JTRG-01912; No of Pages 9

Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Critical review

Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and
review of literature
Khalid Aljohani PhD Student a,⁎, Russell G. Thompson Associate Professor b
a
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne, Room C305, Building 174, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
b
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne, Room C306, Building 174, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The location of logistics facilities significantly affects not only the activities of urban goods movement, but also the
Received 15 February 2016 urban environment as these facilities represent major originators and receivers of freight. Recently, the phenom-
Received in revised form 5 August 2016 enon of logistics sprawl, i.e. the relocation of logistics facilities away from inner urban areas to suburban areas has
Accepted 8 August 2016
received an increasing level of attention from both academics and policy makers. In this paper, a literature review
Available online xxxx
of the various impacts of logistics sprawl is provided with a detailed taxonomy of the impacts. It has been ob-
Keywords:
served that logistics sprawl contributed changes in geography of urban freight, increasing trucks' travelled dis-
Logistics sprawl tance and consequent emissions and impacting the commuting of logistics employment. The paper presents a
Relocation of logistics facilities summary of the empirical findings illustrating the additional distance trucks travel due to logistics sprawl in sev-
Geography of freight eral European and North American cities. Furthermore, the paper provides an overview of the measures and pol-
icies implemented in various metropolitan areas to reintegrate small-scale logistics facilities within inner urban
areas to act as consolidation centres.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1.1. Introduction to logistics facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1.2. Phenomenon of logistics sprawl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2. Review methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3. Factors contributing to the relocation of logistics facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.1. Land use and exclusion of freight in recent urban planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.2. New operational and location requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4. Taxonomy of impacts of logistics sprawl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.1. Impact of logistics sprawl on urban freight geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.2. Contribution of logistics sprawl to increased distance travelled by trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.3. Contribution of logistics sprawl to negative environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.4. Logistics sprawl impact on commuting of logistics employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5. Measures and solutions to re-integrate small-scale logistics facilities in inner urban areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.1. Innovative and sustainable solutions for logistics real estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5.2. Sustainable freight land use strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
6. Conclusion and future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kaljohani@student.unimelb.edu.au (K. Aljohani), rgthom@unimelb.edu.au (R.G. Thompson).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
0966-6923/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
2 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction to logistics facilities
The location of logistics facilities are constrained by the availability
and zoning of commercial and industrial land that are offered by local
authorities. Thus, logistics facilities are limited to where they can locate
and can only conform to what is offered and where it is already avail-
able. There are different types of logistics facilities that require land de-
pending on the category and objective of the facility, which can be a
warehouse, distribution centre (DC), truck terminal or intermodal facil-
ity (McKinnon, 2009). Furthermore, the various urban land-use struc-
tures for logistics activities, which can be centralised, decentralised,
clustered or dispersion, have a direct effect on freight movement within
urban areas (United Nations Human Settlements Programme [UN-
Habitat], 2013, pp. 63). For example, a centralised and clustered land-
use setting would require shorter trips and less frequent stops to deliver
the same quantity of products compared to a decentralised and dis-
persed land-use setting. Freight distribution in urban areas encom-
passes both bulk freight, which includes transporting primary goods
and agriculture/forestry products on articulated and heavy rigid trucks,
and non-bulk freight, which covers transporting goods and materials for
manufacturing, retail, couriers, express and parcel (CEP), construction,
hotel, restaurants and catering (HoReCa) industries (Tsolakis and
Naude, 2008; Behrends, 2016).
As logistics facilities represent a pivotal component of the overall lo-
gistics network, urban planners need to carefully assess the merits and
limitations of land use allocation related to these facilities. They affect
the overall landscape, resource use as well as the future economic and so-
cial geography of suburban areas (Cidell, 2011). Moreover, the location of
logistics facilities has several impacts on both public and private urban
freight stakeholders. Lindsey et al. (2014) indicated that for public stake-
holders, the location of logistics facilities affect regional truck traffic pat-
terns and influence the well-being of individuals in local communities
by contributing to several issues such as noise, air quality, safety and con-
gestion. For logistics companies, the location of logistics facilities has con-
siderable implications on total transport costs and the efficiency of their
operations (Dablanc et al., 2014; Lindsey et al., 2014). Rodrigue (2013) es-
timated that up to 50% of the total operating costs of a distribution centre
is attributed to transport costs. Furthermore, as logistics facilities repre-
sent the end point for urban freight transport, their location considerably
affects the distance travelled by freight vehicles (Wygonik et al., 2014).
1.2. Phenomenon of logistics sprawl
Historically, storage of goods was decentralised with multiple ware-
houses positioned across the supply chain at the manufacturing site and
at the receiver's site with intermediate warehouses between these two
locations (Allen et al., 2012). The majority of these warehouses were
smaller and located in inner urban areas in the proximity of industrial
areas, rail yards and docklands (Dablanc and Rakotonarivo, 2010;
Cidell, 2010). Due to various factors related to land use control and
new requirements for robust operational environments, logistics facili-
ties are currently located in primarily logistics clusters in the outer
edges of metropolitan areas close to highway networks, major airports
and seaports (Hesse, 2002; Woudsma et al., 2008; Cidell, 2011; Leigh
and Hoelzel, 2012; Allen et al., 2012). This trend of outward movement
of logistics facilities from inner urban areas to suburban and exurban
areas has been termed as Logistics Sprawl. In this paper, Logistics Sprawl
is interpreted based on the definition provided by Dablanc and
Rakotonarivo (2010) ‘the spatial deconcentration of logistics facilities
and distribution centres in metropolitan areas’. Other terms such as
“freight sprawl” in New York Metropolitan region (Rodrigue, 2004; de
Cerreño et al., 2008) and “logistics polarisation” by Hesse (2008) have
also been used to describe the movement and relocation of logistics fa-
cilities from inner urban areas to suburban areas. However, the term
Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
“logistics sprawl” is more widely used in the literature. The transforma-
tion and movement of older logistics facilities were accomplished by
small adjustments in their spatial arrangement with the conversion of
older facilities to other uses such residential, commercial or mixed-use
and establishing new and large facilities in suburban and exurban
areas (Hesse, 2008; Cidell, 2010; UN-Habitat, 2013, pp. 65).
Several studies have observed that a number of large metropolitan
areas in Europe (Hesse, 2004; Dablanc and Rakotonarivo, 2010; Allen
et al., 2012; Heitz and Dablanc, 2015), North America (de Cerreño
et al., 2008; Bowen, 2008; Cidell, 2010; Dablanc and Ross, 2012;
Dablanc et al., 2014; Woudsma et al., 2015) and Japan (Sakai et al.,
2015) have experienced logistics sprawl at different scales. It can be ar-
gued that literature on the impacts of logistics sprawl might be difficult
to evaluate as it is spread across various research fields including trans-
portation, urban planning, economic geography, operations research,
just to name a few. The majority of literature on the relocation of logis-
tics facilities has paid more attention to the economic benefits and com-
petitive advantages with regard to logistics companies. Existing
literature on the topic fails to establish a widely acknowledged and ac-
cepted taxonomy of the impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban envi-
ronment and logistics. Sakai et al. (2016) emphasised that majority of
studies on logistics sprawl have focused more on the changes in the lo-
cation of logistics facilities while the impacts of these relocation shifts
have not been carefully considered.
The freight industry appears to have contradicting issues in urban
areas, as it is required to operate efficiently and sustainably and adjust
to the increasing urban freight activities. This has to be achieved with
the majority of customers and retailers being located in inner urban
areas while logistics facilities have been forced to relocate to the periphery
of metropolitan areas (Labussière and Nappi-Choulet, 2014). Inner urban
areas still constitute a major retail and freight destination and attract/gen-
erate significant levels of freight movements with very limited supply of
available and affordable commercial and industrial land to establish and
operate logistics facilities. The volume of freight movements in the central
city area has significantly increased due to economical, operational and
social factors. A more thorough evaluation and improved understanding
of the impacts of logistics sprawl will facilitate more effective public pol-
icies and urban planning to efficiently and harmoniously re-integrate lo-
gistics facilities and preserve freight infrastructure in inner urban areas.
The motivation for reviewing existing literature on the impacts of lo-
gistics sprawl is two-fold. It was observed that a literature review on the
impacts of logistics sprawl has been missing even though the field has re-
ceived more attention recently from scholars and practitioners. This nar-
rative review paper attempts to take a first step, to the best of our
knowledge, in proposing a comprehensive taxonomy of the different im-
pacts of logistics sprawl. The analysis presented in this paper contributes
to addressing the gap in knowledge and provides a description of how
this phenomenon has impacted the urban environment and logistics in-
dustry. This paper examines the scholarly literature and critically evalu-
ates the studies that have reported on the impacts of logistics sprawl to
check for the different dimensions and patterns that could be used to clas-
sify the various impacts of logistics sprawl. This paper is organised as fol-
lows. Section 2 highlights the applied method used in this review paper
followed by Section 3, which describes the leading factors that have con-
tributed to the relocation of logistics facilities from inner urban areas to
suburban areas. Section 4 features the proposed taxonomy of the impacts
of logistics sprawl on the urban environment. Section 5 presents some of
the measures and solutions implemented in several urban areas in Europe
and North America to reintegrate small-scale logistics facilities in inner
urban areas. Section 6 provides a concluding summary and recommenda-
tions for future research.
2. Review methodology
This paper utilised several channels to identify relevant literature re-
garding impacts of logistics sprawl. Academic databases such as Science
 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Direct Journals, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald Journals, and ProQuest
were utilised to search for academic papers and reports. Furthermore,
Google Scholar was used to search for broader scope of the literature in-
cluding government and business reports, books and conference pro-
ceedings. Reference lists from key papers in the field were checked for
further references as well. Combinations of the following search terms
were used to find the relevant literature (urban logistics, warehouse ge-
ography, location of logistics facility, logistics sprawl, logistics land use,
logistics real estate, urban goods movement and urban distribution).
The search for literature was limited to the past 15 years (2000–2015)
as the investigation of the impacts of logistics sprawl is relevantly re-
cent. As this review paper represents an initial step in classifying the
range of impacts of logistics sprawl reported, it focuses only on studies
that have addressed the relocation of logistics facilities and the different
impacts caused by these spatial shifts. Theoretical studies that did not
examine the impacts of logistics sprawl or highlight the major limita-
tions and issues of this phenomenon were excluded from search results.
A total of 61 scholarly, industrial and government documents were
analysed for this investigation and evaluation of the impacts of logistics
sprawl.
3. Factors contributing to the relocation of logistics facilities
The geography of urban freight distribution has significantly
changed over the last three decades as a result of recent developments
in management, technology and operations of logistics (Cidell, 2011).
However, many other authors have argued that government pressure
and land use control coupled with improper urban planning have con-
tributed significantly to the phenomena of logistics sprawl (Leigh and
Hoelzel, 2012; Newton, 2013; Christensen Associates et al., 2012).
Land use control and the exclusion of freight in urban planning have
been influential in leading to the relocation of logistics facilities from
inner urban areas to suburban areas as affordable industrial land was
no longer available for logistics companies. Sakai et al. (2016) asserted
that shortage of industrial land in inner urban areas played an instru-
mental role in the relocation of logistics facilities away from urban
cores. It is important to have a clear understanding of the underlying
factors that contributed to the relocation of logistics facilities to subur-
ban locations.
3.1. Land use and exclusion of freight in recent urban planning
To maximise property and sales tax revenue, local jurisdictions have
modified zoning designations in inner city areas and docklands that
were formerly industrial land to non-industrial classifications (mixed-
use, commercial, office and residential development). For instance,
this policy was experienced in several urban areas such as the inner
areas of Paris in 1960s and 1970s (Dablanc and Rakotonarivo, 2010)
and the Port of New York (Christensen Associates et al., 2012). Further-
more, land prices have become significantly unaffordable for logistics
facilities in urban core areas which have consequently forced logistics
companies to relocate their facilities to suburban areas which offer rel-
atively lower prices as indicated by Hesse (2008). A study of 14 urban
areas in the UK for the period 1998–2008 showed similar results
(Allen et al., 2012). Similarly, Jakubicek and Woudsma (2011) in their
study of Greater Toronto Area and Verhetsel et al. (2015) in their
study of the Flanders region in Belgium corroborated that “Land Cost/
Tax Rate” was the most important location factor for logistics facilities.
Furthermore, the emergence of logistics real estate providers contribut-
ed to changes in the supply and development of sites and facilities for
logistics activities (Hesse, 2004). Suburban locations offered these
specialised developers with more affordable industrial land that could
be rented out at competitive prices with superior facilities and harmoni-
ous integration with other similar commercial and industrial users.
Another land-use issue that contributes to the relocation of logistics
facilities is the conflict between incompatible freight related activities
Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
3
and other land use when they operate and function in the same vicinity
as they compete for the same land and interfere with each other. For ex-
ample, a logistics facility operating near a residential neighbourhood
would result in the freight activity categorised as a “nuisance, safety
and/or health hazard” by local planners and residents which would in-
fluence the decisions of the owners and managers of these facilities' to
relocate their operations to avoid this conflict (Christensen Associates
et al., 2012). Hall and Hesse (2013) emphasised that as there was less
traffic and congestion to deal with, less residential encroachment and
better buffering between logistics facilities and residential areas, subur-
ban and exurban areas provided a more superior and efficient location
choices. Moreover, Leigh and Hoelzel (2012) claimed that local planning
has neglected incorporating freight transport and logistics facilities in
their smart growth movement. Comparatively, de Oliveira and Guerra
(2014) claimed that previous local jurisdictions failed to establish poli-
cies and guidelines to design and provide efficient on-street loading
bays and parking standards to integrate freight deliveries in new devel-
opments in urban areas.
3.2. New operational and location requirements
Several researchers have argued that regional and operational shifts
in the manufacturing industry, the expansion of global trade, e-
commerce and new practices such as Just-in-Time and containerisation
have played a prominent role in the restructuring and transformation of
the logistics industry (Hesse and Rodrigue, 2004; McKinnon, 2009;
Benjelloun and Crainic, 2009). These shifts have contributed to the
new requirements of large-scale regional distribution centres serving
major local and regional markets (O'Connor and Parsons, 2011; Allen
et al., 2012; Hall and Hesse, 2013). Older, smaller logistics facilities
with fewer loading bays are considered inefficient and not able to ac-
commodate the new operational requirements of modern logistics facil-
ities (Leigh and Hoelzel, 2012). The new operational requirements
require fewer and larger single-story facilities with high ceilings that
range in size from 10,000 to 100,000 m2 (Hesse, 2004; Cidell, 2010;
Leigh and Hoelzel, 2012). Consequently, suburban and exurban areas
offer more affordable and robust locations for logistics facilities that pro-
vide more efficient operation and access to regional markets (Andreoli
et al., 2010). As these new facilities serve much larger geographical
areas, highway accessibility has become a very important locational fac-
tor. Dablanc et al. (2014) noticed that logistics facilities in Los Angeles
and Seattle in the US preferred locations that were as close as possible
to regional infrastructure networks that provided excellent accessibility
to serve the local, regional and national markets.
4. Taxonomy of impacts of logistics sprawl
4.1. Impact of logistics sprawl on urban freight geography
Hesse (2008) suggested that the spatial and structural changes in
the location of logistics facilities have altered the geography of freight
in urban areas. Urban freight activities impact the overall built environ-
ment over a larger spatial extent than a logistics facility itself. The loca-
tions of facilities affect not only logistics companies, but also the urban
environment in general. For instance, Cidell (2015) warns that areas
hosting large logistics facilities are significantly impacted by the wear
and tear on local roads and congestions on city streets. Hesse (2008)
further raised the concern that the somehow “harsh” nature of heavy
truck activities might conflict with other urban land uses due to the en-
croachment between freight transport and other urban land uses. When
zoning land use to allocate industrial lands for logistics facilities, it is im-
portant for urban planners and government authorities to consider all
the spatial interrelationships and between all the components and ac-
tivities in urban freight and how they impact each other (Cidell,
2015). For instance, large distribution centres usually attract an
4 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
increasing level of truck activities and some surrounding streetscape
and layout of roads might not be well suited for heavy trucks (Allen
et al., 2012).
Researchers have utilised various techniques and tools to measure
the spatial changes in the location of logistics facilities and to evaluate
patterns of concentration and dispersion of these establishments in
urban and suburban areas. For instance, several studies have applied
spatial centrographic analysis to quantify the spread of logistics facilities
(Dablanc and Rakotonarivo, 2010; Dablanc and Ross, 2012; Dablanc
et al., 2014; Sakai et al., 2015; Woudsma et al., 2015; Heitz and
Dablanc, 2015). This technique involves determining the barycentre,
the weighted geometric centre of a geographic distribution or simply
the centre of gravity, for all of these facilities. The mean distance from
the barycentre for each distribution can be calculated and averaged
across all these facilities. One of the strengths of the study undertaken
by Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010) is the application of a mixed meth-
odology in the research design. The methodology utilised a systematic
literature review of the decision making associated with warehousing
location patterns in Paris, hand processing of statistical databases on
warehouses' location and interviews with managers of the largest par-
cel and express transport companies operating in Paris. However, a
more comprehensive study should include all the other different types
of logistics facilities in the investigation as this study only focused on
parcels and express transport. Nonetheless, the findings of this study
represent foundational evidence for the impact of logistics sprawl on
urban areas and freight activities. This study has encouraged subse-
quent studies in other areas such Atlanta, USA (Dablanc and Ross,
2012), Los Angeles and Seattle, USA (Dablanc et al., 2014), Toronto,
Canada (Woudsma et al., 2015), Tokyo, Japan (Sakai et al., 2015) and
Paris Megaregion (Heitz and Dablanc, 2015) that have revealed similar
results.
Bowen's (2008) study of the changes in the number of warehouses
in 50 randomly selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in the
US between 1998 and 2005 represented one of the first extensive stud-
ies in the US context at the national scale. This study demonstrated that
logistics activities experienced faster growth in percentage terms in
suburban counties within the MSA than either central counties or
non-MSA counties. However, it was reported that central counties expe-
rienced the highest number of new warehousing establishments than
suburban or rural counties. Furthermore, the study conducted by
Cidell (2010) further validated the results of Bowen's study, as decen-
tralisation of freight facilities to suburban counties had taken place in
47 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas investigated in the US between
1986 and 2005. The study utilised spatial analysis and the Gini coeffi-
cient to illustrate the degree of concentration of logistics facilities over
time and across space at the county level within metropolitan areas.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that some major metropolitan
areas did not encounter logistics sprawl in this study due to local factors.
Furthermore, few metropolitan areas experienced the largest number of
new logistics facilities in central counties as also observed by Bowen.
Thus, it is significant to take into account the impact of increased logis-
tics activity in existing central city locations as well as suburban loca-
tions. Both the studies of Bowen (2008) and Cidell (2010) established
evidence to support the trend that logistics facilities have in fact been
migrating to suburban counties. However, neither study made an at-
tempt to determine the spatial location or distances of where and how
far in suburban areas these logistics facilities where being located.
Similar to previous studies, Woudsma et al. (2015) claimed that
whilst warehouses in Greater Toronto Area experienced higher growth
in outside urban areas, growth inside the core area was still experi-
enced. They highlighted that warehouses continued to exist and operate
in core urban areas and stressed that this observation needs to be taken
into consideration when analysing logistics sprawl. This result is in con-
trast to other studies, such as Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010) who re-
ported that logistics facilities were leaving core urban areas in Paris.
Furthermore, Woudsma et al. (2015) suggested that new large logistics
Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
facilities were built in exurban areas that offered better highway net-
work accessibility to serve regional and national markets. Both Bowen
(2008) and Cidell (2010) support this claim. O'Connor and Parsons
(2011) observed that the location of significant part of logistics facilities
have become concentrated in suburban areas on the western side of
Melbourne close to the Western Ring Road. They claimed that jobs relat-
ed to large logistics facilities in exurban areas may encourage more res-
idential development in fringe locations, which may further expand
urban growth boundaries.
Heitz and Dablanc (2015) further supported O'Connor and Parsons's
(2011) claim as they suggested that logistics sprawl contributed to the
expansion of the urban fabric in Paris. They observed that logistics facil-
ities moved to exurban areas far away from residential areas, conse-
quently extending the boundaries of the urban area further outward.
Dablanc et al. (2014) postulated that logistics sprawl is experienced
more in large metropolitan areas where land prices are significantly
higher in central urban areas than suburban and exurban areas as they
serve as major trade nodes for regional and international markets. The
key issue with their claim is that only limited number of empirical or
theoretical studies exist that have examined the relationship between
city size and warehousing locational decision-making as the majority
of studies have only focused on large metropolitan areas. With regard
to architectural integration, the horizontal spread of large logistics facil-
ities in outer suburban areas has been coupled with lack of consider-
ation for aesthetic appearance. Philippe Gallois co-founder of SAGL,
the Paris-based designer of logistics real estate, described in an inter-
view with ESSEC Business School, that the move and building of large lo-
gistics facilities in suburban areas has paid attention only to efficiency
and practicality while neglecting any aesthetic considerations. Conse-
quently, this trend contributed to uncoordinated growth in logistics
buildings that were poorly integrated into the urban environment,
which consequently harmed the image of logistics facilities
(Labussière and Nappi-Choulet, 2014). Diziain et al. (2012) further
demonstrated in their study of logistics sprawl in Paris that the lack of
land use control has facilitated a disorganised presence of poorly de-
signed logistics facilities, which did not fit with existing environment
in the suburban areas of Paris.
4.2. Contribution of logistics sprawl to increased distance travelled by
trucks
Logistics sprawl has resulted in increased distances required and
travelled by freight trucks to deliver products in urban areas. The report
issued by US Department of Transport: Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA] (2012) further validates the observation that decentralisation
of logistics facilities away from urban core and corridors results in neg-
ative transportation impacts as freight trucks have to travel longer dis-
tances to deliver freight in urban areas. Crainic et al. (2004) indicated
that use of “satellite” warehouses outside of urban areas to coordinate
movements of multiple shippers and carriers into smaller vehicles re-
sulted in an increase in the total distance travelled and number of
freight trucks required to deliver products within urban areas.
Andreoli et al. (2010) indicated that mega distribution centres, which
are located in suburban areas and serve metropolitan and regional mar-
kets, contributed to increasing the distance travelled to deliver inside
the urban area between the distribution centre and the receivers. Fur-
thermore, Dablanc (2013) highlighted that freight trucks have to travel
more distance in urban areas as logistics facilities are becoming much
larger and serving more businesses and households than they used to
do.
Comparatively, the research conducted by Dablanc and Rakotonarivo
(2010) represents a significant study. It was one of the first empirical
studies to establish evidence for one the impacts of logistics sprawl as it
results in additional travelled kilometres to deliver goods inside Paris.
The study utilised spatial centrographic analysis to measure the change
in the mean distance of logistics terminals to the barycentre between
 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
1974 and 2008. They reported that the standard distance of these termi-
nals to their barycentre had increased from 6 km in 1974 to 16 km in
2008. Thus, it is claimed that the decentralisation of logistics facilities
from inner urban areas to suburban areas of Paris has created roughly
an average of ten additional kilometres per terminal to deliver goods in-
side Paris.
When looking across regions, the work conducted by Dablanc and
Ross (2012) for Atlanta, USA and Dablanc et al. (2014) study of Los
Angeles support the results of Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010). Be-
tween 1998 and 2008, it was reported that the average distance to the
barycentre of logistics facilities in Atlanta increased by 4.5 km. Similarly,
between 1998 and 2009 the average distance in Los Angeles increased
by 9.7 km. Furthermore, Sakai et al. (2015) observed similar results in
their study of spatial changes in location of logistics facilities in the
Tokyo Metropolitan Area. They reported that the average distance of
these facilities from the urban centre of Tokyo had increased by only
2.4 km between 1980 and 2003, displaying similar trend of relative lo-
gistics sprawl as Atlanta. In contrast, the average distance of logistics fa-
cilities decreased by 1.3 km from their barycentre in Seattle between
1998 and 2009. Dablanc et al. (2014) suggested that logistics facilities
in Seattle did not sprawl significantly due to local factors related to
the geography of Seattle and the availability of industrial land. They ob-
served that the majority of new logistics facilities built between 1998
and 2009 were added in areas close to the barycentre. This could be con-
tributed to the already existing cluster of logistics facilities close to the
barycentre and limited availability of industrial lands elsewhere. For in-
stance, only seven areas in Seattle had more than five logistics facilities
in 2009 with all areas being located less than 19 km from the barycentre.
Moreover, the studies in Atlanta (Dablanc and Ross, 2012) as well as Los
Angeles and Seattle (Dablanc et al., 2014) processed warehousing data
at the sub-county (zip-code) level. On the other hand, Bowen (2008)
and Cidell (2010) looked at warehousing data in major US metropolitan
areas only at the county level, which presented a serious disadvantage.
As major counties in the US include several zip codes, these counties ex-
tend over large geographical areas. As a result, Bowen (2008) and Cidell
(2010) did not account for warehousing relocation changes within the
county.
Heitz and Dablanc (2015) noticed that warehouses were moving in-
wards from the outer areas in Paris Megaregion towards suburban areas
of Paris region. The mean distance from the barycentre of all ware-
houses decreased from 155 km to 100 km between 2000 and 2012 re-
spectively. This trend can be attributed to attractiveness of suburban
areas with respect to enhanced transportation infrastructure, availabil-
ity of land and labour as well as proximity to suppliers and customers,
which has been already suggested by Bowen (2008); Cidell (2010)
and Woudsma et al. (2015). However, this study focused only on ware-
house establishments and did not include other types of logistics facili-
ties. It is important to emphasise that the findings of this study included
analysis of both highly detailed reports obtained from government busi-
ness databases and interviews with managers working in Paris-based
logistics facilities to examine the phenomena of logistics sprawl in the
Paris Megaregion.
Similar to the results of the Seattle study (Dablanc et al., 2014),
Woudsma et al. (2015) observed that logistics facilities did not demon-
strate significant sprawl in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as the aver-
age distance of logistics facilities to their barycentre increased by only
7.5%. They speculated that the relative logistics sprawl was a result of
the lack of industrial land in the GTA. However, they reported that logis-
tics sprawl was existent in areas outside the GTA and within the Greater
Golden Horseshoe Region (Toronto Megaregion), as logistics facilities
have moved out about 9.5 km away from their barycentre. This observa-
tion differs from Paris Megaregion as logistics sprawl was evident
within the metropolitan area of Paris and Paris Megaregion experienced
logistics facilities moving inward from the outer areas of Paris
Megaregion towards suburban areas of Paris (Dablanc and
Rakotonarivo, 2010; Heitz and Dablanc, 2015). It can be argued that
Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
5
dispersion of logistics facilities over large geographical areas contributes
to longer freight trips and even more frequent stops to deliver the same
volume of products than centralised and clustered settings (UN-Habitat,
2013, pp. 66). Thus, it can be summarised that Paris, Atlanta, Los
Angeles, Tokyo and the Toronto Megaregion all experienced significant
logistics sprawl while Seattle did not display similar results as can be
seen in Fig. 1.
4.3. Contribution of logistics sprawl to negative environmental impacts
As a result of the additional distances travelled by freight trucks to
deliver products and goods in urban areas created by the relocation of
logistics facilities in urban areas, increasing negative environmental im-
pacts such as greenhouse gas emissions and pollutions as well as in-
creasing fuel consumption present an alarming concern. Dablanc and
Rakotonarivo (2010) estimated that the relocation of logistics facilities
has created a net addition of CO2 emissions in the range of 15,000 t
per year. While this number might be only a marginal figure compared
to the overall emissions of CO2 produced by freight transport in Paris
each year, it still represents a harmful impact on the urban environment
that needs to be carefully evaluated and mitigated. This figure is consid-
ered the first and only evidence to report environmental impact of logis-
tics sprawl in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Dablanc and Ross
(2012) and Wygonik et al. (2014) have argued that logistics sprawl con-
tributed to the unsustainable nature of urban logistics as a result of the
additional congestion and greenhouse gas emissions and local atmo-
spheric pollution generated by the additional travelled distance by
trucks. However, Sakai et al. (2015) challenged this assumption, arguing
whether or not relocating a logistics facility to suburban areas is actually
socially detrimental as several factors relevant to the individual facility
need to be taken into consideration (e.g. vehicle types used, time of op-
eration, shipment origins and destinations, etc.).
One criticism of much of the relevant literature regarding this im-
pact is that most studies alleged that logistics sprawl have contribut-
ed negatively to the urban environment primarily based on analysis
of previous studies without empirically measuring the impact of
warehousing locational shifts on the urban environment. The au-
thors attempted to draw conclusion from previously published stud-
ies on the negative environmental impacts resulting from additional
distance travelled (VKT) by trucks and congestion. There is no
enough evidence to support this correlation. Furthermore, Kohn
and Brodin (2008) suggested that a centralised distribution system
with multimodal transport with consolidated deliveries results in
environmental benefits that might outweigh or offset the negative
Change in Average Distance of Logistics Facilities from
barycentre (km)
10 9.7 9.5
4.5
2.4
-1.3
Paris (1974-2008) Tokyo (1980-2003) Atlanta (1998-2008)
Los Angeles (1998-2009) Seattle (1998-2009) Toronto (2002-2012)
Fig. 1. Change in average distance of logistics facilities from their barycentre in selected
metropolitan areas.
(Source: Data sourced from Dablanc and Rakotonarivo (2010), Dablanc and Ross (2012),
Dablanc et al. (2014), Woudsma et al. (2015) and Sakai et al. (2015)).
6 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
environmental impacts resulting from the additional distance trav-
elled. However, this claim is highly dependent on success in
switching to less polluting transport modes and fully consolidated
deliveries with road transport still being the dominant transport
mode especially in intra-metropolitan freight movements. Newer lo-
gistics facilities are more energy-efficient than older ones as con-
firmed by the study conducted by Dhooma and Baker (2012). It can
be argued that this impact of logistics sprawl is significantly
understudied as much of the prior research has been descriptive in
nature while failing to quantity the actual negative environmental
impacts.
4.4. Logistics sprawl impact on commuting of logistics employment
Relocating logistics facilities to suburban areas affects the patterns
and modes of commuting to work for those employed in logistics. The
location of new logistics facilities may not be well serviced by public
transportation, which increases employees' automobile dependency
and longer commuting (UN-Habitat, 2013, pp. 65). Furthermore, the
lack of access to public transportation services to these logistics facilities
might contribute to a smaller local labour pool as employees who lack
access to personal vehicle might have difficulty travelling from urban
areas to these logistics facilities (US Department of Transport: Federal
Highway Administration, 2012). Cidell (2015) highlighted as large lo-
gistics facilities locate more often in suburban and exurban areas, the
personal transportation networks of those employed in logistics needs
to be more flexible and require owning a private vehicle to commute
to these remote locations.
Similarly, Labussière and Nappi-Choulet (2014) expressed their con-
cern that logistics facilities continue to spread horizontally in suburban
areas further and further away from urban core areas. This would nega-
tively impact the accessibility of employees to these facilities, as they
might be located in low density and suburban settings. For example,
Davies (2009) illustrated using GIS based techniques that the location
of the average transport and storage job in Melbourne had spread
away significantly from the CBD to Southeastern areas of the metropol-
itan area between 1981 and 2006. One of the limitations with this ob-
servation is that it failed to provide detailed information on the
underlying factors leading to this employment locational shift. It can
be suggested that the results of this study would have been more rele-
vant and useful if the authors applied a longitudinal study involving
key decision makers in Melbourne's transportation and storage employ-
ment to observe and examine factors leading to their locational shifts.
Furthermore, a 2011 study by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport
and Regional Economics (BITRE) indicated that the average commuting
distance to jobs in transport-oriented industrial areas in Melbourne was
16.7 km, which is much longer than the 12-km average commuting dis-
tance for a typical Australian worker (BITRE, 2014). It is important to
highlight that both of the Melbourne-based studies did not investigate
the locational changes of logistics facilities in Melbourne and their im-
pacts on logistics employment commuting. So, the above reported
changes in commuting distances for those persons employed in logistics
in Melbourne might be due to other factors.
On the other hand, it can be argued that new and large logistics
facilities have revitalised these suburban areas and provided local la-
bour force with new job opportunities for both entry-level and
specialised logistics-related jobs. Chhetri et al. (2014) observed
that the functional logistics clusters in Melbourne, which spatially
concentrated based on various freight sub-industries such as road-
based and rail-based transport, have become a hotspot for logistics
employment and contributed to the economic development in
these suburban areas. Similarly, Van den Heuvel et al. (2013)
claimed that new and large logistics facilities, which co-locate in
suburban areas, benefit from labour market pooling. These spatially
clustered logistics establishments are provided with improved ac-
cess to better-specialised and trained logistics labour force.
Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
5. Measures and solutions to re-integrate small-scale logistics
facilities in inner urban areas
Reliance only on building new highways and corridors or upgrading
existing ones is not a feasible or sustainable solution for the long-term
freight transport requirements of urban areas. Thus, it is imperative
that an integrated and sustainable urban freight transportation system
is required to mitigate the impacts of logistics sprawl and accomplish ef-
fective and sustainable urban freight transport. It can be argued from
the perspective of logistics companies; the relocation of logistics facili-
ties to suburban areas offers more affordable, robust and efficient loca-
tions. This paper does not claim that suburban locations with respect
to logistics facilities are entirely problematic or negative to the urban
environment and logistics establishments. There are various factors
and aspects that might neutralise some of these impacts such as
switching to less polluting freight transport modes. This paper
attempted to shed light and bring attention to the consequences of
not incorporating freight transport in urban planning and land-use pol-
icies especially in congested central city areas. Consequently, it is essen-
tial that local and regional policy makers plan and execute policies to
assure the supply and availability of industrial land, both in quantity
and location, for logistics facilities as stressed by Sakai et al. (2015).
Guiliano et al. (2013) warned that local governments and urban plan-
ners need to be careful when putting into place strategies and policies
to balance lowering the number of freight trucks and reducing the con-
flicts with other modes of transport while ensuring efficient freight
flows that are required to sustain urban life.
Furthermore, Guyon et al. (2012) suggested that local authorities
should re-consider current policies of limiting the presence of logistics
facilities in the city centre. Similarly, Taniguchi et al. (2016) advocated
that local authorities and transport researchers should study the merits
of preserving freight intensive areas in central city areas to enable re-
ducing the distance travelled by freight vehicles. In an interview with
Christophe Ripert, the director of Real Estate at Paris-based Sogaris
Group, called for reassigning a role for logistics at every level of the
city in urban core, in the densely-developed suburbs and in the more
distant outskirts (Labussière and Nappi-Choulet, 2014). Furthermore,
he suggested that logistics facilities should be designed and built differ-
ently to display better architectural, functional and insulation quality to
facilitate reintegrating logistics into congested central city areas. He
highlighted the importance of building bold and inventive new logistics
facilities. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 presents an overview of successful mea-
sures and policies implemented in various metropolitan areas to estab-
lish a new level of small-scale logistics facilities in the central city area
that will address impacts of logistics sprawl while complementing
existing larger logistics facilities in suburban areas.
5.1. Innovative and sustainable solutions for logistics real estate
Recently, there have been various initiatives to establish small-scale
logistics facilities geographically closer to the end-receiver in the central
city area in several European cities such as London and Paris through
Micro Urban Consolidation Centres (MUCC) and Urban Logistics Space
(ULS). MUCCs and ULSs are set-up as small-scale logistics facilities in
inner urban areas to act as a transshipment or deconsolidation centres
to receive deliveries on large freight vehicles from suburban urban dis-
tribution centres and deliver inside the central city area using soft trans-
port modes and eco-friendly vehicles (Boudouin, 2012; Janjevic and
Ndiaye, 2014). These logistics facilities range in size between 500 and
3000 m2. ULS usually utilise an existing parking infrastructure to oper-
ate as a transshipment centre, which have been primarily operating in
French cities. These facilities have improved the amenity of the central
city area through reducing the number of freight vehicles and using
less polluting vehicles (Janjevic et al., 2013). The majority of these pro-
jects received financial subsidies from local governments in their initial
stages (Lebeau et al., 2015). For instance, Chronopost, an express parcel
 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
transport company in Paris, manages and operates the 1000 m2
Concorde Logistics space to deliver parcel using clean vehicles from its
suburban hub which is located 19 km away from inner Paris
(TURBLOG, 2011, pp. 52). The Concorde facility is located in an under-
ground municipal parking lot in the Place de la Concorde in central
Paris. Chronopost was able to deliver more parcels to the Concorde facil-
ity via attaching a trailer to the delivery van. This measure achieved a
saving of 41,000 km of diesel-fuelled trucks and 31 t of CO2 emissions
per year (Heitz, 2015). Another successful example of incorporating a
logistics facility in inner urban areas is the Beaugrenelle logistics space
in Paris west, which was built by Sogaris for the distribution and collec-
tion of express parcel by Chronopost using clean vehicles (Heitz, 2015).
The 3000 m2 distribution centre facilitates all loading, unloading and
sorting activities inside the buildings to avoid noise and other distur-
bances. This facility accommodates deliveries from rigid trucks, which
enables bringing larger volume with less number of vehicles compared
to light commercial vehicles.
There have been various successful MUCCs in Europe. For example,
Gnewt Cargo provides express parcel delivery services from its small
consolidation centre just outside London's city centre (Browne et al.,
2012). The company delivers about 4500 parcels/day to retailers in cen-
tral London using a fleet of 100 electric vans and electric tricycles. They
were able achieve a reduction of 20% in vehicle kilometre travelled
(VKT) and 61% in emissions per parcel compared to the old practices
using diesel vans (BESTFACT, 2013). This is equivalent to a saving of
146 t of CO2 per year. Another successful company in establishing a
small-scale consolidation centre in the inner urban areas has been La Pe-
tite Reine, which operates two urban logistics spaces in central Paris. La
Petite Reine utilises more than 100 electrically-assisted cargobikes to
make more than 3500 deliveries from the stores of major retailers to
homes of consumers who purchased the products (TURBLOG, 2011,
pp. 69). The cargobike has a capacity of up to 180 kg. Comparatively,
Amazon established in 2014 a 50,000 ft2 warehouse in the 5th floor of
a mid-Manhattan office tower in New York to offer one-hour and two-
hour delivery of groceries and selected products to paid memberships
as well as product returns and pickups of online orders (Bensinger
and Morris, 2014). The centrally-located warehouse facilitates quick ac-
cess to couriers to complete deliveries on foot, bike or using delivery
vans to receivers in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Amazon established sim-
ilar warehouses in other US cities and extended the service to London in
2015. It can be argued that the rise of on-demand delivery service will
encourage establishing more small-scale logistics facilities in central
city areas to fulfil the quick-delivery requirement. Moreover, Geodis,
which is a large road transport operator in France, established
Distripolis to provide environmentally-friendly deliveries from its sub-
urban centre outside Paris to 8 MUCCs located in central Paris close to
major retail and businesses precincts (Gouvis and Rizet, 2013).
Distripolis delivers more than 5200 small parcels and pallets up to
200 kg per day from the 8 MUCCs to retailers and consumers using
more than 81 electric vans and 56 electrically-assisted cargobikes.
Distripolis was able reduce the number of vehicles on roads by 10%
and claimed to achieve a reduction of 364 t of CO2 during the first
year (2011) compared with previous practices.
Local policy makers in coordination with specialised developers
in Logistics Real Estate in Paris have worked extensively on land
use and real estate planning. Another promising concept of
reintegrating logistics facility with other land-uses is the 35,000 m2
Sogaris's Multi-Modal Logistics Hotel, which is under construction
in the Chapelle International District in Paris. It vertically integrates
mixed-use functions (residential, offices, retail and wholesale activ-
ities) in multi-story buildings with the logistics facility. This facility
will facilitate the operation of freight vehicles and several logistics
activities while being located close to office, commercial and resi-
dential urban areas in Paris (Diziain et al., 2012; Labussière and
Nappi-Choulet, 2014). The logistics hotel will be operational by Sep-
tember 2017.
Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
7
5.2. Sustainable freight land use strategies
Urban planners need to develop a more proactive and dynamic
freight land use planning to not only focus on the locational require-
ment of logistics facilities, but also the spatial relationships between
the major freight hubs and transport network to and from distribution
centres (Western Australia Freight and Logistics Council, 2013). Pre-
serving and protecting industrial land and freight corridors in urban
areas enables future freight use and the relocation of logistics facilities
in inner urban areas. Christensen Associates et al. (2012) asserted that
comprehensive and sustainable freight land use planning serves as the
most successful freight corridors protection strategy. They warned
against the loss of freight facilities and corridors in urban areas and sug-
gested that local policy makers need to be proactive in their approach to
preserving critical freight corridors to achieve freight-compatible devel-
opment in urban areas. Preserving industrial land freight corridors can
be achieved through land use designations that are coupled with zoning
codes to ensure industrial land are isolated from other incompatible ac-
tivities and impede the encroachment of residential and commercial
uses on industrial land (US Department of Transport: Federal Highway
Administration, 2012). For instance, the City of Chicago has issued a spe-
cial zoning designation entitled, “Planned Manufacturing Districts
(PMD)” for 10 sites along 24 freight corridors to preserve the freight in-
frastructure and support industrial activity along these corridors as well
as restrict the types of other developments that may occur in the area
close to the industrial land (Chicago Metropolis 2020, 2004).
Furthermore, the report published by Federal Highway
Administration (2012) encouraged local governments to consider
implementing Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) and Overlay Zoning
when planning for new logistics facilities close to residential and com-
mercial uses. For instance, Christensen Associates et al. (2012) reported
that City of Baltimore, USA was able to preserve very valuable water-
front land for current and future freight use and minimise land use con-
flicts through the setting of an overlay zone at the Port of Baltimore. The
Maritime Industrial Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD) bans development
of non-industrial use within the overlay zone and facilitates robust op-
erational environment for freight companies to operate with minimum
encroachment with non-industrial uses. The CSS collaborative approach
attempts to take into consideration the community's sustainability and
surrounding sensitive use as well as the objectives' of all stakeholders in
planning and development of new transportation facility. For instance,
Guiliano et al. (2013) reported that local governments have started in
recent years to implement policies to establish on-site loading and
parking facility in new commercial and residential buildings to facilitate
conducting loading/unloading activities inside these new develop-
ments. This results in reducing the aesthetic, noise and pollution im-
pacts on nearby residents and users. Furthermore, they reported that
several cities such as Barcelona have put into action new planning pol-
icies requiring on-site storage area for new food outlets.
6. Conclusion and future research directions
Several studies have confirmed spatial changes in the geography of
urban freight as logistics facilities have moved out to suburban and ex-
urban areas. This paper presents a taxonomy of the different classifica-
tions of the impacts of logistics sprawl on urban environment and
logistics facilities. These impacts are primarily changing the geography
of urban freight, leading to increased distance travelled by freight vehi-
cles, negative environmental impacts and effects on employees' com-
muting. The aforementioned impacts resulting from relocation of
these logistics facilities need to be carefully taken into consideration
by urban planners and public authorities when allocating industrial
land for logistics facilities in urban areas.
Local governments and logistics companies face various challenges
in the near future due to various socio-economical, operational and en-
vironmental trends and factors. More freight vehicles are required to
8 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
make very frequent and low-weight deliveries, which result in increas-
ing the number of freight movements. This has contributed to increas-
ing the number and distance travelled of intra-metropolitan freight
movements, which increases the pressure on the transport network.
Furthermore, inefficient on-street loading zones and parking space as
well as lack of off-street loading facilities in congested inner urban
areas further complicate freight deliveries into these areas. The rise of
partnerships between retailers and on-demand delivery service pro-
viders such as Shyp, UberRUSH and Postmates offers instantaneous de-
livery and pick-up services to consumers without owning warehouses
or fulfillment centres. The majority of these deliveries are for light par-
cels and are carried out on foot or bike. They significantly expedite the
speed of delivery compared to traditional couriers. Furthermore, the In-
ternet of Things (IoT) technologies offer enhanced tracking and connec-
tivity for real-time information sharing of delivery and pick up activities
that can be tailored towards the changing requirements of consumers
and updated according to traffic conditions. These new operational re-
quirements and competition might encourage traditional logistics com-
panies to consider adding a newer layer of small-scale logistics facilities
that are geographically much closer to the consumers inside inner
urban areas to minimise the delivery lead time.
In light of the above, it is recommended to conduct further research
to develop a framework for optimising in a sustainable way the estab-
lishment of suitable logistics facilities in central city areas. This would
include determining the best location, type of activities, transport
modes and users. This new level of logistics facility should facilitate:
a) reducing the number of freight vehicles in the central city,
b) increasing the load utilisation of incoming freight vehicles,
c) complete delivery and pickup activities to businesses and end-
consumers on soft transportation modes, d) enhancing the utilisation
and efficiency of loading zones and e) encouraging the delivery activi-
ties in central city to be changed to off-peak hours. It is essential to in-
clude the various objectives of all the different stakeholders involved
in last kilometre freight activities into the decision-making and design
process.
References
Allen, J., Browne, M., Cherrett, T., 2012. Investigating relationships between road freight
transport, facility location, logistics management and urban form. J. Transp. Geogr.
24, 45–57.
Andreoli, D., Goodchild, A., Vitasek, K., 2010. The rise of mega distribution centers and the
impact on logistical uncertainty. Transp. Lett. 2 (2), 75–88.
Behrends, S., 2016. Recent developments in urban logistics research–a review of the pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on City Logistics 2009–2013. Transp. Res.
Procedia 12, 278–287.
Benjelloun, A., Crainic, T., 2009. Trends, Challenges and Perspectives in City Logistics, Gen-
eral Association of Engineers in Romania (AGIR). (Retrieved on March 10th, 2013
from bhttp://www.agir.ro/buletine/501.pdfN).
Bensinger, G., Morris, K., 2014. Amazon to Open First Brick-and-Mortar Site, The Wall
Street Journal 9 October, Retrieved from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-to-
open-first-store-1412879124.
BESTFACT, 2013. Use of battery-electric vans for retail distribution in London: Gnewt
Cargo. Retrieved from http://www.bestfact.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CL1_
067_QuickInfo_UK_GNEWT-16Dec2015.pdf.
Boudouin, D., 2012. Methodological Guide: Urban Logistics Spaces. La documentation
française, Paris.
Bowen, J.T., 2008. Moving places: the geography of warehousing in the US. J. Transp.
Geogr. 16 (6), 379–387.
Browne, M., Allen, J., Nemoto, T., Patier, D., Visser, J., 2012. Reducing social and environ-
mental impacts of urban freight transport: A review of some major cities. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences 39, 19–33.
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), 2014(. Major Trans-
port Employment Hubs, Information Sheet 58. BITRE, Canberrahttps://bitre.gov.au/
publications/2014/is_058.aspx.
Chhetri, P., Butcher, T., Corbitt, B., 2014. Characterising spatial logistics employment clus-
ters. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 44 (3), 221–241.
Chicago Metropolis 2020, 2004. The Metropolis Freight Plan: Delivering the Goods. Re-
trieved from http://metropolisstrategies.org/documents/MetropolisFreightPlan.pdf.
Christensen Associates, Grow, Bruening, Pett, K.H.S., 2012. Preserving and Protecting
Freight Infrastructure and Routes. Vol. 16 (Transportation Research Board).
Cidell, J., 2010. Concentration and decentralization: the new geography of freight distribu-
tion in US metropolitan areas. J. Transp. Geogr. 18, 363–371.
Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009
Cidell, J., 2011. Distribution centers among the rooftops: the global logistics network
meets the suburban spatial imaginary. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 35 (4), 832–851.
Cidell, J., 2015. Distribution centers as distributed places: mobility, infrastructure and
truck traffic. In: Birtchnell, T., Savitzky, S., Urry, J. (Eds.), Cargomobilities: Moving Ma-
terials in a Global Age. Routledge, New York, NY.
Crainic, T.G., Ricciardi, N., Storchi, G., 2004. Advanced freight transportation systems for
congested urban areas. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 12 (2), 119–137.
Dablanc, L., 2013. City logistics. In: Rodrigue, J.P., Notteboom, T., Shaw, J. (Eds.), The SAGE
Handbook of Transport Studies. SAGE, London, England.
Dablanc, L., Rakotonarivo, D., 2010. The impacts of logistics sprawl: how does the lo-
cation of parcel transport terminals affect the energy efficiency of goods' move-
ments in Paris and what can we do about it? Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2,
6087–6096.
Dablanc, L., Ross, C., 2012. Atlanta: a mega logistics center in the Piedmont Atlantic
Megaregion (PAM). J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 432–442.
Dablanc, L., Ogilvie, S., Goodchild, A., 2014. Logistics sprawl: differential warehousing de-
velopment patterns in Los Angeles, California, and Seattle, Washington. Transporta-
tion Research Record. J. Transp. Res. Board 105–112.
Davies, A.K., 2009. The Structure of Suburban Employment in Melbourne Doctoral disser-
tation University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Retrieved from http://hdl.
handle.net/11343/37503.
de Cerreño, A.L.C., Shin, H.-S., Strauss-Wieder, A., Theofanis, S., 2008. Feasibility of Freight
Villages in the NYMTC Region. Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation
Freight and Maritime Program. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and NYU
Rudin Center for Transportation and Management.
de Oliveira, L.K., Guerra, E.D., 2014. A diagnosis methodology for urban goods distribu-
tion: a case study in Belo Horizonte City (Brazil). Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 125,
199–211.
Dhooma, J., Baker, P., 2012. An exploratory framework for energy conservation in existing
warehouses. Int J Log Res Appl 15 (1), 37–51.
Diziain, D., Ripert, C., Dablanc, L., 2012. How can we bring logistics back into cities? The
case of Paris metropolitan area. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 39, 267–281.
Federal Highway Administration, 2012. FHWA Freight and Land Use Handbook. US
Department of Transport. Retrieved From: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/
fhwahop12006/fhwahop12006.pdf.
Gouvis, J., Rizet, C., 2013. Distripolis: Urban Consolidation Centres and battery-electric ve-
hicles for last-mile deliveries. BESTFACT. Retrieved from http://www.bestfact.net/
wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CL1_052_QuickInfo_Distripolis-16Dec2015.pdf.
Guiliano, G., O'Brien, T., Dablanc, L., Holiday, K., 2013. Synthesis of freight research in
urban transportation planning. Transportation Research Board. Vol. 23 Retrieved
From http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/ncfrp_rpt_023.pdf.
Guyon, O., Absi, N., Feillet, D., Garaix, T., 2012. A modeling approach for locating logistics
platforms for fast parcels delivery in urban areas. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 39,
360–368.
Hall, P.V., Hesse, M., 2013. Cities, Regions and Flows. Routledge, New York, NY.
Heitz, A., 2015. Paris, Urban Laboratory for Urban Logistics, Metro Freight Center of Excel-
lence, Project Report 15–2.1.c: Feasibility of Consolidated Freight Deliveries in Cities;
and Alternatives for More Efficient Use of the Road and Parking Space in Cities ,
Marne-la-Vallée, France. https://www.metrans.org/sites/default/files/MF%2015-2%
201c_Paris%20Urban%20Laboratory%20Final%20Report_12232015.pdf.
Heitz, A., Dablanc, L., 2015. Logistics spatial patterns in Paris: the rise of the Paris Basin as a
logistics megaregion. Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting (No. 15-
4649) Retrieved from http://docs.trb.org/prp/15-4649.pdf.
Hesse, M., 2002. Location matters. Access magazine. Transportation Research at the Uni-
versity of California. No. 21, pp. 22–26.
Hesse, M., 2004. Land for logistics: locational dynamics, real estate markets and political
regulation of regional distribution complexes. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 95 (2),
162–173.
Hesse, M., 2008. The City as a Terminal: The Urban Context of Logistics and Freight Trans-
port. Ashgate Publishing Company, Hampshire, England.
Hesse, M., Rodrigue, J.P., 2004. The transport geography of logistics and freight distribu-
tion. J. Transp. Geogr. 12 (3), 171–184.
Jakubicek, P., Woudsma, C., 2011. Proximity, land, labor and planning? Logistics industry
perspectives on facility location. Transp. Lett. Int. J. Transp. Res. 2, 161–173.
Janjevic, M., Ndiaye, A.B., 2014. Development and application of a transferability frame-
work for micro-consolidation schemes in urban freight transport. Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci. 125, 284–296.
Janjevic, M., Kaminsky, P., Ballé Ndiaye, A., 2013. Downscaling the consolidation of goods–
state of the art and transferability of micro-consolidation initiatives. European Trans-
port Issue 54, Paper No 4. Retrieved from http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/
handle/10077/8870.
Kohn, C., Brodin, M.H., 2008. Centralised distribution systems and the environment: how
increased transport work can decrease the environmental impact of logistics. Int J Log
Res Appl 11 (3), 229–245.
Labussière, S., Nappi-Choulet, I., 2014. The City of Tomorrow: New Ways of Using and Shar-
ing Real Estate, (Gallon, A. Trans.), ESSEC Business School: Real Estate and Sustainable
Development Chair. Retrieved from http://chaire-immobilier-developpement-durable.
essec.edu.
Lebeau, P., Verlinde, S., Macharis, C., 2015. How authorities can support urban consolida-
tion centres? A Review of the best practices. NECTAR Cluster 3: City Logistics and Sus-
tainable Freight Transport Workshop Algarve.
Leigh, N.G., Hoelzel, N.Z., 2012. Smart growth's blind side. Journal of the American Plan-
ning AssociationJ. Am. Plan. Assoc. 78 (1), 87–103.
Lindsey, C., Mahmassani, H.S., Mullarkey, M., Nash, T., Rothberg, S., 2014. Industrial space
demand and freight transportation activity: exploring the connection. J. Transp.
Geogr. 37, 93–101.
 K. Aljohani, R.G. Thompson / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

McKinnon, A., 2009. The present and future land requirements of logistical activities. Land
Use Policy 26S, S293–S301.
Newton, P.W., 2013. Regenerating cities: technological and design innovation for
Australian suburbs. Build. Res. Inf. 41 (5), 575–588.
O'Connor, K., Parsons, H., 2011. The impact of logistics activity on cities. State of Australian
Cities National Conference Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from http://cw.
routledge.com/textbooks/9780415529037/data/2-1-Paper.pdf.
Rodrigue, J.P., 2004. Freight, gateways and MEGA-URBAN regions: the logistical integra-
tion of the BostWash corridor. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 95 (2), 147–161.
Rodrigue, J.-P., 2013. Supply chain management, logistics changes and the concept of fric-
tion. In: Hall, P., Hesse, M. (Eds.), Cities, Regions and Flows. Routledge, London,
pp. 58–74.
Sakai, T., Kawamura, K., Hyodo, T., 2015. Location dynamics of logistics facilities: evidence
from Tokyo. J. Transp. Geogr. 46, 10–19.
Sakai, T., Kawamura, K., Hyodo, T., 2016. Location Choice Models of Urban Logistics Facil-
ities and the Impact of Zoning on Their Spatial Distribution and Efficiency. Paper Pre-
sented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C, USA 10–14 January 2016.
Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R.G., Yamada, T., 2016. New opportunities and challenges for
city logistics. Transp. Res. Procedia 12, 5–13.
Tsolakis, D., Naude, C., 2008. Light freight transport in urban areas. In: Taniguchi, E.,
Thompson, R.G. (Eds.), Innovations in City Logistics Nova Science.
TURBLOG, 2011. Transferability of Urban Logistics Concepts and Practices From a World
Wide Perspective - Deliverable 3.1 - Urban Logistics Practices – Paris Case Study.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), 2013. Planning and Design
for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report on Human Settlements 2013 (pp. 57–
73). Routledge, New York, NY.
US Department of Transport: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2012. FHWA
Freight and Land Use Handbook. Retrieved From http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
publications/fhwahop12006/fhwahop12006.pdf.
van den Heuvel, F.P., De Langen, P.W., van Donselaar, K.H., Fransoo, J.C., 2013. Spatial con-
centration and location dynamics in logistics: the case of a Dutch province. J. Transp.
Geogr. 28, 39–48.
Verhetsel, A., Kessels, R., Goos, P., Zijlstra, T., Blomme, N., Cant, J., 2015. Location of logis-
tics companies: a stated preference study to disentangle the impact of accessibility.
J. Transp. Geogr. Vol. 42 (16), 110–121 2015.
Western Australia. Freight & Logistics Council, 2013. A Summary of the 2013 Perth Land
Use Planning Workshop Series. Retrieved from http://freightandlogisticscouncil.wa.
gov.au/documents/bulletins/FLCof-WA-Brochure-October-2013.pdf.
Woudsma, C., Jensen, J.F., Kanaroglou, P., Maoh, H., 2008. Logistics land use and the city: a
spatial-temporal modeling approach. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 44 (2),
277–297.
Woudsma, C., Jakubicek, P., Dablanc, L., 2015. Logistics sprawl in North America: method-
ological issues and a case study in Toronto. The Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on City Logistics (Tenerife, Spain, 17–19 June 2015).
Wygonik, E., Bassok, A., Goodchild, A., McCormack, E., Carlson, D., 2014. Smart growth and
goods movement: emerging research agendas. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban
Sustain. 8 (2), 115–132.

Please cite this article as: Aljohani, K., Thompson, R.G., Impacts of logistics sprawl on the urban environment and logistics: Taxonomy and review
of literature, Journal of Transport Geography (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.08.009