Identifying dominant stakeholder perspectives on urban freight policies: a Q-analysis on urban consolidation centres in the Netherlands

    Ron van Duin Affiliation
    ; Marijn Slabbekoorn Affiliation
    ; Lori Tavasszy Affiliation
    ; Hans Quak Affiliation


Cities’ sustainability strategies seem to aim at the reduction of the negative impacts of urban freight transport. In the past decades, many public and private initiatives have struggled to gain broad stakeholder support and thus remain viable. Researchers and practitioners have only recently recognised stakeholder acceptance of urban freight solutions as a challenge. A first step in achieving convergence is to understand stakeholder needs, preferences and viewpoints. This paper proposes and applies an approach to identify the main stakeholder perspectives in the domain of urban freight transport. We use Q-methodology, which originates from social sciences and psychology, to record subjective positions and identify the dominant ones. We explain the approach, operationalise the method for the domain of urban freight transport and apply it to stakeholder groups in the Netherlands. We find four dominant perspectives, reflecting how stakeholders normally take positions in the urban freight dialogue. Important findings concern disparities between industry associations and some of their membership, divergent views about the expected role of public administration, and the observation that the behaviour of shippers and Logistics Service Providers (LSP) appears to be inconsistent with their beliefs. All these factors together can act as a barrier to the implementation of urban freight consolidation concepts. The Q-methodology is valuable for eliciting perspectives in urban freight and is a promising tool to facilitate stakeholder dialogue and, eventually, convergence.

Keyword : urban freight transport, city logistics, stakeholders, perspectives, Q-methodology, urban consolidation centres

How to Cite
van Duin, R., Slabbekoorn, M., Tavasszy, L., & Quak, H. (2017). Identifying dominant stakeholder perspectives on urban freight policies: a Q-analysis on urban consolidation centres in the Netherlands. Transport.
Published in Issue
Sep 4, 2017
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Akhtar-Danesh, N.; Baumann, A.; Cordingley, L. 2008. Q-methodology in nursing research: a promising method for the study of subjectivity, Western Journal of Nursing Research 30(6): 759–773.

Allen, J.; Thorne, G.; Browne, M. 2007. Good Practice Guide on Urban Freight Transport. BEST Urban Freight Solutions (BESTUFS). Rijswijk, Netherlands. 84 p. Available from Internet:

Anand, N.; Meijer, D.; Van Duin, J. H. R.; Tavasszy, L.; Meijer, S. 2016. Validation of an agent based model using a participatory simulation gaming approach: the case of city logistics, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 71: 489–499.

Ballantyne, E. E. F.; Lindholm, M.; Whiteing, A. 2013. A comparative study of urban freight transport planning: addressing stakeholder needs, Journal of Transport Geography 32: 93–101.

Bjerkan, K. Y.; Sund, A. B.; Nordtømme, M. E. 2014. Stakeholder responses to measures green and efficient urban freight, Research in Transportation Business & Management 11: 32–42.

Bots, P. W. G.; Van Twist, M. J. W.; Van Duin, J. H. R. 2000. Automatic pattern detection in stakeholder networks, in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000, 7 January 2000, Maui, HI, US, 1–14.

Brown, S. R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press. 358 p.

Brown, S. R. 1993. A primer on Q methodology, Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4): 91–138.

Brown, S. R.; Durning, D. W.; Selden, S. 1999. Q methodology, in G. J. Miller, M. L. Whicker (Eds.). Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, 599–638.

Browne, M.; Sweet, M.; Woodburn, A.; Allen, J. 2005. Urban Freight Consolidation Centres: Final Report. Project Report. Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster for the Department for Transport, London, UK. 191 p.

Cuppen, E.; Breukers, S.; Hisschemöller, M.; Bergsma, E. 2010. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands, Ecological Economics 69(3): 579–591.

Dablanc, L. 2007. Goods transport in large European cities: difficult to organize, difficult to modernize, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(3): 280–285.

De Bruijn, H.; Herder, P. M. 2009. System and actor perspectives on sociotechnical systems, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 39(5): 981–992.

Donner, J. C. 2001. Using Q sorts in participatory processes: an introduction to the methodology, Social Development Papers 36 (Social Analysis: Selected Tools and Techniques), 24–49.

Ellis, G.; Barry, J.; Robinson, C. 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(4): 517–551.

Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. 291 p.

Focht, W. 2002. Assessment and management of policy conflict in the Illinois river watershed in Oklahoma: an application of Q methodology, International Journal of Public Administration 25(11): 1311–1349.

Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E. 2014. Urban freight transport and policy changes: Improving decision makers’ awareness via an agent-specific approach, Transport Policy 36: 248–252.

Giannoulis, C.; Botetzagias, I.; Skanavis, C. 2010. Newspaper reporters’ priorities and beliefs about environmental journalism: an application of Q-methodology, Science Communication 32(4): 425–466.

Ho, R. 2013. Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis with IBM SPSS. 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC. 600 p.

Lindenberg, S.; Stokman, F. N. 1983. Modellen in de Sociologie. Van Loghum Slaterus. 526 p. (in Dutch).

Kaiser, H. F. 1958. The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis, Psychometrika 23(3): 187–200.

Kroesen, M.; Bröer, C. 2009. Policy discourse, people’s internal frames, and declared aircraft noise annoyance: an application of Q-methodology, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(1): 195–207.

Macharis, C.; Turcksin, L.; Lebeau, K. 2012. Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use, Decision Support Systems 54(1): 610–620.

Macharis, C.; Milan, L.; Verlinde, S. 2014. A stakeholder-based multicriteria evaluation framework for city distribution, Research in Transportation Business & Management 11: 75–84.

Marcucci, E.; Danielis, R. 2008. The potential demand for a urban freight consolidation centre, Transportation 35(2): 269–284.

McKeown, B. F.; Thomas, D. B. 2013. Q Methodology. 2nd edition. Sage Publications. 120 p.

Olsson, J.; Woxenius, J. 2014. Localisation of freight consolidation centres serving small road hauliers in a wider urban area: barriers for more efficient freight deliveries in Gothenburg, Journal of Transport Geography 34: 25–33.

Österle, I.; Aditjandra, P. T.; Vaghi, C.; Grea, G.; Zunder, T. H. 2015. The role of a structured stakeholder consultation process within the establishment of a sustainable urban supply chain, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal 20(3): 284–299.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. 298 p.

Quak, H. J. 2008. Sustainability of Urban Freight Transport: Retail Distribution and Local Regulations in Cities: Doctoral Dissertation. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands. 262 p. Available from Internet:

Quak, H.; De Ree, D. 2009. Besparingen voor vervoerders – de effecten van een nationale uitrol van het concept Binnenstadservice. TNO rapport TNO-034-DTM-2009-03679. Delft, Netherlands. 35 p. (in Dutch).

Russo, F.; Comi, A. 2012. City characteristics and urban goods movements: a way to environmental transportation system in a sustainable city, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 39: 61–73.

Scott, J. 2012. Social Network Analysis. 3rd edition. Sage Publications. 216 p.

Schmolck, P. 2014. PQMethod Download Page for Windows Users. Available from Internet:

Sleenhoff, S.; Osseweijer, P. 2016. How people feel their engagement can have efficacy for a bio-based society, Public Understanding of Science 25(6): 719–736.

Slabbekoorn, M. 2014. On the Edge of Sustainable Urban Freight Distribution: Research on the Diversity of Perspectives towards Urban Freight Consolidation: MSc thesis. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands. 97 p.

Stathopoulos, A.; Valeri, E.; Marcucci, E. 2012. Stakeholder reactions to urban freight policy innovation, Journal of Transport Geography 22: 34–45.

Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and its Methodology. University of Chicago Press. 376 p.

Tielen, M.; Van Exel, N. J. A.; Van Buren, M. C.; Maasdam, L.; Weimar, W. 2011. Attitudes towards medication non-adherence in elderly kidney transplant patients: a Q methodology study, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 26(5): 1723–1728.

Van Duin, J. H. R. 2012. Logistics Concept Development in Multi-Actor Environments: Aligning Stakeholders for Successful Development of Public/Private Logistics Systems by Increased Awareness of Multi-Actor Objectives and Perceptions. Doctoral Dissertation, TRAIL Thesis Series T2012/6. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands. 229 p.

Van Duin, J.; Quak, H.; Muñuzuri, J. 2010. New challenges for urban consolidation centres: a case study in the Hague, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 2(3): 6177–6188.

Van Exel, J.; De Graaf, G. 2005. Q Methodology: a Sneak Preview. Rotterdam, Netherlands. 31 p.

Van Hooft, S. M.; Dwarswaard, J.; Jedeloo, S.; Bal, R.; Van Staa, A. L. 2015. Four perspectives on self-management support by nurses for people with chronic conditions: a Q-methodological study, International Journal of Nursing Studies 52(1): 157–166.

Watts, S.; Stenner, P. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. SAGE Publications Ltd. 248 p.

Wolpert, S.; Reuter, C. 2012. Status quo of city logistics in scientific literature: systematic review, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2269: 110–116.