Urban freight transport is under increasing pressure. Rapid urbanization, the growth of e-commerce, and stricter climate targets are forcing cities to rethink how last-mile logistics (LML) is organized. Against this backdrop, Sobrino et al. (2026) propose a novel sustainability impact assessment framework and apply it to an Urban Consolidation Center (UCC) in Madrid’s city center.
The paper’s core contribution is methodological. While many previous studies assess urban logistics solutions using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tools such as AHP or MAMCA, these approaches often neglect two critical aspects: (1) the specific socio-economic and environmental context of the city, and (2) the structured integration of stakeholder priorities with that context. The proposed framework explicitly combines both.
The model follows three steps. First, alternative logistics scenarios are defined and evaluated using a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria structured along the triple bottom line: environmental, social, and economic. Fifteen Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are used, including energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, job creation, congestion, delivery cost, and reliability.
Second, the framework assigns “Adjusted Weights” to each KPI. These weights combine expert-based Convergent Weights (derived from a structured survey of 54 stakeholders across public authorities, private logistics actors, and researchers) with a Severity Level reflecting the specific urban context. The Severity Level captures how pressing a given issue (e.g., unemployment, air quality, congestion) is in a particular city. This dual weighting mechanism makes the assessment context-sensitive rather than generic.
Third, the sustainability performance of each scenario is calculated relative to a business-as-usual (BAU) baseline.
The framework is applied to five scenarios in Madrid’s Low Emission Zone, comparing conventional diesel delivery with different UCC configurations using hybrid and fully electric vehicles. The results show that all UCC scenarios significantly outperform the BAU case in environmental and social terms. Reductions in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollutants are substantial, particularly when fully electric fleets are deployed. Social benefits include job creation and improved neighborhood quality of life.
Economic outcomes are more nuanced. While UCC scenarios improve congestion, delivery reliability, and delivery times, they perform less favorably on short-term financial indicators, such as delivery costs and the internal rate of return. This confirms earlier findings that UCCs may require public support in early stages but generate broader societal benefits over time.
A key innovation of the study is the cross-city comparison. Applying the same scenarios to The Hague and Budapest (using their own adjusted weights) produces different sustainability rankings. This demonstrates that the “best” logistics solution depends heavily on local priorities and urban challenges.
The paper provides a transferable yet context-sensitive evaluation tool that bridges cost-benefit analysis and stakeholder-driven approaches. It offers policymakers and logistics operators a structured way to select sustainable last-mile solutions aligned with local conditions and long-term climate objectives.
Source: Sobrino, N., Gonzalez, J. N., Garrido, L., & Vassallo, J. M. (2026). Assessing the sustainability of urban logistics solutions: Conceptual framework applied to an urban consolidation center in Madrid. Cities, 172, 106844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2026.106844