A MCDM APPROACH APPLIED TO ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTING AN

URBAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER: THE CASE OF OURO PRETO

Nayara Louise Alves de Carvalho

Paula Nakamura Fonseca
José Geraldo Vidal Vieira
Universidade Federal de São Carlos

ABSTRACT
The problem of locating an urban distribution center (UDC) too far from the city is related to the long lead times
for transport, while locating a UDC at the city perimeter can be helpful to reduce urban traffic. To help this decision
problem to best locate a UDC, taking into account the opinion of decision makers, some criteria must be evaluated
against a set of potential locations. The objective of this paper is to evaluate some alternatives to locate an urban
distribution center in the city of Ouro Preto-MG, considering the opinion of carriers, traffic wardens and retailers.
A multi-attribute decision making (MCDM) method will be used for selecting the best location among eight
alternatives located near the city of Ouro Preto. The results show that, according to the preference of the
stakeholders and considering environmental and economic aspects, the district of Cachoeira do Campo or the
entrance of Mariana are the most recommended places. The proposal of location may be beneficial to most
stakeholders but can also be a challenge in terms of financial investments depending on the willingness of
cooperation between the local authorities to sustain the UDC operation in the long term.

RESUMO
O problema de localizar um centro de distribuição urbano (CDU) muito longe da cidade está relacionado aos
longos prazos de transporte, enquanto localizar um CDU no perímetro da cidade pode ser útil para reduzir o tráfego
urbano. Para ajudar na decisão de localizar um CDU, levando em consideração a opinião dos tomadores de decisão,
alguns critérios devem ser avaliados em relação a um conjunto de locais potenciais. O objetivo deste trabalho é
avaliar algumas alternativas para a localização de um centro de distribuição urbano na cidade de Ouro Preto-MG,
considerando a opinião de transportadoras, guardas de trânsito e varejistas. Um método de tomada de decisão
multicritério será usado para selecionar a melhor localização entre oito alternativas localizadas nas proximidades
da cidade de Ouro Preto. Os resultados mostram que, de acordo com a preferência dos interessados e considerando
os aspectos ambientais e econômicos, o distrito de Cachoeira do Campo ou a entrada de Mariana são os locais
mais recomendados. A proposta de localização pode ser benéfica para a maioria das partes interessadas, mas
também pode ser um desafio em termos de investimentos financeiros, dependendo da cooperação entre as
autoridades locais para sustentar a operação do CDU a longo prazo.

1. INTRODUCTION
Urban distribution centers (UDC) provide greater efficiency in the distribution process. It is
useful for covering dense areas with not too short distances between the origin and destination
points (Wang, Xiong and Jiang, 2014). The main idea is to consolidate the goods of different
suppliers in one area just before entering the city center. The use of UDCs prevents a high
number of vehicles from entering the city and, as a consequence, urban congestion (Marcucci,
2008; Estrada and Roca-Riu, 2017). Since fewer vehicles will enter the city, it is also
economically efficient to increase vehicles’ load factors (van Duin et al., 2010). Many UDCs
can offer a range of additional services other than consolidated deliveries, such as storage,
inventory and return of goods. These additional services can improve attractiveness for retailers
and sometimes help UDCs survive (Browne et al., 2005).

On the other hand, the most common difficulties related to the location of UDCs are the
allocation of costs and benefits and the willingness of transportation companies to cooperate
(van Duin et al., 2010). Both consignees and transportation companies can benefit financially
from using the UDC; the UDC operator incurs costs, and the municipality should play a role in
bringing costs and benefits together (Krajewska et al., 2008). Most carriers will use the UDCs
on a voluntary basis, which means that freight platforms must prove advantageous for carriers.
Depending on the place and its local legal framework, carriers are not allowed to make direct
deliveries. They can cause problems for urban distribution since there are some regulations that
forbid traffic and parking of heavy vehicles in city centers (Quak, 2008; Awash et al., 2011).
Retailers demand reliable delivery times, and carriers require well-equipped and staffed UDCs.
A probable solution for the conflicts among retailers and carriers needs can be to increase the
volume of goods processed at the UDC and improve the quality of services offered to both
retailers and carriers (Panero, Shin and Lopez, 2011). For the government, the UDCs should
respect the local regulations applicable to areas where there are delivery-related problems, such
as city centers with historical retailers, historical city centers, modern retail designs and new
construction sites. Urban distribution planning should take all these characteristics into
consideration (Charlton and Vowles, 2008).

Locating the UDC at the city perimeter can be helpful to reduce urban traffic. However, the
problem cannot be simplified by using tons of light vehicles and increasing the frequency of
deliveries. On the other hand, UDCs located too far from the city will have long lead times for
transport (Olsson and Woxenius, 2014). To help the decision to best locate a UDC, taking into
account the opinion of decision makers, some criteria must be evaluated against a set of
potential locations.

The objective of the research is to recommend the best alternatives to locate a distribution center
in the city of Ouro Preto-MG, considering the opinion of carriers, traffic wardens and retailers.
A multi-attribute decision making (MCDM) framework will be used based on de Carvalho et
al. (2020). In our research, we evaluate 14 criteria to select one of eight alternatives of location
of the UDC. Considering this set of criteria in a mathematical model is not feasible mainly
because of the huge computational effort required and due to the impossibility of handling all
criteria simultaneously (de la Vega et al., 2018, Agrebi et al., 2017). Then, MCDM methods,
which consider a set of different criteria (most of them on a qualitative scale and not only
quantitative ones as investigated by Veličković et al., 2018) and the opinion of the main
stakeholders in urban freight distribution, are generally more appropriate for the identification
of UDC locations (de Carvalho et al., 2020).

In contrast to multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) (Marchadis, 2007), which first

selects the alternatives and then the criteria in the decision-making model, we use a structure
based on the “value-focused thinking” approach (Keeney, 1996) where the alternatives follow
this structure - first developed with the objectives (or criteria). The structure developed by de
Carvalho et al. (2020), updated from Vieira (2019), has some similarities with the model
proposed by Agrebi et al. (2017); however, this model does not consider compensatory changes
among the criteria. The contribution of this research is addressing the UDC location problem,
focusing on the preferences of stakeholders by using sensitivity and performance analysis. We
provide joint criteria analysis by comparing several criteria in a compensatory way, which
would be difficult to run in a unique mathematical model.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. UDCs: main concepts and functionalities
The concept of UDC has been changing over time (Taniguchi e Thompson, 2015), but many
authors agree that it is a way to solve the last mile problem in urban freight transport (UFT)
(Browne et al.,2005; Russo et al., 2013; Gonzalez-Feliu et al., 2014, Lin et al., 2016). UDCs
are facilities that avoid the need for poorly loaded goods vehicles to make deliveries in urban
areas (Allen et al., 2015). Their concept is based on the share of loads of different shippers and
carriers in the same vehicle (Ville et al., 2010), including cooperation among several different
transportation companies (Duin et al., 2010).

Operationally, UDCs can provide value-added services: home deliveries, waste collection
services and reverse logistics, merchandising (Browne et al., 2005; Allen et al., 2015; Johansson
and Björklund, 2017). Additionally, they can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, allowing,
for example, operations and deliveries during off-peak hours (Rhodes et al., 2012; Afzal and
Kim 2014) or at times when vehicle delivery is normally prohibited, such as overnight
deliveries (Allen, Thorne and Bowne, 2007).

Carvalho, Lemos and Vieira (2016) identified six main locations supplied by UDCs in the
literature review: airport, shopping center, hospital, city center, entire city, and construction site
(Browne et al., 2005; Quak, 2008; Yiaqiang, 2014). According to each location, we have
different decision makers. Usually, UFT is complex and involves various agents with different
requirements and perceptions (Ballantyne et al., 2013). Shippers, carriers, administrators and
residents (consumers) constitute the main agents, with different objectives and perspectives
towards their own goals (Taniguchi et al., 2012). Thus, a biggest challenge of using UDCs is to
meet the interests of all the agents involved (Verlinde, 2015) because it is impossible to find
measures (or combinations of measures) that do not have any disadvantage for one of the agents
(Bjerkan, Sund and Nordtomme, 2014).

Depending on the place supplied by a UDC, it is crucial to define the location for its
implementation. The most typical configuration is to serve only the dense historic centers or a
central business district in the central city, where the combination of high commercial activity
and limited street space makes deliveries a troublesome and expensive practice (Browne et al.,
2005; Bestufs, 2007). Then, the question is to solve the main problem: to decide how to select
one from a potential set of locations of a UDC while considering and satisfying a set of criteria
such as investment costs, proximity to suppliers, legal and tax implications (Chou, Chang and
Shen, 2008). Therefore, in the problem of locating UDCs, the interests of all stakeholders have
to be considered (Vieira, 2019); however, the decision of where to locate UDCs is not simple
to make because there are multiple criteria to be considered, such as minimizing distribution
costs, optimizing customer coverage, and minimizing social, economic and environmental
impacts (Vieira, 2019). We can consider that the problem has a set of locations or alternatives
that can be evaluated against a set of weighed criteria (Chakraborty, Ray, and Dan, 2013).

2.2. UDCs in historical cities: the case of Ouro Preto

Among UDCs supplying city centers (39.6%), they serve historical city centers (Carvalho,
Lemos e Vieira, 2016). Some examples are implemented in Evora (Portugal), Stockholm
(Sweden) and La Rochelle (France), operational for 10 years (Trentini, Gonzalez-Feliu e
Malhené, 2015).

Normally, historical cities adopt rules for access to the city center (Lin, Chen, and Kawamura,
2016; Carvalho et al. (2019a) as a way to organize the urban space and supply local commerce.
Such rules are key to preserving the world heritage regarding the accessibility of cargo vehicles,
such as a time window and general vehicle restrictions (Carvalho et al., 2019a). Then, the use
of a UDC contributes to reducing the shaking of heritage architecture and decreases the impacts
(noise, shocks, & vibrations) caused by vehicles on the surface of walls (filiform cracks,
cracked walks, and broken pipes), mainly from heavier vehicles (Azevedo and Patricio, 2001,
pp. 1–9; Browne et al., 2005). In La Rochelle, for example, restrictions on access to the historic
center related to the size and time window of goods vehicles were established. To encourage
the use of UDCs, cargo vehicles were allowed to use bus lanes (Trentini, Gonzalez-Feliu e
Malhené, 2015).

In particular, when planning the implementation of a UDC to serve the historic city center, there
are two additional challenges: (i) the inclusion of unconventional agents responsible for the
protection of cultural assets, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (Unesco) and, in Brazil, the National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institute
(Iphan); (ii) the need to look at a new perspective, starting from the view of the urban center to
the view of the historic center, with peculiar characteristics of urban layout and rules for the
transit of cargo vehicles.

Due to all these variables, we can say that using a UDC as an alternative to efficient UFT is a
multicriteria and multiagent decision. Carvalho et al. (2019a; 2019b) compared the operational,
economic, social, cultural, and environmental criteria that influence the implementation of a
UDC in a historical city of Ouro Preto, considering the viewpoints of four agents: residents,
traffic wardens, retailers and carriers. Table 1 sheds light on some policies that could be faced
by these agents and shows a consensus among all the agents that the most important factor in
the implementation of a UDC is related to the preservation of historical buildings. Although the
criteria regarding cultural and environmental aspects were the most relevant in implementing a
UDC, carriers do not agree with this opinion. Carriers focus on logistics operations, and they
are the only agent that does not experience the city as a whole; they may not care about the
conservation of historical heritage. Vehicle size and local prosperity were the most relevant
common criteria for supply retailers in the historical city center of Ouro Preto. In addition, the
investment of light vehicles for deliveries and the use of a UDC as an intermediary to split
deliveries into two legs was well evaluated by all agents.

Table 1: Major policies and criteria that affect the implementation of a UDC by the agents
Agents’ Criteria to be addressed in UDC
Policies Aspects
Viewpoints implementation

Conservation of historical Re, TW and Shaking of architectural heritage Cultural

heritage Rt Depletion of building by collision Cultural
Vehicle size Operational
Vehicle restrictions (weight, TW, Rt and
Use of technology Operational
engine type) C
Compliance with legislation Operational
Air pollution level Environment
Re, TW and Visual intrusion level Environment
Environment law
Rt Noise intrusion level Environment
Use of alternative fuel vehicle Environment
Access restrictions (narrow,
Parking spaces Operational
street, parking, spaces, time Re, Rt and C
Load Factor maximization Operational
window, L/U)
Local Prosperity Economic
Re, TW, Rt Insecurity Social
Collaborative initiatives
and C Investments/costs Economic
Customer service level Economic
 Sharing costs/earnings Economic
Note: Carriers=C; Residents=Re; Retailers= Rt; Traffic wardens=Tw
Source: Carvalho et al. (2019a).

The laws in Ouro Preto are necessary, or maybe not sufficient to preserve the heritage, due to
the lack of land use controls for protecting historical areas. For instance, the current law focuses
on limiting the times or areas limitation for heavy vehicles. There is poor or insufficient
signaling for freight vehicles and insufficient bays for parking or loading/unloading for freight
vehicles. So far, the city has not registered any company within the program created to control
access to the areas of circulation in special zones or time windows. Using non-motorised or
light vehicles, off-peak deliveries could be combined with the UDC solution.

In the case of Ouro Preto, a place of transshipment of goods could be initially installed,
providing few aggregated activities, such as transportation and home delivery (the most
favorable activity according to retailers), as suggested by Munuzuri et al. (2012). The following
topics present a proposal to locate a UDC to serve the historical city center of Ouro Preto.

3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this research is based on the MCDM approach proposed by de
Carvalho et al. (2020). We use this approach to evaluate a set of criteria against a group of
potential locations of UDC near the city of Ouro Preto, taking into account three city logistics
agents: traffic wardens, retailers and carriers. To aid the decision of where to locate the UDC,
this study was conducted as follows:

(1) the MCDM structured proposed by de Carvalho et al. (2020) (Figure 1):

Figure 1: Hierarchical decision structure for locating UDC in historical cities.

(2) Interviews conducted with Brazilian local authorities, such as the mayor’s secretary, traffic
warden commander and the coordinator of the Commercial and Business Association in 2017.
These stakeholders were asked about problems with the current urban logistics in the historical
city of Ouro Preto regarding the possible alternatives of location for the UDC and their opinion
on this implementation;

(3) Eight locations were selected and evaluated in the VISA® software according to the
previous criteria by the stakeholders, carriers, retailer and other authorities responsible for
preservation of the historical heritage. The authorities indicated that the possible alternatives
for implementing UDCs were (1) District of Cachoeirra do Campo (District of CC); (2) District
of Pocinho (Pocinho); (3) District of Nova Senhora Do Carmo (NSa Carmo); (4) Novelis
factory neighbourhood (Novelis neight); (5) city entrance coming from the city of Mariana
(Entrance_M); (6) city entrance coming from the city of Belo Horizonte (Entrance_BH); (7)
Ponte Nova highway (Route Ponte N); and (8) Rodrigo Melo Franco de Andrade highway
(Route RMFA). Each stakeholder gave scores from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
for each alternative. The mode of the scores given by the police makers and in general were
calculated and used as input for the software.

The location selection also considered how to manage the land use control and the logistics
routes, i.e. for places outside the city center. The mayor’s secretary reported that the demand
for the supply of goods has increased over the last four years due to the higher number of tourists
visiting the city, although its infrastructure remains the same as it did at the beginning of 1698.
In addition, because there are currently approximately 73.994 residents living in the city (IBGE,
Minas Gerais: Ouro Preto, 2017), distribution becomes even more complex when compared to
neighbouring cities, such as Tiradentes, where operations are focused on tourism only. The
secretary also mentioned that the authorities plan to redesign the city, in which places such as
the City Hall, the Commercial and Business Association and other public facilities will be
moved far away from the downtown area so that there are more parking and unloading spaces.

The traffic warden commander stated that the city has big issues concerning the distribution of
goods and that it not only increases costs but also the number of traffic accidents. Local
businesses are also struggling to adapt to receiving goods. The traffic warden commander also
mentioned a recent issue at ‘Rua dos Bancos’, where a 5-ton truck was seen parked in an illegal
space and with illegal cargo. According to him, all these details urgently need to be studied and
solved so that the city may maintain the title of the world heritage site.

The coordinator of the Commercial and Business Association mentioned that the solution for
the distribution system would be to avoid entering the historical downtown area and focus the
supply activities near the city entrance on the highways or near districts and cities.

(4) The results from the prevalence of locations were verified with a sensitivity analysis and
performance analysis in VISA® software.

4. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE APPLIED TO ALTERNATIVES FOR

IMPLEMENTING UDC IN OURO PRETO
This section aims to use the proposed structure (de Carvalho et al, 2020) to implement the UDC
in a historical city, in this case the city of Ouro Preto. Therefore, the alternatives will be
described and evaluated by this structure.
The primary results from the scoring given by the stakeholders to each alternative were divided
into two clusters: cluster 1 (Police Makers) and cluster 2 (General results). Cluster 1 was
considered the scoring given by a specific group of stakeholders: the civil guard commander,
the municipal secretary of environment, the head of National Institute of Historic and Artistic
Heritage (IPHAN) and the civil engineer of highways department. Cluster 2 was considered the
scoring given by another group of stakeholders: carrier-1, carrier-2, retailer, the civil guard
commander, the municipal secretary of environment, the head of National Institute of Historic
and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) and the civil engineer of highways department. Afterwards, the
individual results for carrier-1, carrier-2, retailer, civil guard commander, municipal secretary
of environment, head of National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) and the
civil engineer of highways department were given.

Regarding the prevalence from the alternatives, most of the stakeholders considered the
alternatives ‘District of Cachoeira do Campo (DCC)’ and ‘Entrance of Mariana’ as a better
location and ‘Rodrigo Melo Franco de Andrade (RMFA)’ as one of the less suitable
alternatives. For stakeholders carrier-1 and carrier-2, the results were inconclusive/not
applicable (NA). The summarized results from the scoring given by each stakeholder are shown
in Table 2.

Table 2: Summarized results.

Stakeholders Alternatives (Strongly agree) Alternatives (Strongly disagree)
Carrier – 1 NA NA
Carrier – 2 NA Route RMFA
Retailer Entrance_M DCC
Civil guard commander DCC Route RMFA
Municipal secretary of environment Route RMFA District of CC
Head of IPHAN Entrance_M Entrance_BH
Civil engineer of routes department District of CC Route Ponte N
General District of CC Entrance_BH
Policy makers District of CC Route Ponte N

4.1 Sensibility analysis for evaluating the alternatives by each stakeholder

To investigate the impact of changing the weights of the criteria in the results, a sensitivity
analysis was performed. Since the study assigned the highest weights to ECON (ECONOMIC)
and ENVI (ENVIRONMENTAL) aspects, it will be applied on these two criteria (see Figure
2) for each stakeholder. The color lines represent the alternatives and show how their scores
change as the weight allocated to ECON criteria varies in the x axis from 0 to 1 (for instance).
The vertical dotted line indicates the value of the current weight assigned to the ECON criteria.

Considering the general results (cluster 2), the preference for alternative (1) District of CC is
only replaced when the score for ECON is decreased from a weight <0.085. Applying the score
of 0.073, for example (Figure 2a), the alternative (1) District of CC now has the same score as
alternative (5) Entrance of Mariana, (2) District of Pocinho and (3) NSa Carmo. On the other
hand, the preference for alternative (1) District of CC is only changed when the score for ENVI
is decreased from a weight <0.000. Using the score of 0.021, for example (Figure 3b), the
alternative (1) District of CC already has the highest score among the other alternatives. In both
cases, the preference for alternative (1) District of CC is determined for values of 0.085<ECON
and 0.000<ENVI.

(a) (b)
Figure 2: Sensitivity charts for general results (a) and (b).

Considering only the policy maker results (cluster 1), the preference for alternative (7) Route
Ponte N together with (5) Entrance of Mariana is only replaced when the score for ECON is
decreased from a weight <0.338. Applying the score of 0.279, for example (Figure 3a. ), the
alternative (4) Novelis together with (3) NSa Carmo now score higher than the others. On the
other hand, the preference for alternative (1) District of CC is only changed when the score for
ENVI is decreased from a weight <0.265. Using the score of 0.206, for example (Figure 3b. ),
alternative (6) Entrance of BH already has the highest score among the other alternatives.

(b) (b)
Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis for policy maker results (a) and (b).

For the carriers, the results were inconclusive. There was no preference for any particular
alternative when the score for ECON or ENV had a weight higher or lower than 0.500.

For the retailer, the preference for the alternative (5) Entrance of Mariana is only replaced when
the score for ECON had a weight<0.206. Applying the score of 0.030, the alternative (4)
Novelis had the highest weight. The same result was applicable to ENVI; the alternative (5)
Entrance of Mariana is only replaced when the score for ENVI had a weight <0.044. Using the
score of 0.015, no alternative could be selected because the alternatives (5) Entrance of Mariana
and (6) Entrance BH had the same weight. In both cases, the closer the scores for ECON and
ENVI are from the limit axis (1.0), the inconclusive the results; in other words, one alternative
cannot be chosen among others.

For the Civil guard commander, the preference for the alternative (1) District of CC is strongly
predominant for any score applied for ECON within the interval of 0<weight <1.0. Applying
the score of 0.300, alternative (1) had the highest weight. The same result was applicable to
ENVI. The alternative (1) District of CC is predominant for any score in ENVI within the
interval of 0<weight <0.100. Using the score of 0.317, alternative (1) had the highest weight.

For the Municipal Secretary of Environment, the preference for the alternative (6) Entrance of
BH is only replaced when the score applied for ECON had a weight >0.411. Applying the score
of 0.426, the alternative (5) Entrance of Mariana had the highest weight. At the same time, the
preference for alternative (6) Entrance of BH is only replaced when the score for ENVI had a
weight >265. Applying the score of 0.279, for example, alternative (8) Route Ponte N had the
highest weight.

For the Head of National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN), it was not possible
to choose one alternative. The preference for the alternatives (7) Route Ponte N and (5) Entrance
of Mariana was shown when the score for ECON had a weight >0.324, and for a weight <0.324,
the alternatives (4) Novelis and (3) NSa Carmo had the highest weight. Applying the score of
0.368, the alternatives (8) Route Ponte N and (6) Entrance of Mariana had the highest weight.
At the same time, the preference for alternative (6) Entrance of BH is only replaced when the
score for ENVI had a weight >265. Applying the score of 0.279, alternative (7) Route Ponte N
had the highest weight. Additionally, the preference for the alternatives (4) Novelis and (2) NSa
Carmo was shown when the score for ENVI had a weight >0.735, and for a weight <0.735, the
alternatives (4) Novelis and (3) Pocinho had the highest weight. Applying the score of 0.750,
the alternatives (4) Novelis and (2) NSa Carmo had the highest weight.

For the civil engineer of highways department, the preference for the alternatives (1) District
of CC was only replaced when the score for ECON had a weight >0.618. Applying the score of
0.632, a set of alternatives (all alternatives except alternative 8 - Route Ponte N) had the same
weight. At the same time, the preference for alternative (1) District of CC is predominant for
any score for ENVI until the weight <1.000 above that value all the alternatives had the same
weight Applying the score of 0.317, the alternative (1) District of CC had the highest weight.

4.2 Performance analysis for criteria according to each stakeholder

The performance analysis gives us insights into the relation between ECON and ENVI (Table
3). The general results show that, in terms of environmental aspects, locating the distribution
center district of CC would be the best alternative, followed by the alternative of entrance of
Mariana as a second option. Policy-makers show that, in terms of environmental aspects,
locating the distribution center district of CC would be the best alternative and, in terms of
economic aspects, locating in the entrance of Mariana.
For carriers, there is no conclusion where is the best location, while retailers, in terms of
environmental aspects, to locate the distribution center Entrance of Mariana would be the best
alternative, and in terms of economic aspects to locate in District of CC. According to the Civil
guard commander, in terms of environmental aspects, locating the distribution center District
of CC would be the best alternative, while for the municipal secretary of the environment,
locating the distribution center RMFA would be the best alternative, and in terms of economic
aspects, the entrance of Mariana would be the best location. According to IPHAN, locating the
distribution center Pocinho or RMFA would be the best alternatives, in terms of economic
aspects, to locate the distribution center Entrance of Mariana or Route Ponte Nova would be
the best alternatives, while for civil engineers of highways, in terms of economic aspects,
locating the distribution center Novelis would be the best alternatives, in terms of environmental
aspects, to locate the distribution center District of CC would be the best alternatives.

Table 3: The best alternatives according to economic and environmental aspects

Best Alternatives
Stakeholders Environmental Economic
Carrier – 1 NA NA
Carrier – 2 NA NA
Retailer Entrance_M District of CC
Civil guard commander District of CC NA
Municipal secretary of environment Route RMFA Entrance_M
Head of IPHAN Pocinho/Route RMFA Entrance_M/Route Ponte N
Civil engineer of routes department District of CC Novelis
General District of CC NA
Policy makers District of CC Entrance_M

5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE STUDIES

We conclude that according to the preference of the stakeholders for alternatives of location of
a UDC in Ouro Preto, considering environmental and economic aspects, District of Cachoeira
do Campo or Entrance of Mariana are the most recommended places. This is in accordance with
the claims of local citizens and the international community for more sustainable initiatives in
the urban distribution of goods. The concern with the impacts to historical heritages that incur
transport can also be seen in those alternatives because they are both outside the historical area
of the city center. The proposal of location may be beneficial to most stakeholders but can also
be a challenge in terms of financial investments depending on the willingness of cooperation
between the local authorities to sustain the UDC operation in the long term.

The limitations of this study are related to the few interviews with retailers and carriers. The
traffic wardens could also be interviewed to catch their opinion since, in practice, they
experience urban freight regulations applying fine to the carriers and control the use of the land.
The results could also be validated among the authorities to leave their opinion and to serve
another round of analysis.

Concerning future research, it would be interesting to conduct other interviews with local
citizens, retailers and carriers to validate the weights that were given to each alternative. It
would also be relevant to ask the stakeholders if a study of cost allocation combined with a
calculation for the total amount of investments required to open an urban distribution center
would be helpful to the decision with different alternatives of location. We also suggest using
the idea of this study in similar implementations of UDCs in other cities (not only historical
cities), provided that other groups of criteria will be selected according to the similar economic,
cultural and political reality.

REFERENCES BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
Agrebi, M.; M. Abed e M.N. Omri (2017) ELECTRE I based relevance decision-makers feedback to the location
selection of distribution centers. Journal of Advanced Transportation. ID. 7131094.
doi.org/10.1155/2017/7131094.
Allen, J.; M. Browne; A. Woodburn. e J. Leonardi (2015) A review of urban consolidation centers in the supply
chain based on a case study approach. Supply Chain Forum: An Int. J., v. 15, n.. 4, p. 100-112.
Afzal, M. K. e Y. J. Kim (2014) Demand Determinants for Urban Freight Consolidation Center: Case Study Korea.
International Journal of Transportation, v. 2, n. 2, p.89-108.
Allen, J.,; G.Thorne e M. Browne (2007) Good practice guide on urban. BESTUFS, Zoetermeer, The Netherland.
Awash, A.; S. S. Chauhan e S. K. Goyal (2011) A multi-criteria decision-making approach for location planning
for urban distribution centers under uncertainty. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, v. 53, n. 1, p. 98-
109.
Azevedo, F.S. e J. Patrício (2001) Vibrações ambientes: critérios de dados e de incomodidade. Atualidades e
perspectivas futuras. Tecni Acústica, La Rioja.
Ballantyne, E.; M. Lindholm e A. Whiteing, (2013) A comparative study of urban freight transport planning:
addressing stakeholder needs Journal of Transport Geography, 32, pp. 93-101.
Bkerkan, K.Y., A. B. Sund e M. E. Nordtomme (2014) Stakeholder responses to measures green and efficient
urban freight. Research in Transportation Business & Management, v.11, p. 32-42.
Browne, M.; M. Sweet; A. Woodburn e J. Allen (2005) Urban freight consolidation centers final report. Transport
Studies Group, University of Westminster, 10.
Carvalho, N.L.A; P. H. Lemos, P.H.; J.G.V. Vieira (2016) Uma revisão sobre os benefícios, características e
resultados da implantação de Centros de Distribuição Urbana. XXX Congresso Nacional de Pesquisa em
Transporte da ANPET Rio de Janeiro.
Carvalho, N. L. A.; P. C. C. Ribeiro; L. K. Oliveira; J. E. A. R. Silva e J. G. V. Vieira (2019) Criteria to implement
UDCs in historical cities: a Brazilian case study. European Transport/Trasporti Europei, v. 72, n. 1, p. 1–
29.
Carvalho, N.L.A.; P. C. C. Ribeiro; C. García-Martos; C. G. Fernández; J.G.V. Vieira (2019b) Urban distribution
center in historical cities from the perspective of residents, retailers and carriers. Research in Transportation
Economic. v. 77.
Chakraborty, R.; A. Ray e P. Dan (2013) Multi criteria decision making methods for location selection of
distribution centers. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, v. 4, n. 4, p. 491-504.
Charlton, C. e T. Vowles (2008) Inter-urban and regional transport. In: Knowles, R., Shaw, J., Docherty, I. (Eds.),
Transport Geographies. Mobilities, Flows and Spaces. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 120–136.
Chou, S. Y.; Y. H. Chang e C. Y. Shen (2008) A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-
making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European J. of Op. Res. v. 189,
n. 1, p. 132-145.
de Carvalho, N.L.; J.G.V. Vieira; P.N. da Fonseca; M. A. Dulebenets (2020) A Multi-Criteria Structure for
Sustainable Implementation of Urban Distribution Centers in Historical Cities. Sustainability, 12, 5538.
de La Vega, D. S.; J. G. V. Vieira, E. A. Toso e R. N. de Faria (2018) A decision on the truckload and less-than-
truckload problem: An approach based on MCDA. International Journal of Production Economics, 195,
132-145.
Estrada, M. e M. Roca-Riu. (2017) Stakeholder’s profitability of carrier-led consolidation strategies in urban goods
distribution. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 104, 165-188.
Gerardin, B. (2007) Dix ans d’experimentations en matiere de livraisons en ville. CERTU.
Gonzalez-Feliu, J.; F., Semet.; J. L., Routhier (2014) Sustainable Urban Logistics: Concepts, Methods and
Information Systems. Heidelberg: Springer.
Johansson, H.; M. Björklund (2017) Urban consolidation centers: retail stores’ demands for UCC services.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47, v.7, p. 646-662.
Keeney, R.L. (1996) Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. Eur. J.
Oper. Res., 92, 537–549.
Krajewska, M.A.; H. Kopfer, G. Laporte; S. Ropke e G. Zaccour (2008) Horizontal cooperation among freight
carriers: request allocation and profit sharing. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59 (11), 1483–
1491.
Lin, J. Q.; K. Chen; K. Kawamura (2016) Sustainability SI: Logistics Cost and Environmental Impact Analyses
of Urban Delivery Consolidation Strategies. Networks and Spatial Economics, p. 227-253.
Macharis, C. (2007) Multi-criteria Analysis as a Tool to Include Stakeholders in Project Evaluation: The MAMCA
Method. In Transport Project Evaluation; Extending the Social Cost–Benefit Approach; Haezendonck, E.,
Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, pp. 115–131
Marcucci, E. e R. Daniels (2008) The potential demand for a urban freight consolidation center. Transportation,
v. 35, p. 269–284.
Panero, M. A.; H. S. Shin e D. P. Lopez (2011) Urban distribution centers–A Means to reducing freight vehicle
miles traveled. ThE NYU Rudin Center For Transportation Policy and Management New York, Report
(No. C-08-23).
Olsson, J. e J. Woxenius. (2014) Localisation of freight consolidation centers serving small road hauliers in a wider
urban area: barriers for more efficient freight deliveries in Gothenburg. Journal of Transport Geography,
34, 25-33.]
Quak, H. (2008) Sustainability of urban freight transport: Retail Distribuition and Local Regulations in cities.
ERIM Phd. Series Research in Management. N. 124, TRAIL Research School, The Netherlands.
Rhodes, S.S.; M. Berndt; P. Bingham; J. Bryan; T. Cherret; P. Plumeau e R. Weisbrod (2012) NCFRP Report 14:
Guidebook for Understanding Urban Goods Movement. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Russo, F.; G. Mussolino; M.R. Trecozzi (2013) A system of models for the assessment of an urban distribution
center in a city logistic plan. Transactions on The Built Environment, v.130.
Taniguchi, E; R.G. Thompsom (2015) City Logistics: mapping the future. Ed. Boka Raton: CRC Press, p.1-12.
Taniguchi, E., R G. Thompson e T. Yamada, (2012) Emerging techniques for enhancing the practical application
of city logistics models, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences – Proceedings from Seventh International
Conference on City Logistics, 39, p. 3-18.
Trentini, A.; J. Gonzalez-Feliu e N. Malhené (2015) Developing urban logistics spaces: UCC and PLS in South-
Western Europe. 2015.
Van Duin, J.H.R.; H. Quak; J. Muñuzuric (2010) New challenges for urban consolidation centers: A case study in
The Hague. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, n. 2, v. 3, p. 6177–6188.
Veliˇckovi´c, M.; D. Stojanovi´c.; S., Nikoliˇci´c; M. Maslari´c (2018) Different urban consolidation center
scenarios: Impact on external costs of last-mile deliveries. Transport, 33, 948–958.
Verlinde, S. (2015) Promising but challenging urban freight transport solutions. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculty
of Economics, Social and Political Sciences and Solvay Business School.
Vieira, J.G.V. (2019). Multi-criteria Structure to locate Urban Distribution Centers. XXXIII Congresso Nacional
de Pesquisa em Transporte da ANPET. Balneário Camburiú.
Ville, S.; J. Gonzalez-Feliu e L. Dablanc (2010) The limits of public policy intervention in urban logistics: The
case of Vicenza (Italy) and lessons for other European cities. World Conf. on Transport Research, Lisbon,
WCTR, Lisbon: Jul. 11-15, halshs-00742857.
Yanqiang, M. A. (2014) City Logistics in China: An Empirical Study from An Emerging-Market- Economy
Country. 2014. 217p. Thesis. Technische Universität Darmstadt, Section Supply Chain- and Network
Management, Department of Laws and Economics, Darmstadt, German.
Wang, B.; H. Xiong; C. Jiang (2014) A multicriteria decision making approach based on fuzzy theory and
credibility mechanism for logistics center location selection. The Scientific World Journal.