See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349539602

Multi-objective cold chain logistic distribution center location based on

carbon emission

Article in Environmental Science and Pollution Research · July 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-12992-w

CITATIONS READS

27 331

2 authors, including:

Xinguang Li
Qingdao University of Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xinguang Li on 14 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 28:32396–32404
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12992-w

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multi-objective cold chain logistic distribution center location based

on carbon emission
Xinguang Li 1 & Kang Zhou 2

Received: 16 December 2020 / Accepted: 11 February 2021 / Published online: 23 February 2021
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The issues of food safety and environmental protection are attracting more and more attention. Everyday, a large number of cold
chain products are delivered from suppliers to customers. The cold chain products require refrigeration equipment in delivery and
should be delivered to customers as soon as possible. Therefore, the challenge of reducing carbon emission and improving the
customer satisfaction should be solved. This study presents the impact of carbon emission, customer satisfaction, construction
cost, and operation cost on the location of cold chain logistics distribution center. A multi-objective location model for cold chain
logistics distribution center considering carbon emission is established. The carbon emission equivalent cost model considers the
dynamic carbon emission during transportation and the static carbon emission of the distribution center. The penalty cost under
the time window is introduced into the penalty cost model of customer satisfaction, which represents a multi-objective mixed-
integer linear programming problem. A non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) is used to design the program
through double-layer composite coding. NSGA-II uses a fast non-dominated sorting approach to reduce the computational
complexity of non-dominated sorting. This algorithm uses the elitist control strategy, which does not need to share parameters
and is more efficient in the multi-objective optimization process. The numerical results show that the proposed algorithm can
generate appropriate Pareto solutions for all objectives.

Keywords Cold chain logistics . Distribution location problem . Carbon emission . Customer satisfaction

Introduction industry in China has shown a downward trend since 2016;

Cold chain logistics need refrigeration equipment to control
temperature, which greatly increases carbon dioxide emis-
sions. The scale of cold chain logistics market in China has
increased significantly from 90 billion Yuan in 2013 to 238.6
billion Yuan in 2017, with an average annual growth rate of
27.6%. Compared with 2013, the cold chain logistics market
has increased by 165% in 2017, with a growth rate of 30.2%
(Cui 2019). The comparison of market scale growth of cold
chain logistics and express delivery industry in 2013–2020
has been noted (Fig. 1). The market scale growth of express
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
* Xinguang Li
tutulxg@126.com
1
School of Mechanical and Automobile, Qingdao University of
Technology, Qingdao 266520, China
2
Traffic School, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China
however, the growth of cold chain logistics market scale has
increased. Thus, investments in cold chain logistics facilities
and equipment in China have improved. Until the third quarter
of 2018, the number of refrigerated vehicles in China was
about 164,000, and 24,000 new refrigerated vehicles were
added, representing a year-on-year increase of 33%. Nearly
20 new cold chain railway lines were opened in 2018.
Furthermore, the traffic volume of cold chain railway
exceeded 1.6 million tons, which greatly enriched the means
of transportation and reduced the cold chain cost.
The cold chain logistics industry contributes to large car-
bon emission and should develop a new low-carbon logistics
model (Kaur and Singh 2017; Mariano et al. 2017). The dis-
tribution center plays an important role in the whole cold chain
logistics system, which is closely connected with upstream
suppliers and downstream customers. Cold chain goods are
highly perishable; thus, relevant facilities and equipment are
required in the storage and transportation process. The distri-
bution center is a hub of upstream and downstream operations
in a cold chain logistics network. The location of cold chain
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404
Fig. 1 Comparison of market scale growth of cold chain logistics and
express industry in China in 2013–2020
logistics distribution center is a major concern for several en-
terprises. Therefore, it is important to research appropriate
location for the distribution center to promote the growth of
cold chain logistics industries.
With the intensification of competition among enterprises, the
management concept of enterprises also changes, and more at-
tention is given to improve the satisfaction of customers on prod-
ucts (Shen et al. 2018; Zulvia et al. 2020; Guerriero et al. 2014).
The logistics distribution center of enterprises continuously pro-
vides customers with personalized services, thereby improving
the satisfaction. Thus, as an important factor, customer satisfac-
tion influences the location of distribution center.
This paper analyzes the location of cold chain logistics distri-
bution center by considering three objectives: minimum logistics
cost, minimum carbon emission, and maximum customer satis-
faction. Establishing multiple objective functions and obtaining
the optimal solution cannot only help achieve the current require-
ments of social economy and environmental protection, but also
improve customer satisfaction and minimize costs.
The following sections of this study are organized as fol-
lows: ‘Problem description’ presents the detailed assumptions
of multi-objective model. ‘Mathematical formulation’ de-
scribes the parameters, and variables used in the model and
the objective functions and constraints are proposed.
‘Numerical example’ confirms that the proposed model can
generate proper Pareto solutions for all objectives.
Literature review
In the 1990s, ‘low carbon logistics’ was proposed, and it refers
to the logistics development mode that uses renewable clean
32397
energy instead of non-renewable energy or improve energy
utilization rate in order to take into account environmental
impacts and benefits to reduce carbon emission in logistics.
The cold distribution center requires high initial funds and many
factors have to be considered when a distribution center is located
(Musolino et al. 2019). Many researchers have studied the re-
quirements for locating distribution centers. For example, Dan
et al. (2016) emphasized the traditional problem of locating dis-
tribution centers under uncertain demands. A stochastic program-
ming model and numerical experiments are carried out to
validate the effectiveness of it. In addition, He et al. (2017) pre-
sents a new hybrid fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making meth-
od for locating a joint distribution center considering sustainabil-
ity. The evaluation criteria for selecting a location integrated with
economic, environmental, and social dimensions of
sustainability are identified. He also conducted a numerical
examples and sensitivity analyses. Bilir et al. (2017) proposed a
multi-objective supply chain network optimization model based
on the JSC network optimization and competitive facility loca-
tion. Profit maximization, sales maximization, and SC risk min-
imization are the objectives of the model. Demand is the unique
unknown variable within the model. Moreover, Burek and
Nutter (2019) proposed a life cycle assessment-based multi-ob-
jective optimization model that incorporates non-renewable fos-
sil energy, minimal costs, and climate change impact criteria.
In recent years, countries throughout the globe have been
advocating for a low-carbon economy, green logistics and sus-
tainable development (Anser 2019; Wang and Li 2019; Guo and
Liu 2018).
Hsu (2019) indicated that the requirements for high quality
and delivery time in cold chain logistics are directly related to
customer satisfaction. Refrigeration equipment increases fuel
consumption and carbon emission in the cold chain system.
Several studies have focused on the customer satisfaction and
carbon emission from the logistics distribution. A model
developed by Ma et al. (2017) combines order selection and
time-dependent vehicle routing problem with time windows.
He aimed to maximize profits by selecting an appropriate order
of service sequence and delivery. In addition, Hsiao et al. (2017)
presented a cold chain distribution model, which generated a
distribution plan that meet customer needs with a quality level
based on the estimated shelf-life at the lowest distribution cost.
Elsewhere, experts and scholars research the carbon emission
from logistics. Qin et al. (2019) proposed a vehicle routing opti-
mization model for cold chain logistics with the objective of
customer satisfaction and carbon emission reduction. Delivery
punctuality and carbon emission costs are incorporated into the
model. Additionally, Musavi and Ali (2017) presented a hub
location-vehicle scheduling model. In this model, the transporta-
tion fleet serving customers at hub nodes is limited. The model
considers cold chain food for distribution and total carbon
emission from the hub network. Naderipour and Alinaghian
(2016) presented a comprehensive model that minimizes CO2,
32398
NOx, and CO emissions in the vehicle routing problem. The
traffic properties in congested regions such as city centers are
considered in the model. Besides, Bao and Zhang (2018) pre-
sented a route optimization model that considers carbon emission
and time-window impacts. The route optimization problem was
solved by an improved genetic. Numerical experiments are per-
formed on datasets.
Scholars have focused on the location of cold chain distri-
bution centers from different perspectives (Zanoni and
Zavanella 2012; Agustina et al. 2014). Many studies explored
the factors affecting carbon emissions, but few of them con-
sidered the carbon emissions of refrigerated vehicle in the
return trip. Although the refrigerated vehicle is empty on the
return trip, the return carbon emission is necessary to maintain
the computational integrity of the distribution process.
Therefore, this study presents a multi-objective model consid-
ering three objectives: minimum logistics cost, minimum car-
bon emission, and maximum customer satisfaction in locating
the cold chain logistics distribution center.
Problem description
The following five conditions should be satisfied when estab-
lishing the cold chain logistics distribution center location
model.
(1) The uniform refrigerated vehicles are used in this model
and the customer demand must be fully satisfied.
(2) There is no interval in the process of transportation, and
delivery to the next customer must be done after the
delivery to the initial customer.
(3) Customers are only served by distribution centers and the
total demand of customers cannot exceed the maximum
capacity of distribution centers.
(4) The environment (such as temperature, humidity, among
others) of the cold chain goods maintains invariant.
(5) The refrigerated vehicles keep a uniform speed during
the delivery.
Mathematical formulation
In order to analyze the factors that affect the location of cold
chain logistics distribution, the model is designed as the con-
struction and operation cost of cold chain logistics distribu-
tion, the equivalent cost of carbon emission, and the penalty
cost of customer satisfaction.
The sets of the model are shown in Table 1. I is a set of cold
chain logistics supplier nodes. J is a set of distribution center
nodes and K is the customer nodes.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404
Table 1 Sets
Symbols Description
I Supplier nodes: I={1,2…,n}
J Distribution nodes: J={1,2…,n}
K Customer nodes:K={1,2…,n}
The corresponding symbols of the model parameters are
listed in Table 2, where Qm is the weight of the vehicle when
the vehicle is full load andρ0is the fuel consumption per mile
when the vehicle is empty.
The decision variables used in the model are defined in
Table 3, where sj is the area of distribution j and rj is the unit
area cost of distribution j.
Construction and operation cost
The construction cost of a cold chain distribution center in-
cludes the land purchase cost, construction cost, equipment
cost, and refrigerated vehicle purchase cost.
The land purchase cost is computed by multiplying the
total land area of the distribution center and the unit land price.
Other costs are calculated in the same way. Hj is the construc-
tion cost of cold chain logistics distribution center. Specific
formula is as follows:
J

H j ¼ ∑ x j r j s j þ zs j þ ws j þ aηs j ð1Þ
j¼1
Table 2 Model parameters
Symbols Description
z Construction cost by area
w Facility cost by area
a Price of the refrigerated vehicle
η Number of refrigerated vehicles
e Price of unit cold chain goods
T Load of the refrigerated vehicle
L Traveling distance of the refrigerated vehicle
Qm Full load weight of the refrigerated vehicle
ρmax Fuel consumption of the full load vehicle
ρ0 Fuel consumption of the empty vehicle
V Average speed of the vehicle
u Goods loss rate
x Equivalent rate of dynamic carbon emission
θ Equivalent rate of static carbon emission
β Conversion rate of fuel consumption to CO2
ϕ Conversion rate of cold chain goods to CO2
∂ Cost of distribution by weight
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404 32399

Table 3 Decision variables Equivalent cost of carbon emission

Symbols Description
Based on the static carbon emissions of the distribution center
sj Area of the distribution center j and the dynamic carbon emissions of transport, the carbon
rj Unit area cost emission is converted into penalty cost and included in the
dij The distance between supplier i to distribution center j total cost of the distribution center. For cold chain logistics,
djk The distance between the distribution center j to customer k the main sources of carbon emission are transportation ex-
tij Goods volume from supplier i to distribution center j haust emissions and distribution center fixed carbon emission.
tjk Goods volume from distribution center j to customer k The carbon emission generated in the distribution process is
Nk Annual demand by customers calculated by fuel consumption. The equivalent cost of carbon
vjk Unit packing cost of the cold chain goods emission contains the static equivalent cost of carbon emission
α1 Penalty cost coefficient of arrival early in cold chain logistics distribution centers and the dynamic
α2 Penalty cost coefficient of arrival late equivalent cost of carbon emission in transportation.

Equivalent cost of dynamic carbon emission

The operation cost for the cold chain distribution
center includes transportation cost and packing cost. According to the linear correlation between carbon emission,
Considering that the transportation cost is linearly relat- refrigerated vehicle load, and transportation distance, let ρ(χ)
ed to transportation distance and the load of refrigerated be the fuel consumption. The equivalent cost of dynamic car-
vehicle, the transportation cost Hd can be presented as bon emission can be expressed as follows:
follows: ρmax −ρ0
ρ ð χÞ ¼ β T L ð6Þ
Qm
I J J K
H d ¼ ∂ ∑ ∑ xij t ij d ij þ ∂ ∑ ∑ xjk t jk d jk ð2Þ
i¼1 j¼1 j¼1 K¼1 Carbon emissions in the return trip are considered in the
dynamic carbon emission.ρ(χ1) is the fuel consumption in
empty return of refrigerated vehicles. y(χ) is the carbon emis-
The packing cost is linearly related to the quantity of goods
sion of vehicle in transportation.
and unit packing cost. The packing cost of the cold chain
logistics distribution center Hp can be presented as follows: ρðx1 Þ ¼ βρ0 L ð7Þ
 
ρmax −ρ0
J K
yðxÞ ¼ β  ρðxÞ ¼ βL   T þ ρ0 ð8Þ
H p ¼ ∑ ∑ xjk t jk vjk ð3Þ Qm
j¼1 K¼1

The equivalent cost conversion coefficient of dynamic car-

The cost of damaged goods is linearly related to the trans- bon emission in the refrigerated vehicle transportation is χ.
portation distance. The cost of damaged goods Hd can be Therefore, the equivalent cost of dynamic carbon emission in
expressed as follows: transportation is as follows:
  
! ρmax −ρ0
I J J K E d ¼ χ βL   T þ ρ0 ð9Þ
H d ¼ e ∑ ∑ xij udij þ ∑ ∑ xjk ud jk ð4Þ QM
i¼1 j¼1 j¼1 k¼1

Ht is the total operation cost. Specific formula is as follows: Equivalent cost of static carbon emission

The static carbon emission isss computed by multiplying con-

I J J K
H t ¼ ∂ ∑ ∑ xij t ij d ij þ ∂ ∑ ∑ xjk t jk d jk version rate of cold chain goods to CO2, equivalent rate of
i¼1 j¼1 j¼1 k¼1 static carbon emission, and goods volume. Ej is the static
J K carbon emission of cold chain logistics distribution center.
þ ∑ ∑ xjk t jk vjk
j¼1 k¼1 I J
! E j ¼ θ ∑ ∑ xij ϕt ij ð10Þ
i¼1 j¼1
I J J K
þ e ∑ ∑ xij ud ij þ ∑ ∑ xjk ud jk ð5Þ
i¼1 j¼1 j¼1 k¼1 Cz is the equivalent cost of carbon emissions of cold chain
logistics distribution center.
32400 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404

C z ¼ E j þ Ed   C(t) is customer satisfaction penalty cost; t represents the

I J I J ρ −ρ
¼ θ ∑ ∑ x j ϕtij þ ∑ ∑ xij χ β  max 0  tij  d ij þ βρ0 d ij time that customers receive the items, and U represents no
QM
i¼1 j¼1
 i¼1 j¼1
 service.
J K ρmax −ρ0
þ ∑ ∑ xjk χ β   tjk  d jk þ χβρ0 d jk 8
QM
j¼1 k¼1
>
> U ; t⊂ð−∞; RÞ
ð11Þ >
>
< α1 d jk ðRT−t Þ; t⊂½R; RT Þ
C ðt Þ ¼ 0; t⊂ðRT; LT Þ ð12Þ
The carbon emission equivalent cost of a cold chain logis- >
>
>
> α d ð t−LT Þ; t⊂½ LT ; T Þ
tics distribution center can be obtained by the distance from : 2 jk
U ; t⊂ðL; þ∞Þ
the supplier to the cold chain logistics distribution center and
the volume of goods.
Multi-objective mathematical model
Penalty cost of customer satisfaction
Through the analysis of construction and operation costs, car-
bon emission, and customer satisfaction in the previous mod-
To calculate and express customer satisfaction, some scholars
el, Cc, Tc, and Uc are the objective functions of construction
have transformed several functions to establish the time satis-
and operation cost, carbon emission equivalent cost, and cus-
faction function, which refers to the satisfaction of customers
tomer satisfaction penalty cost, respectively. Aiming to the
receiving goods in different periods (Karami et al. 2020; Wu
lowest logistics construction and operation cost, carbon emis-
and Hifi 2020; Nasri et al. 2020). If the customer receives the
sion equivalent cost, and customer satisfaction penalty cost, a
goods in the required time, high customer satisfaction is
multi-objective mathematical model is established. The multi-
achieved, and vice versa. In this study, the function expressing
objective optimization model is as follows:
customer satisfaction is constructed using time satisfaction
function, and the penalty cost of customer satisfaction is cal- minPðxÞ ¼ ½C C ; T C ; U C T ð13Þ
culated by the time window.
The relationship between penalty cost and time window is J
 I J J K
minCc ¼ ∑ x j r j s j þ zs j þ ws j þ aηs j þ ∂ ∑ ∑ xij tij d ij þ ∂ ∑ ∑ xjk t jk d jk
shown in Fig. 2. The penalty cost coefficients of the early j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
!
j¼1 k¼1
arrival time window and late arrival time window are α1 and J K I J J K
þ ∑ ∑ xjk t jk vjk þ e ∑ ∑ xij ud ij þ ∑ ∑ xjk ud jk
α2. For the period of RT-LT, the penalty cost is 0. Besides, if j¼1 k¼1 i¼1 j¼1 j¼1 k¼1

the goods are delivered in the period of R-Rt and LT-L, the ð14Þ
customer will accept the goods. But the company will suffer  
I J J J ρ −ρ
the consequences. Contrarily, if the goods are delivered in the minTc ¼ θ ∑ ∑ x j ϕt ij þ ∑ ∑ xij χ β  max 0  t ij  d ij þ βρ0 d ij
QM
other period, the customer will not accept the goods from the
i¼1 j¼1
J K
 i j
ρ −ρ
 ð15Þ
þ ∑ ∑ xjk χ β  max 0  t jk  d jk þ χβρ0 d jk
distribution center and the penalty cost of such service is j k QM
expressed by maximum M. Based on a relevant experience, 8
the penalty coefficient is generally determined by the price of >
> U ; t⊂ð−∞; RÞ
>
>
goods (Spliet et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2019; Schneider 2016; < α1 d jk ðRT −t Þ; t⊂½R; RT Þ
Ruiz-Meza et al. 2020). minUc ¼ 0; t⊂ðRT; LT Þ ð16Þ
>
>
>
> α d ðt−LT Þ; t⊂½LT; T Þ
: 2 jk
U ; t⊂ðL; þ∞Þ

Constraint condition:
tij ≥0; tjk ≥0i ¼ 1; 2……I; j ¼ 1; 2……J ; k ¼ 1; 2……K ð17Þ
I J
∑ t ij ¼ ∑ tjk i ¼ 1; 2……I; j ¼ 1; 2……J ; k ¼ 1; 2……K ð18Þ
i j

J
∑ x j ≥ 1 j ¼ 1; 2……J ð19Þ
j

J K
∑ ∑ t jk ≤ v j ð20Þ
j k

J K
∑ ∑ t jk ≥ N k ð21Þ
j k
Fig. 2 Penalty cost vs time window
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404 32401

xj=1: Distribution center selected; otherwise, the value is 0. (22) The distance between the supplier and the alternative cold
xij=1: Supplier i provides services to the distribution j; oth- chain logistics distribution center is shown in Table 4.
erwise, the value is 0. (23) The distance from the alternative distribution center to the
xjk=1: Distribution j provides services to customer k; oth- customer is shown in Table 5.
erwise, the value is 0. (24) Customer delivery time information is shown in Table 6.
Constraint (17) denotes that the volume of transportation
cannot be negative; constraint (18) denotes that the total
amount of goods transported by all suppliers to the alternative
Algorithm description
distribution center are with the same amount of goods deliv-
ered from the distribution center to all customers; constraint
The single objective optimization problem can be solved
(19) denotes that at least one alternative distribution center is
using a simple genetic algorithm. However, in the multi-
selected as the final location result of the distribution center; objective model, some objectives are often contradictory and
constraint (20) denotes that the total amount of goods
the optimal solution cannot be obtained at the same time. The
transported from the distribution center is equal to the total
cold chain logistics distribution center location model in this
amount of goods delivered. The total quantity of goods deliv- study is based on the optimization of the lowest construction
ered to all customers must be less than the maximum storage
and operation cost, the lowest equivalent cost of Carbon emis-
capacity of the distribution center. Constraint (21) ensures that
sion, and the lowest penalty cost of customer satisfaction.
the needs of each customer are met; constraint (22) shows NSGA-II algorithm is used. This study involves 3 suppliers,
whether to select the cold chain logistics distribution center
6 alternative distribution centers, and 20 customers; thus, the
with 0–1 variable; constraint (23) indicates whether the sup-
population size is set to 100.
plier provides the supply service to the cold chain logistics The corresponding settings of population size, crossover
distribution center with 0–1 variable; constraint (24) uses a
probability, mutation probability, and iteration times of the
0–1 variable to indicate whether the cold chain logistics dis-
algorithm are shown in Table 7.
tribution center provides distribution services to customers. Through NSGA algorithm, the indicative matrix of sup-
pliers to alternative distribution centers and alternative distri-
bution centers to customers can be obtained by running the
edited program:
Numerical example Indicative matrix of the supplier to an optional distribution
center is as follows:
This section presents a numerical example using a cold chain
2 3
logistics company. The company intends to build a new cold 0 0 0 0 0 1
chain logistics distribution center to improve services in the Aði; jÞ¼ 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
surrounding areas. Cold chain logistics companies initially 0 0 0 0 0 1
select the following six addresses as alternative cold chain
logistics distribution centers considering the cost of land pur- Matrix Aij represents the indicator matrix of the supplier to
chase and traffic conditions. They need to provide services to an alternative cold chain logistics distribution center. Three
20 customers (k1-k20). Due to the limited financial situation of rows represent three suppliers, six columns represent six alter-
company, it is necessary to analyze the following six alterna- native cold chain logistics distribution centers, and 0–1 vari-
tive cold chain logistics distribution centers and select two of able represents whether supplier i provides supply services to
them as the final location of distribution centers. alternative distribution center j. A(1,6) and A(3,6) are 1, indicat-
The cold chain products transported by the logistics company ing that the alternative distribution center j6 is provided by
are 3000 Yuan/t, and the location of 20 customers (k1-k20) re- suppliers i1 and i3. A(2,4) is 1, indicating that the alternative
mains unchanged. The refrigerated vehicle is the Dongfeng cold chain logistics distribution center j4 is provided by
Dolica refrigerated vehicle of EQ5080XLC8BDCAC with a load
of 3.53 t and uses diesel. It is suitable for short-distance distribu-
Table 4 Distance between the supplier and alternative distribution unit:
tion of cold chain goods. The fuel consumption is about 9 L/100 km
km at 30 km/h fully loaded. Based on the fuel consumption of
the refrigerated vehicle, the unit transportation cost of the cold Alternative j j1 j2 j3 j4 j5 j6
supplier i
chain items is about 1.7 Yuan/t·km. The penalty costs of early
arrival time window α1 and late arrival time window α2 are 1.5 i1 26 25 22 15 26 16
and 3 Yuan/min, respectively. Besides, when the product is dis- i2 12 15 23 26 30 25
tributed from the distribution center to customers, it is packaged i3 31 20 17 21 14 29
at the distribution center at a cost of about 100 Yuan/t.
32402 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404

Table 5 Distance between the alternative distribution and customers Table 7 Arithmetic parameter setting
unit: km
Parameter Parameter Value
Alternative j j1 j2 j3 j4 j5 j6
customer k popsize Population size 100
Pc Crossover probability 0.8
k1 3.1 6 12.3 7.2 17.1 6.5
Pm Mutation probability 0.1
k2 4.5 3.9 5.4 8.3 15.2 7.2
k3 6 3.1 5.4 9.1 7.2 8.2
k4 9.2 3.8 3.5 7.6 7.5 8.4
k5 13.5 8.2 3.4 7.9 4.5 9.1 supplier i2. Besides, Aij at 0 implies that the supplier i does not
k6 8.2 8.2 4.9 4.5 7.2 7.2 provide supply services to alternative distribution center j.
k7 8 11.2 5.2 2 12.3 4.2 Indicative matrix of an alternative distribution center to
k8 4 6.5 6.2 5.3 14.2 5.3 customer is as follows:
k9 4.1 5.4 6.3 6.2 13.9 7.7 2 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
k10 5.5 6.2 5.9 6.1 12.1 6.9 60
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 077
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 077
k11 5.3 10.3 8.3 5.1 15.1 1.5 Bð j;kÞ ¼6
60
6 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 177
k12 6.5 11.2 12.9 19.2 16.1 12.1 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05
1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
k13 3.8 12.1 12.5 16.5 17.2 10.6
k14 15 18.3 8.1 5.4 16.5 13.2 Matrix Bjk represents the indicator matrix from an alterna-
k15 25 12.4 6.1 7.2 8.9 9.6 tive distribution center to the customer. Six rows represent six
k16 29 19 9.2 21.2 4.3 18.3 alternative distribution centers, 20 columns represent 20 cus-
k17 12 19.6 6.8 7.2 19.6 5.4 tomers, and 0–1 variable represents whether alternative distri-
k18 19 7.9 8.2 16.2 1.9 18.2 bution center j provides distribution services to customer k.
k19 8 20.1 5.7 9.2 19.6 1.3 Notably, B(4,2), B(4,3), B(4,4), B(4,10), B(4,11), B(4,13), B(4,15),
k20 27 21.3 9.1 15.2 6.7 12.3 B(4,16), and B(4,20) are 1, which implies that customer k2, k3,
k4, k10, k11, k13, k15, k16, and k20 are provided by j4, an

Table 6 Customer delivery time

Customer Annual Earliest Best time Best time Latest acceptable Service
(k) demand (Nk) acceptable (RT) (LT) time (L) time (T)
time(R)

k1 350 13:00 14:00 14:30 16:30 30

k2 350 13:30 14:30 15:00 15:30 30
k3 340 13:00 14:00 14:30 17:00 30
k4 320 14:00 15:00 15:30 16:30 30
k5 290 13:30 14:30 15:00 16:00 30
k6 370 14:30 15:30 16:00 17:00 30
k7 350 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:30 30
k8 450 13:30 14:30 15:00 16:00 30
k9 260 14:30 15:30 16:00 17:00 30
k10 450 13:30 14:30 15:00 16:30 30
k11 440 13:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 30
k12 490 14:30 15:30 16:00 17:00 30
k13 350 13:00 14:00 14:30 16:00 30
k14 400 14:00 15:00 15:30 17:00 30
k15 360 13:00 14:00 14:30 16:30 30
k16 340 13:30 14:30 15:00 17:00 30
k17 420 14:30 15:30 16:30 17:00 30
k18 360 13:00 14:00 15:30 16:30 30
k19 450 14:30 15:30 16:30 17:00 30
k20 350 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 30
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404
Table 8 Location plan of the distribution
Supplier i Distribution j Customer k
i1 j4 k2, k3, k4, k10, k11, k13, k15, k16, k20
i2, i3 j6 k1, k5, k6, k7, k8, k9, k12, k14, k17, k18, k19
alternative distribution center. Besides, B(6,1), B(6,5), B(6,6),
B(6,7), B(6,8), B(6,9), B(6,12), B(6,14), B(6,17), B(6,18), and B(6,19)
are 1, which imply that customer k1, k5, k6, k7, k8, k9, k12,
k14, k17, k18 and k19 are provided by j6. Bjk is 0, which indicates
that alternative distribution center j does not provide distribu-
tion services to customer k.
Following the above two indicative matrices, the best two
cold chain logistics distribution centers can be determined.
For example, Table 8 shows the location scheme of the distri-
bution center. It indicates that the cold chain logistics distri-
bution center j4 and j6 are selected, and j4 is provided by
supplier i1. However, j6 is supplied by supplier i2 and i3.
Furthermore, Fig. 3 shows the Pareto frontier of the objec-
tive function optimized by NSGA algorithm.
After the multi-objective model is optimized by
NSGA algorithm, many Pareto solution sets are obtain-
ed. It shows that the algorithm is effective (Fig. 3). In
this study, the role of multi-objective optimization is to
find a set of solutions that closest to the Pareto optimal
domain. Only a set of solutions close to the Pareto
optimal domain are considered as the optimal solution.
The distribution route under the NSGA-II optimization al-
gorithm is shown in Table 9. The supplier i1 provides supply
services for distribution center J4, and J4 provides distribution
services for customers K2, K3, K4, K10, K11, K13, K15, K16, and
K20. The carbon emission equivalent calculated using this
model is about 183,100 Yuan and the penalty cost of customer
satisfaction is about 13,500 Yuan.
NSGA-II uses the fast non-dominated sorting approach to
reduce the computational complexity of non-dominated
sorting. This algorithm uses the elitist control strategy without
Satisfaction Penalty Cost
Carbon emissions Cost Construction and Operation Cost
Fig. 3 Pareto front of optimization objective function
32403
Table 9 Distribution route
Supplier i Distribution j Distribution route
i1 j4 j4→k4→k13→j4
j4→k2→k16→k10→j4
j4→k3→k15→k20→k11→j4
i2, i3 j6 j6→k6→k7→k17→j6
j6→k9→k19→k18→j6
j6→k14→k5→k1→k12→j6
j6→k8→j6
shared parameters, which is more efficient in the multi-
objective optimization. The numerical results show that
the proposed algorithm has more promising results than
other algorithms.
Conclusion and future works
Carbon emission is a major issue in the logistics system, es-
pecially for the cold chain logistics. Inappropriate distribution
center location will result in carbon emission growth. This
study established a multi-objective location model of cold
chain logistics distribution center considering carbon emis-
sion. The factors include construction and operation cost, car-
bon emission, and customer satisfaction.
Three contributions could be noted. Firstly, the static car-
bon emission of distribution center and the dynamic carbon
emission in transportation are both considered. Carbon emis-
sion of refrigerated vehicles under no-load conditions on the
return trip is comprehensively formulated. Furthermore, car-
bon emission equivalent cost is obtained by dynamic and stat-
ic carbon emission cost conversion coefficient. Secondly, the
penalty cost coefficient is obtained through the value of prod-
ucts and the impact on customers caused by early or late de-
livery. The penalty cost coefficient is used to calculate the
penalty cost of customer satisfaction. Finally, NSGA-II algo-
rithm is successfully used to solve the distribution location
problem. This algorithm uses the elitist control strategy with-
out shared parameters, which is more efficient than other al-
gorithms in the multi-objective optimization.
The model is applied to location distribution centers of cold
chain logistics company in Lianyungang. The results show
that the optimal solution is obtained. Two distribution centers
are selected from six alternative distribution centers. The car-
bon emission equivalent calculated in this model is about
183,100 Yuan and the penalty cost of customer satisfaction
is about 13,500 Yuan.
Further research is required to consider more kinds of cold
chain goods distributed with the same vehicle, so that the
model will be close to the actual distribution situation.
32404
Moreover, it is assumed that the speed of transportation and
distribution keep constant in the model, and it is impossible to
drive the vehicle at a constant speed. The impact of various
speed and road grade on the location of cold chain logistics
distribution center will be further studied.
Availability of data and materials Not applicable.
Author contribution Xinguang Li: designed and performed the experi-
ments, analyzed the data, and prepared the paper.
Kang Zhou: participated to collect the materials related to the
experiment.
Funding This research was funded by the Shan Dong Natural Science
Foundation, grant number ZR2020MG017.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
Agustina D, Lee CKM, Piplani RMG (2014) Vehicle scheduling and
routing at a cross docking center for food supply chains. Int J Prod
Econ 152:29–41
Anser MK (2019) Impact of energy consumption and human activities on
carbon emissions in Pakistan: application of STIRPAT model.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:13453–13463
Bao CL, Zhang SB (2018) Route optimization of cold chain logistics in
joint distribution with consideration of carbon emission. Indust Eng
Manag 23:95–107
Bilir C, Ekici SO, Ulengin F (2017) An integrated multi-objective supply
chain network and competitive facility location model. Comput Ind
Eng 108:136–148
Burek J, Nutter DW (2019) A life cycle assessment-based multi-objective
optimization of the purchased, solar, and wind energy for the gro-
cery, perishables, and general merchandise multi-facility distribu-
tion center network. Appl Energy 235:1427–1446
Cui ZF (2019) Review and prospect of China's cold chain logistics in
2018. China's logistics and procurement.4,12-13
Dan Z, Yu SC, Zhen L, Wang W (2016) Multi-period distribution center
location and scale decision in supply chain network. Comput Ind
Eng 101:216–226
Guerriero F, Surace R, Loscri V (2014) A multi-objective approach for
unmanned aerial vehicle routing problem with soft time-windows
constraints. Appl Math 38:839–852
Guo JM, Liu C (2018) Time-dependent vehicle routing of free pickup and
delivery service in flight ticket sales companies based on carbon
emissions. J Adv Transp 23:1–14
He Y, Wang X, Lin Y (2017) Sustainable decision making for joint
distribution center location choice. Transp Res Part D: Transp
Environ 55:202–216
View publication stats
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:32396–32404
Hsiao YH, Chen MC, Chin CL (2017) Distribution planning for perish-
able foods in cold chains with quality concerns: formulation and
solution procedure Trends in Food. For Sci Technol 61:80–93
Hsu HW (2019) A Compromise Programming Model for Perishable
Food Logistics under Environmental Sustainability and Customer
Satisfaction.2019 IEEE International Conference on industrial engi-
neering and application. Macao China.12.15.
Karami F, Vancroonenburg W, Van den Berghe GA (2020) Periodic
optimization approach to dynamic pickup and delivery problems
with time windows. J Sched
Kaur H, Singh SP (2017) Modeling low carbon procurement and logistics
in supply chain: A key towards sustainable production. Sustain
Product Consumpt 11:5–17
Ma ZJ, Wu Y, Dai Y (2017) A combined order selection and time-
dependent vehicle routing problem with time widows for perishable
product delivery. Comput Ind Eng 114:101–114
Mariano EB, Gobbo JAA, Camioto FC (2017) CO2 emissions and logis-
tics performance: a composite index proposal. J Clean Prod 163:
166–178
Musavi MM, Ali BA (2017) A multi-objective sustainable hub location-
scheduling problem for perishable food supply chain. Comput Ind
Eng 113:766–778
Musolino G, Rindone C, Polimeni A, Vitetta A (2019) Planning urban
distribution center location with variable restocking demand scenar-
ios: general methodology and testing in a medium-size town. Transp
Policy 80:157–166
Naderipour M, Alinaghian M (2016) Measurement, evaluation and min-
imization of CO2, NOx, and CO emissions in the open time depen-
dent vehicle routing problem. Measurement. 90:443–452
Nasri M, Metrane A, Hafidi I, Jamali A (2020) A robust approach for
solving a vehicle routing problem with time windows with uncertain
service and travel times. Int J Ind Eng Comput 11:1–16
Qin GY, Tao FM, Li LX (2019) A vehicle routing optimization problem
for cold chain logistics considering customer satisfaction and carbon
emissions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:576
Ruiz-Meza J, Montes I, Perez A (2020) VRP model with time window,
multiproduct and multidepot. J Appl Sci Eng 23:239–247
Schneider M (2016) The vehicle-routing problem with time windows and
driver-specific times. Eur J Oper Res 250:101–119
Shen L, Tao FM, Wang SY (2018) Multi-depot open vehicle routing
problem with time windows based on carbon trading. Int J
Environ Res Public Health 15:225–237
Spliet R, Dabia S, Van Woensel T (2018) The time window assignment
vehicle routing problem with time-dependent travel times. Transp
Sci 52:261–276
Wang J, Li H (2019) The mystery of local fiscal expenditure and carbon
emission growth in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:12335–12345
Wu L, Hifi M (2020) Discrete scenario-based optimization for the robust
vehicle routing problem: the case of time windows under delay
uncertainty. Comput Ind Eng 145:612–623
Zanoni S, Zavanella L (2012) Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for
sustainable food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 140:731–736
Zhang Y, Baldacci R, Sim M (2019) Routing optimization with time
windows under uncertainty. Math Program 175:263–305
Zulvia FE, Kuo RJ, Nugroho DY (2020) A many-objective gradient
evolution algorithm for solving a green vehicle routing problem with
time windows and time dependency for perishable products. J Clean
Prod 242:66–78
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.