 seven days a week” timeframe was observed to be optimal.
Adjusting this timeframe while aligning delivery points’ locations with supermarket chains,
groceries, and stores could facilitate their use as delivery points.
Finally, companies could further promote the use of delivery points by strategically
establishing them within a 1500 m range, considering consumer population densities.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 170

4.3. Research Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its contributions, this study has certain limitations that warrant consideration.
Primarily focused on the B2C domain of e-commerce, the research may need more insight
into broader delivery landscapes, where various innovative methods are trialed. The exclu-
sion of the return process, an integral part of e-commerce transactions, limits understanding
of the holistic dynamics of last-mile delivery. Additionally, the reliance on consumer as-
sumptions for innovative delivery methods, such as drones and autonomous delivery,
may impact the generalizability and depth of analysis. Especially since the findings of
this study differ from the literature for autonomous delivery robots and drones, there is a
need for replication in different contexts to generalize the findings of the study. Moreover,
the sampling technique limitations, subjectivity in attribute creation, and potential bias
from prevailing delivery price systems could influence the findings. Addressing these
limitations, future research endeavors could explore diverse geographical and cultural con-
texts beyond Istanbul, incorporating robust sampling methods to enhance generalizability
and delving into diverse subgroup perspectives. Conducting comparisons across diverse
groups could yield more homogenous results when analyzing the data on a subgroup basis.
Incorporating varying delivery price structures, considering the status quo alternative, and
employing alternative analysis methods, such as mixed logistic regression or latent class
analysis, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior in
last-mile delivery preferences.

5. Conclusions
This research sought to explore the impact of innovative delivery methods on con-
sumer preferences in last-mile delivery and aimed to provide insights into the seamless
integration of these methods within sustainable delivery frameworks. In this context, the
study rigorously examined the attributes influencing consumer preferences for two distinct
delivery alternatives: delivery to address and delivery points. In the delivery to address
alternative, key determinants primarily revolved around the delivery price, delivery term,
and delivery time window. Conversely, attributes such as information and traceability,
and delivery method did not showcase any impact on this choice. Even the integration
of advanced delivery technologies, such as drones, autonomous robots, and live location
tracking, failed to significantly alter consumer preferences, emphasizing the enduring dom-
inance of fundamental delivery attributes in shaping preferences within this alternative. In
contrast, the selection of the delivery points alternative was notably influenced by a more
comprehensive set of attributes, including delivery price, delivery term, delivery method,
pick-up hours, information and traceability, and distance. Since delivery points are a new
alternative, the determinants guiding choices extend beyond essential attributes. How-
ever, foundational attributes, such as delivery price and delivery term, retain significant
importance, indicating their enduring impact despite the evolving nature of this alternative.
The study suggests an avenue for steering consumers toward utilizing delivery points by
strategically implementing various attributes and levels in the last-mile delivery process.
This underscores the potential for tailored design within last-mile delivery alternatives to
actively influence user behavior and encourage the utilization of these delivery points.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.K. and M.T.; methodology, H.K.; investigation, H.K.;
formal analysis, H.K. and M.T.; writing—review and editing, H.K.; supervision, M.T. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Maltepe University.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Available upon request.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 171

Acknowledgments: This article is derived from the dissertation titled “The Effects of Innovative De-
livery Solutions on Consumers’ Last Mile Delivery Choices”, authored by Halil Karlı and completed
under the supervision of Professor Mehmet Tanyaş at Maltepe University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Jacobs, K.; Warner, S.; Rietra, M.; Mazza, L.; Buvat, J.; Khadikar, A.; Cherian, S.; Khemka, Y. The Last-Mile Delivery Challenge.
Available online: https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Report-Digital-%E2%80%93-Last-Mile-Delivery-
Challenge1.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2022).
2. Wireless Logic A Research Report into the Changing Attitudes, Behaviors, and Expectations of UK Consumers: Could IoT Be
an Enabler of next-Level Retail? Available online: https://wirelesslogic.com/library/Everything-Now-Infographic-Last-Mile-
Delivery.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2022).
3. Borghetti, F.; Caballini, C.; Carboni, A.; Grossato, G.; Maja, R.; Barabino, B. The Use of Drones for Last-Mile Delivery: A Numerical
Case Study in Milan, Italy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1766. [CrossRef]
4. Deloison, T.; Hannon, E.; Anja, H.; Heid, B.; Klink, C.; Sahay, R.; Wolff, C. The Future of the Last-Mile Ecosystem. Available
online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-the-last-mile-ecosystem (accessed on 11 May 2022).
5. Gevaers, R.; Voorde, E.V.D.; Vanelslander, T. Characteristics of Innovations in Last Mile Logistics—Using Best Practices, Case
Studies and Making the Link with Green and Sustainable Logistics. Assoc. Eur. Transp. Contrib. 2009, 1, 21.
6. OECD Decarbonising Urban Mobility with Land Use and Transport Policies: The Case of Auckland. Available online: https:
//www.oecd.org/env/Decarbonising-Urban-Mobility-with-Land-Use-and-Transport-Policies--The-Case-of-Auckland.pdf (ac-
cessed on 22 April 2022).
7. Asdecker, B. Building the E-Commerce Supply Chain of the Future: What Influences Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Places
of Delivery on the Last-Mile. Logistics 2021, 5, 90. [CrossRef]
8. Boysen, N.; Fedtke, S.; Schwerdfeger, S. Last-Mile Delivery Concepts: A Survey from an Operational Research Perspective. OR
Spectr. 2021, 43, 1–58. [CrossRef]
9. Kiba-Janiak, M.; Marcinkowski, J.; Jagoda, A.; Skowrońska, A. Sustainable Last Mile Delivery on E-Commerce Market in Cities
from the Perspective of Various Stakeholders. Literature Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 71, 102984. [CrossRef]
10. Merkert, R.; Bliemer, M.C.J.; Fayyaz, M. Consumer Preferences for Innovative and Traditional Last-Mile Parcel Delivery. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2022, 52, 261–284. [CrossRef]
11. Cai, L.; Yuen, K.F.; Xie, D.; Fang, M.; Wang, X. Consumer’s Usage of Logistics Technologies: Integration of Habit into the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101789. [CrossRef]
12. Kapser, S.; Abdelrahman, M.; Bernecker, T. Autonomous Delivery Vehicles to Fight the Spread of COVID-19—How Do Men and
Women Differ in Their Acceptance? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 148, 183–198. [CrossRef]
13. Kedia, A.; Kusumastuti, D.; Nicholson, A. Acceptability of Collection and Delivery Points from Consumers’ Perspective: A
Qualitative Case Study of Christchurch City. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2017, 5, 587–595. [CrossRef]
14. Molin, E.; Kosicki, M.; Van Duin, R. Consumer Preferences for Parcel Delivery Methods: The Potential of Parcel Locker Use in the
Netherlands. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2022, 22, 183–200. [CrossRef]
15. Osakwe, C.N.; Hudik, M.; Říha, D.; Stros, M.; Ramayah, T. Critical Factors Characterizing Consumers’ Intentions to Use Drones
for Last-Mile Delivery: Does Delivery Risk Matter? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 65, 102865. [CrossRef]
16. Pani, A.; Mishra, S.; Golias, M.; Figliozzi, M. Evaluating Public Acceptance of Autonomous Delivery Robots during COVID-19
Pandemic. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 89, 102600. [CrossRef]
17. Buldeo Rai, H.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. Unlocking the Failed Delivery Problem? Opportunities and Challenges for Smart Locks
from a Consumer Perspective. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 100753. [CrossRef]
18. Buldeo Rai, H.; Verlinde, S.; Macharis, C. The “next Day, Free Delivery” Myth Unravelled: Possibilities for Sustainable Last Mile
Transport in an Omnichannel Environment. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2019, 47, 39–54. [CrossRef]
19. Caspersen, E.; Navrud, S.; Bengtsson, J. Act Locally? Are Female Online Shoppers Willing to Pay to Reduce the Carbon Footprint
of Last Mile Deliveries? Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2022, 16, 1144–1158. [CrossRef]
20. Caspersen, E.; Navrud, S. The Sharing Economy and Consumer Preferences for Environmentally Sustainable Last Mile Deliveries.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 95, 102863. [CrossRef]
21. Cebeci, M.S.; Tapia, R.J.; Kroesen, M.; De Bok, M.; Tavasszy, L. The Effect of Trust on the Choice for Crowdshipping Services.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2023, 170, 103622. [CrossRef]
22. Da Silva, J.V.S.; Vaz De Magalhães, D.J.A.; Medrado, L. Demand Analysis for Pick-up Sites as an Alternative Solution for Home
Delivery in the Brazilian Context. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 462–470. [CrossRef]
23. Gawor, T.; Hoberg, K. Customers’ Valuation of Time and Convenience in e-Fulfillment. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019,
49, 75–98. [CrossRef]
24. Iannaccone, G.; Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V. What Young E-Consumers Want? Forecasting Parcel Lockers Choice in Rome. Logistics
2021, 5, 57. [CrossRef]
Future Transp. 2024, 4 172

25. Oliveira, L.K.D.; Morganti, E.; Dablanc, L.; Oliveira, R.L.M.D. Analysis of the Potential Demand of Automated Delivery Stations
for E-Commerce Deliveries in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 65, 34–43. [CrossRef]
26. Souza, N.L.S.D.; Stradioto Neto, L.A.; Fettermann, D.D.C.; Frazzon, E.M. Evaluation of the Customer Requirements for Last Mile
Delivery in Brazil. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2022, 19, 1–12. [CrossRef]
27. Wegerstedt, J.M.; Hetland, M. Measuring Consumer Preferences: Attributes Impacting Choice of Home Deliveries in Oslo. Master
Thesis, Molde University College, Molde, Norway, 2022.
28. Wicaksono, S.; Lin, X.; Tavasszy, L.A. Market Potential of Bicycle Crowdshipping: A Two-Sided Acceptance Analysis. Res. Transp.
Bus. Manag. 2022, 45, 100660. [CrossRef]
29. Polydoropoulou, A.; Tsirimpa, A.; Karakikes, I.; Tsouros, I.; Pagoni, I. Mode Choice Modeling for Sustainable Last-Mile Delivery:
The Greek Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8976. [CrossRef]
30. Guy, V. An Exploratory Study into the Influence of Last-Mile Home Delivery Innovations on Consumer Delivery Service Choices
in the Parcel and Meal Delivery Markets. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2018.
31. Collins, A.T. Behavioural Influences on the Environmental Impact of Collection/Delivery Points. In Green Logistics and Transporta-
tion; Fahimnia, B., Bell, M.G.H., Hensher, D.A., Sarkis, J., Eds.; Greening of Industry Networks Studies; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 4, pp. 15–34. ISBN 978-3-319-17180-7.
32. Rossolov, A. A Last-Mile Delivery Channel Choice by E-Shoppers: Assessing the Potential Demand for Automated Parcel Lockers.
Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 26, 983–1005. [CrossRef]
33. Kedia, A.; Kusumastuti, D.; Nicholson, A. Establishing Collection and Delivery Points to Encourage the Use of Active Transport:
A Case Study in New Zealand Using a Consumer-Centric Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6255. [CrossRef]
34. Kedia, A. Estimating the Effect of Online Shopping and Collection-Delivery Points on Shopping Travel in New Zealand. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2020.
35. Lim, S.F.W.T.; Jin, X.; Srai, J.S. Consumer-Driven e-Commerce: A Literature Review, Design Framework, and Research Agenda on
Last-Mile Logistics Models. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018, 48, 308–332. [CrossRef]
36. Morikawa, T. Correcting State Dependence and Serial Correlation in the RP/SP Combined Estimation Method. Transportation
1994, 21, 153–165. [CrossRef]
37. Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015;
ISBN 978-1-107-09264-8.
38. Paluri, R.A.; Mehra, S. Financial Attitude Based Segmentation of Women in India: An Exploratory Study. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016,
34, 670–689. [CrossRef]
39. Yu, L.; Sun, B. Four Types of Typical Discrete Choice Models: Which Are You Using? In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International
Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, Suzhou, China, 8 July 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012.
40. Soekhai, V.; De Bekker-Grob, E.W.; Ellis, A.R.; Vass, C.M. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and
Future. Pharmacoeconomics 2019, 37, 201–226. [CrossRef]
41. Michela, T. Applying Discrete Choice Experiments in Social Care Research; National Institute for Health Research, School for Social
Care Research: London, UK, 2016.
42. Çebi Karaaslan, K. Hanehalkı Tasarruf Tercihlerinin Kesikli Tercih Modelleriyle Incelenmesi. Ph.D. Thesis, Atatürk Üniversitesi,
Yakutiye, Türkiye, 2020.
43. Grace-Martin, K. Logistics Regression Models for Multinomial and Ordinal Variables. Available online: https://www.
theanalysisfactor.com/logistic-regression-models-for-multinomial-and-ordinal-variables (accessed on 17 September 2022).
44. Garson, D.G. Logistics Regression: Binomial and Multinomial; Statistical Associates Publishing: Asheboro, NC, USA, 2014.
45. IBM Choosing a Procedure for Binary Logistic Regression. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/spss-statistics/26
.0.0?topic=regression-choosing-procedure-binary-logistic (accessed on 16 July 2022).
46. Pham, D.K. Sustainable Fashion: A Statistical Analysis of Consumers’ Behaviors by Stated Choice Experiment. Master’s Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2020.
47. Vojáček, O.; Pecáková, I. Comparison of Discrete Choice Models for Economic Environmental Research. Prague Econ. Pap. 2010,
19, 35–53. [CrossRef]
48. Hess, S.; Palma, D. Apollo: A Flexible, Powerful and Customisable Freeware Package for Choice Model Estimation and
Application. J. Choice Model. 2019, 32, 100170. [CrossRef]
49. Cordera, R.; Sañudo, R.; Echániz, E.; Nogués, S.; dell’Olio, L. Future Scenarios for the European Railway Sector: A Methodology
Based on Past Trends and a Stated Preference Survey. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2023, 17, 148–162. [CrossRef]
50. Reck, D.J.; Axhausen, K.W. Who Uses Shared Micro-Mobility Services? Empirical Evidence from Zurich, Switzerland. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 94, 102803. [CrossRef]
51. Garver, M.S.; Williams, Z.; Stephen Taylor, G.; Wynne, W.R. Modelling Choice in Logistics: A Managerial Guide and Application.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2012, 42, 128–151. [CrossRef]
52. Milioti, C.; Pramatari, K.; Zampou, E. Choice of Prevailing Delivery Methods in E-Grocery: A Stated Preference Ranking
Experiment. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2020, 49, 281–298. [CrossRef]
Future Transp. 2024, 4 173

53. Joerss, M.; Schröder, J.; Neuhaus, F.; Klink, C.; Mann, F. Parcel Delivery: The Future of Last Mile. Available online: https://bdkep.de/
files/bdkep-dateien/pdf/2016_the_future_of_last_mile.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
54. Capgemini Making the Last Mile Pay: Balancing Customer Expectations and Commercial Reality. Available online: https://www.
capgemini.com/cn-zh/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/08/making-the-last_mile-pay.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2022).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.