# Urban Transportation Network Design for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Using GIS-The Case of Bangkok
## 5 Result and Discussion
### Performance Evaluation of the Whole Distribution Network  
The total travel time and distance from wholesaler to the retailer via DCs are shown in Table 8. In terms of total travel time, scenario 8 with seven DCs can be regarded as the best alternative. In the case of total travel distance, scenario 6 showed the best performance. However, scenario 5 with four DCs required the minimum number of trucks.  
It can be concluded that the proposed approach can guarantee a better performance to reduce travel time and distance as compared with the current existing distribution network. Reducing the number of vehicles, travel distance and travel time lead to reduction in distribution cost and greenhouse gas [17; 39]. One of the alternative scenarios can be suggested to build the practical network by considering several different factors such as the triple bottom line from the definition of sustainability, economic, social, and environmental values.  
For instance, the economic benefit will increase with a decrease of the total time and distance, which can reduce operating costs, like fuel costs. At the same time, environmental benefits can be increased because it can reduce energy consumption and emission in an urban area. Finally, fairness may represent a social value, as it implies the balance of the assigned task or workload among drivers.  
Specifically, sustainability can be achieved by considering the following factors to design urban distribution network to simultaneously enhance the economic, social, and environmental values:  
* Economic and environmental factor (Viable): Number of trucks (delivering the products to make money vs. exhaust emission)
* Economic and social factor (Equitable): Number of DCs (fixed cost vs. increasing product access and job opportunity), fairness among drivers, both time and distance (operation cost vs. improving worker's rights)
* Environment and social factor (Bearable): Total distance and total time (saving energy and emission vs. avoiding food spoilage and foodborne diseases), number of DCs (access to fresher food vs. increasing the quality of life)  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenario**} & **Number of Selected** & **Number of Required** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Travel Time (h)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Travel Distance (km)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **DCs** & **Tracks** & **Total** & **STDEV** & **Total** & **STDEV** \\ \hline Scenario 4 & 3 & 60 & 63.62 & 0.60 & 1908.62 & 18.08 \\ Scenario 5 & 4 & 54 & 55.85 & 0.59 & 1675.51 & 17.58 \\ Scenario 6 & 5 & 55 & 53.49 & 0.68 & 1604.78 & 20.44 \\ Scenario 7 & 6 & 57 & 56.71 & 0.70 & 1701.18 & 21.13 \\ Scenario 8 & 7 & 56 & 56.23 & 0.67 & 1686.97 & 19.98 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenario**} & **Number of DCs** & **Number of Required** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wholesaler to Retail Market**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Improvement Compared**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Tracks** & **Time (h)** & **Distance (km)** & **Time (\%)** & **Distance (\%)** \\ \hline Scenario 1 & 1 & 130 & 753.63 & 7574.92 & - & - \\ Scenario 2 & 8 & 134 & 245.69 & 2880.50 & 67.40 & 61.97 \\ Scenario 3 & 2 & 131 & 303.80 & 3604.98 & 59.69 & 52.41 \\ Scenario 4 & 3 & 131 & 277.64 & 3238.48 & 63.16 & 57.25 \\ Scenario 5 & 4 & 125 & 250.98 & 2887.97 & 66.70 & 61.87 \\ Scenario 6 & 5 & 126 & 238.72 & 2755.76 & 68.32 & 63.62 \\ Scenario 7 & 6 & 129 & 235.57 & 2812.56 & 68.74 & 62.87 \\ Scenario 8 & 7 & 129 & 234.73 & 2796.09 & 68.85 & 63.09 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Summary of distribution from the wholesale market to the retail market.