The aftermath of COVID-19 for more than two years and the rapid application of 4th Industrial Revolution technology led to an increase in online shopping and non-face-to-face environments, leading to a rapid increase in last-mile delivery. As a result, the labor intensity of courier workers increases, the loss and damage of couriers, and crimes against the weak occur, etc. As one of the ways to solve this problem, the installation and expansion of unmanned courier boxes is attracting attention. However, efficient use is low due to the inconvenience of unmanned delivery boxes rather than the convenience of doorstep delivery, and in many facilities operated by public institutions, various location factors are not properly considered, so the existing unmanned delivery boxes are not effective. It shows a minor problem. Against this background, the purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which existing unmanned delivery boxes meet various cognitive factors and present guidelines for location selection. The target area is an unmanned delivery box operated by public institutions in Busan. The location selection criteria were analyzed by selecting six factors, namely, the proportion of single-person households/female population/rows and multi-generational housing, and accessibility to security facilities/bus stops/subway stations, taking into account population characteristics, housing characteristics, and accessibility. Hot spots analysis was selected as the analysis method, and spatial analysis and mapping were performed through QGIS. As a result of the analysis, it was found that a certain portion of the unmanned deliveray boxes in operation were installed in locations with good location conditions, but the rest were installed in different locations, which halved their effectiveness. So far, the department in charge has been installing it at branches requested by the jurisdiction or at branches where space is available. However, based on the results of this study, it is necessary to consider installation at a more appropriate branch in the future, and in this respect, the value of this study is I guess there is.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: