Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In the decades following the introduction of EU modal shift policy in 1992, modal shift targets intending to decarbonize transport have been set at varying levels of governance. Shifting cargo from road transport to more sustainable modes with fewer negative externalities, such as rail, inland navigation, and short sea shipping, has become a central policy objective throughout Europe and beyond. Meeting these targets requires a deeper understanding of mode choice factors in port-hinterland transportation, as this enables better policy support for the modal shift. Application of appropriate methodologies supports documentation of how freight mode choice decisions are made in reality. Mode choice in port-hinterland connections is examined in the context of the modal shift. This study aims to address the question: how has hinterland freight mode choice been studied in the existing literature, and what gaps remain in capturing real-world decision-making? An exploratory literature review is conducted and the methods and models used in freight mode choice studies are comparatively assessed. Results show that choice-based experiments, interviews, and literature reviews are commonly used. Discrete choice analysis is applied in the majority of studies sampled, though often emphasizing a limited set of attributes (cost, time, reliability, frequency) due to cognitive and design constraints of this method. These studies consistently confirm the importance of cost and shipment characteristics, but underrepresent contextual influences of digitalization, environmental regulations, behavioral biases, and stakeholder interactions. The review highlights a need for more holistic modelling approaches that better reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of hinterland mode choice. Methodological advancements offer potential to better support policymakers and industry actors in realizing effective actions towards a sustainable and resilient modal shift.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tahaney et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: