Hexbyte Glen Cove Increase in home delivery service usage during COVID-19 pandemic unlikely to last

Hexbyte Glen Cove

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Services like Instacart, Grubhub, DoorDash, and Amazon certainly existed before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, demand for groceries, food, and other products purchased online and delivered directly to your door substantially increased when the coronavirus forced many Americans to stay at home. But just how much has the demand for deliveries increased, who uses the services, what kind of products are being delivered, and perhaps most importantly, will this increase in usage last? Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are answering these questions to aid policymakers and transportation logistics planners.

In the first comprehensive study investigating the initial adoption and continuance intention of delivery services during a , Cara Wang, an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rensselaer, found that over 90% of people who use online delivery services would likely revert back to their original way of shopping.

“It is likely that the increased use of e-commerce is not the result of market competition, where the most efficient competitor outperforms the others,” Dr. Wang said. “Rather, an external disruption—the pandemic—significantly altered the playing field. Once this external effect is removed, some of the gains made by the delivery services will likely fall off.”

Using a survey method and computer modeling, Dr. Wang determined that not all delivery products are the same, nor do all consumers use delivery services in the same way.

Dr. Wang identified four distinct types of : Non-adopters, prior adopters, temporary new adopters, and permanent new adopters. And delivery-service users access products in four different categories: Groceries, food, home goods, and other items.

The research showed that both the initial adoption of delivery services and the intent to continue using them varies by goods type. Grocery deliveries had the highest proportion of new adopters, followed by home goods, food, and finally other packages. These results imply that the COVID-19 pandemic had a larger impact on the purchase opportunities for essential items than less essential items.

The study also found what while the number of users for grocery deliveries increased by 113% during COVID, almost half of these new adopters would not continue to use this service once the pandemic is over.

Temporary new adopters accounted for a larger portion than the permanent new adopters for essential items, while there were more permanent new adopters for less essential items.

These findings are essential for investigating the impacts of the pandemic and predicting future demand.

“Answering these questions is essential to estimate the current and future for deliveries,” said José Holguín-Veras, director of the Center for Infrastructure, Transportation, and the Environment at Rensselaer and a co-author of the paper. “Transportation professionals and researchers have assumed that people would still rely on services even after the COVID crisis is over. However, in reality, consumers’ technology acceptance is much more dynamic and complex during a pandemic than during normal conditions. Understanding these nuanced behaviors is essential for sound transportation policy making.”

More information:
Xiaokun (Cara) Wang et al, Adoption of delivery services in light of the COVID pandemic: Who and how long?, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2021.10.012

Increase in home delivery service usage during COVID-19 pandemic unlikely to last (2022, February 2)
retrieved 3

% %item_read_more_button%% Hexbyte Glen Cove Educational Blog Repost With Backlinks — #metaverse #vr #ar #wordpress

Hexbyte Glen Cove Delivery rider deaths highlight need to make streets safer for everyone thumbnail

Hexbyte Glen Cove Delivery rider deaths highlight need to make streets safer for everyone

Hexbyte Glen Cove

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Five food-delivery cyclists have died on Australian roads in the past three months, four in Sydney. Most commentary has focused on the harsh employment conditions that force people to take risks they shouldn’t have to. These problems should of course be fixed, but cycling in general is too dangerous in our cities.

We need to look not just at labour laws but at the laws that shape our streets: things like road rules, planning requirements and engineering standards. Food delivery is a compelling example because it shows cycling is the most efficient way to get around the city.

Despite the efforts of supposedly business-minded people like shock jock Alan Jones and New South Wales’ former roads minister, Duncan Gay (who infamously ripped up infrastructure including a cycleway along College Road in central Sydney and a rainbow crossing on Oxford Street in Surry Hills), businesses have worked out bikes are the best way to move around the city.

Bikes are fastest for distances up to 5km, even for beginners. For more experienced cyclists and during peak hour, bikes are faster for trips of 10km and often even more.

Cycling has wider benefits too. Swapping cars for bikes can reduce the tens of billions of dollars lost in traffic congestion, the many gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and the health impacts of sedentary lifestyles. Even after accidents are taken into account, the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the costs.

Cycling can also help to improve equity and social inclusion, since the burdens of car-centric development are suffered most by people who are already vulnerable. They include the largely migrant food-delivery workforce.

Food-delivery cyclists are not the only people dying in car crashes. Worldwide, traffic accidents cause more than 1.35 million deaths every year and are the leading killer of children.

Blaming the victims

Instead of focusing on the dangers created by cars and trucks, however, NSW Transport and Roads Minister Andrew Constance this week blamed the victim:

If people are riding around, particularly at night, they have an obligation to make sure they are wearing high-visibility jackets. They’ve obviously got to have the requisite lighting in terms of the bike. They themselves should obviously be putting protective and high-vis clothes on.

Before this week, news stories about food-delivery cyclists were mostly negative. Just last month, police announced a crackdown on delivery cyclists riding on footpaths.

Fears about cyclists injuring pedestrians receive a lot of attention, yet car driving kills three times more people per kilometre than cycling. The danger created by trucks is more than ten times greater per kilometre (and vastly greater overall).

Rules give priority to cars

Of course, we have all seen cyclists doing risky things. But the issue is less about individual behaviour and more about the regulatory environment. In Sydney and many other places, a plethora of state and federal rules and regulations give priority to cars in our cities.

Planning rules entrench the dominance of cars by mandating the provision of car parking (despite its significant impact on housing affordability). Engineering standards support high-speed travel.

Road rules and policing practices also enforce the dominance of cars on streets. An example is penalising pedestrians who step onto or cross the road within 20 metres of a zebra crossing. In contrast, sanctions for are weak and poorly enforced, and cycling is left out of driver education.

Infrastructure is a problem too

Lopsided budget allocations and infrastructure make the situation worse. Even projects supposedly aimed at pedestrians and cyclists often benefit cars far more. An example is overpasses that increase walking and cycling distances, while giving cars a smooth, lights-free ride.

The challenge is particularly acute in older areas, where streets were not designed for high car use. Calls for bike lanes, widened footpaths and other infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists are often refused on the grounds of lack of space. But why do cars get what little space there is?

The site of Sunday’s death is a clear example. The intersection where the was killed by an excavator-carrying truck is not a highway but a relatively narrow street with houses and a school. Should large trucks really be driving on streets like this?

Law reform is overdue

Internationally, there is a growing recognition that legal reform is needed to improve safety, and in turn to achieve both individual and national benefits. The Dutch approach has long been celebrated, both for the high quality of cycling infrastructure and the high level of liability for car drivers. The Swedish Vision Zero has also been influential, with cities around the world introducing laws and policies to eliminate deaths in traffic.

Even in the US, where car culture is deeply entrenched, many cities are adopting complete streets legislation. These laws require streets to be planned, designed, operated and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable access for users of all ages and abilities, regardless of their transport mode.

In Australia, councils like the City of Sydney are taking very positive actions to support , but this alone is not enough. To save the lives of delivery riders—and everyone else—we need legal reforms at the state and federal levels.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Delivery rider deaths highlight need to make streets safer for everyone (2020, November 27)
retrieved 28 November 2020
from https://phys.org/news/2020-11-delivery-rider-deaths-highlight-streets.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.