A GIS-Based Bivariate Logistic Regression Model for the Site-Suitability Analysis of Parcel-Pickup Lockers: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area and Data
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Conversion of the Multi-Source Data to the Same Scale
3.2.2. Preparation of the Observation Data
3.2.3. Diagnosis of the Assumptions of LR Model
- Diagnosis of the linearity of independent variables and log-odds
- Diagnosis of multicollinearity
- Diagnosis of obvious outliers
3.2.4. Determination of the Best Model Using the Stepwise Methods
3.2.5. Evaluation of the Model’s Performance
3.2.6. Generation of the Suitability Map
4. Results
4.1. The Optimum Variable Combination for the Best Model
4.2. Evaluation of the Classification Performance
4.3. The Boundaries of the Suitable Areas
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gevaers, R.; van de Voorde, E.; Vanelslander, T. Characteristics and typology of last-mile logistics from an innovation perspective in an urban context. In City Distribution and Urban Freight Transport: Multiple Perspectives; Macharis, C., Melo, S., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011; pp. 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Punakivi, M.; Yrjölä, H.; Holmström, J. Solving the last mile issue: Reception box or delivery box. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2001, 31, 427–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, Z.; Wang, J.J.; Lenzer, J.; Sun, Y. Understanding the diversity of final delivery solutions for online retailing: A case of Shenzhen, China. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 985–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slabinac, M. Innovative solutions for a “Last-Mile” delivery—A European experience. In Proceedings of the 15th International Scientific Conference Business Logistics in Modern Management, Osijek, Croatia, 15 October 2015; pp. 111–130. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, J.; McKinnon, A.; Cherrett, T.; McLeod, F.; Song, L. Carbon dioxide benefits of using collection–delivery points for failed home deliveries in the United Kingdom. Transp. Res. Rec. 2010, 2191, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gevaers, R.; van de Voorde, E.; Vanelslander, T. Cost modelling and simulation of last-mile characteristics in an innovative B2C supply chain environment with implications on metropolitan areas and cities. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kedia, A.; Kusumastuti, D.; Nicholson, A. Acceptability of collection and delivery points from consumers’ perspective: A qualitative case study of Christchurch city. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2017, 5, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rautela, H.; Janjevic, M.; Winkenbach, M. Investigating the financial impact of collection-and-delivery points in last-mile E-commerce distribution. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 100681, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Duin, J.H.R.; Wiegmans, B.W.; van Arem, B.; van Amstel, Y. From home delivery to parcel lockers: A case study in Amsterdam. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 46, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weltevreden, J.W. B2c e-commerce logistics: The rise of collection-and-delivery points in The Netherlands. Int. J. Ret. Distrib. Manag. 2008, 36, 638–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- State Post Bureau of The People’s Republic of China. 2017. Available online: http://www.spb.gov.cn/zc/ghjbz_1/201702/t20170213_991162.html (accessed on 11 September 2021).
- Collins, M.G.; Steiner, F.R.; Rushman, M.J. Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: Historical development and promising technological achievements. Environ. Manag. 2001, 28, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cova, T.J.; Church, R.L. Exploratory spatial optimization in site search: A neighborhood operator approach. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2000, 24, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, L. Methods for generating land suitability maps: A comparative evaluation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1997, 34, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malczewski, J. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A critical overview. Prog. Plann. 2004, 62, 3–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Huang, Y.; Fu, Y.; Huang, B.; Sheng, S.; Mao, L.; Huang, S.; Xu, Y.; Le, J.; Ouyang, Y.; et al. Parcel locker location based on a Bilevel programming model. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Z.; Morimoto, T.; Murayama, Y. Optimal location analysis of delivery parcel-pickup points using AHP and Network Huff Model: A case study of Shiweitang Sub-District in Guangzhou City, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2020, 9, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lachapelle, U.; Burke, M.; Brotherton, A.; Leung, A. Parcel locker systems in a car dominant city: Location, characterisation and potential impacts on city planning and consumer travel access. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 71, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, R.; Cao, Y.; Li, M.; Zikirya, B.; Zhou, C. Heterogeneity of Spatial Distribution and Factors Influencing Unattended Locker Points in Guangzhou, China: The Case of Hive Box. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2021, 10, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morganti, E.; Dablanc, L.; Fortin, F. Final deliveries for online shopping: The deployment of pickup point networks in metropolitan and suburban areas. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 11, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xue, S.; Li, G.; Yang, L.; Liu, L.; Nie, Q.; Mehmood, M.S. Spatial Pattern and Influencing Factor Analysis of Attended Collection and Delivery Points in Changsha City, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 1078–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, L.; Han, H.; Yan, W.; Nakayama, S.; Shu, X. Measuring Spatial Accessibility to Pick-Up Service Considering Differentiated Supply and Demand: A Case in Hangzhou, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, G.; Chen, W.; Yang, L. Spatial pattern and agglomeration mode of parcel collection and delivery points in Wuhan City. Prog. Geogr. 2019, 38, 407–416. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, G.; Yang, L.; He, J. The spatial pattern and organization relation of the pickup points based on POI data in Xi’an: Focus on Cainiao stations. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2018, 38, 2024–2030. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Derdouri, A.; Murayama, Y. Onshore Wind Farm Suitability Analysis Using GIS-based Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Geoinf. Geostat. Overv. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estoque, R.C.; Murayama, Y. Suitability analysis for beekeeping sites in La Union, Philippines, using GIS and multi-criteria evaluation techniques. Res. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 5, 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, M.; Shaikh, V.R. Site suitability analysis for urban development using GIS based multicriteria evaluation technique. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2013, 41, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, S.; Sarkar, D.; Mondal, P.; Goswami, S. GIS and multi-criteria decision-making assessment of sites suitability for agriculture in an anabranching site of sooin river, India. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 2021, 7, 571–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Store, R.; Kangas, J. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 55, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, J.M.; Duckstein, L. A multiple criteria decision-making approach to GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 1993, 7, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lodwick, W.A.; Monson, W.; Svoboda, L. Attribute error and sensitivity analysis of map operations in geographical information systems: Suitability analysis. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 1990, 4, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dreiseitl, S.; Ohno-Machado, L. Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: A methodology review. J. Biomed. Inf. 2002, 35, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- State Post Bureau of The People’s Republic of China. Statistical Communique on the Development of Postal Industry in 2014–2020. Available online: http://www.spb.gov.cn/sj/tjxx_1/ (accessed on 11 September 2021).
- Oommen, T.; Baise, L.G.; Vogel, R.M. Sampling bias and class imbalance in maximum-likelihood logistic regression. Math. Geosci. 2011, 43, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholamy, A.; Kreinovich, V.; Kosheleva, O. Why 70/30 or 80/20 relation between training and testing sets: A pedagogical explanation. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2018, 11, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
- Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. Br. Med. J. 1995, 310, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Midi, H.; Sarkar, S.K.; Rana, S. Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2010, 13, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belsley, D.; Kuh, E.; Welsch, R. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Schroeder, M.A.; Lander, J.; Levine-Silverman, S. Diagnosing and dealing with multicollinearity. West. J. Nurs. Res. 1990, 12, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mansfield, E.R.; Helms, B.P. Detecting multicollinearity. Am. Stat. 1982, 36, 158–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroll, C.N.; Song, P. Impact of multicollinearity on small sample hydrologic regression models. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 3756–3769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zellner, D.; Keller, F.; Zellner, G.E. Variable selection in logistic regression models. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 2004, 33, 787–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soroush, A.; Bahreininejad, A.; van den Berg, J. A hybrid customer prediction system based on multiple forward stepwise logistic regression model. Intell. Data Anal. 2012, 16, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flack, V.F.; Chang, P.C. Frequency of selecting noise variables in subset regression analysis: A simulation study. Am. Stat. 1987, 41, 84–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.I.; Koval, J.J. Determination of the best significance level in forward stepwise logistic regression. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 1997, 26, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, J.; Ferrier, S. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Modell. 2000, 133, 225–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brier, G.W. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon. Weather Rev. 1950, 78, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swets, J.; Pickett, R.; Whitehead, S.; Getty, D.; Schnur, J.; Swets, J.; Freeman, B. Assessment of diagnostic technologies. Science 1979, 205, 753–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanley, J.A.; McNeil, B.J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982, 143, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maxim, L.D.; Niebo, R.; Utell, M.J. Screening tests: A review with examples. Inhal. Toxicol. 2014, 26, 811–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwan, S.; Kijewska, K.; Lemke, J. Analysis of parcel lockers’ efficiency as the last mile delivery solution—The results of the research in Poland. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 12, 644–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gaughan, A.E.; Stevens, F.R.; Huang, Z.; Nieves, J.J.; Sorichetta, A.; Lai, S.; Ye, X.; Linard, C.; Hornby, G.M.; Hay, S.I.; et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of population in mainland China, 1990 to 2010. Sci. Data 2016, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Squires, G.D. Urban sprawl and the uneven development of metropolitan America. In Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses; Urban Institute Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
Layer | Description | Source | Data Type |
---|---|---|---|
Road Network | OSM (2019) https://www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 20 December 2019) | Vector (line) | |
POI | Gaode Maps (2019) https://ditu.amap.com/ (accessed on 20 December 2019) | Vector (point) | |
DEM | DEM-GDEMV2 30 m | ASTER GDEM Project (2019) https://www.gscloud.cn/ (accessed on 20 December 2019) | Raster |
Population | Resolution of 100 m | WorldPop Project (2019) https://www.worldpop.org/geodata/summary?id=6275 (accessed on 11 September 2021) | Raster |
Standard Land Price (Housing) | 12 Levels of Price | Guangzhou Municipal Planning and Natural Resources Bureau 2019 | Vector (polygon) |
Big Category | Mid Category | Subcategory | Number |
---|---|---|---|
Commercial House | Building | Business Office Building | 5658 |
Commercial-residential Building | 825 | ||
Residential Area | Villa | 280 | |
Residential Quarter | 7619 | ||
Dormitory | 2031 | ||
Community Center | 353 | ||
Transportation Service | Subway Station | Exit | 808 |
Bus Station | Bus Station Related (The bus stops for the airport bus or stopping operation were not considered.) | 6778 | |
Parking Lot | Parking Lot Related | 9882 |
No. | Potential Explanatory Variable | Variable Code | Type |
---|---|---|---|
X1 | DEM | DEM | Topographic factors |
X2 | Slope | Slope | |
X3 | Population density | POP | Social factors |
X4 | Standard land price | SLPrice | |
X5 | Euclidean distance to the nearest residential quarter | Dist_Res_Qua | Accessibility factors: Proximity to various types of building |
X6 | Euclidean distance to the nearest residential community center | Dist_Res_CC | |
X7 | Euclidean distance to the nearest residential villa | Dist_Res_Vil | |
X8 | Euclidean distance to the nearest residential dormitory | Dist_Res_Dor | |
X9 | Euclidean distance to the nearest commercial and residential building | Dist_Com_ResB | |
X10 | Euclidean distance to the nearest commercial office building | Dist_Com_OffB | |
X11 | Euclidean distance to the nearest primary road | Dist_Road_Pri | Accessibility factors: Proximity to various types of road |
X12 | Euclidean distance to the nearest secondary road | Dist_Road_Sec | |
X13 | Euclidean distance to the nearest tertiary road | Dist_Road_Ter | |
X14 | Euclidean distance to the nearest unclassified road | Dist_Road_Unc | |
X15 | Euclidean distance to the nearest residential road | Dist_Road_Res | |
X16 | Euclidean distance to the nearest special type of road | Dist_Road_Spe | |
X17 | Euclidean distance to the nearest path road | Dist_Road_Path | |
X18 | Euclidean distance to the nearest metro exit | Dist_MetroExit | Accessibility factors: Proximity to various types of transport |
X19 | Euclidean distance to the nearest bus stop | Dist_BusStop | |
X20 | Euclidean distance to the nearest parking lot | Dist_ParkingLot | |
X21 | Euclidean distance to the nearest water area | Dist_WaterArea | |
X22 | Kernel density of parking lot | Dens_ParkingLot | Urban development factors: Density of various types of POI |
X23 | Kernel density of metro exit | Dens_MetroExit | |
X24 | Kernel density of bus stop | Dens_BusStop | |
X25 | Kernel density of commercial building | Dens_ComB | |
X26 | Kernel density of residential building | Dens_ResB | |
X27 | Kernel density of road | Dens_Road |
No | Assumptions | Explanation | Examination |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Dependent variable is required to be a binary variable. | 1: PPL presence; 0: PPL absence. | Y |
2 | Observations were required to be independent of each other. | The observations come from different measurements or matched data. | Y |
3 | There is at least one dependent variable. The independent variable can be a continuous variable or a categorical variable. | There is one dependent variable and 27 independent variables. | Y |
4 | A large size of the sample is required. In general, the minimum sample quantity should be more than ten times the number of the independent variables. | There are 1205 points of PPL data. The sample quantity is more than 270. | Y |
5 | The linearity of independent variables and log odds is assumed. | Box–Tidwell method | ? |
6 | There is little or no multicollinearity among the independent variables. | Multicollinearity diagnosis | ? |
7 | There are no obvious outliers. | ? |
Step0 | Step1 | Step2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Variable | Tol | VIF | Tol | VIF | Tol | VIF |
X1 | DEM | 0.316 | 3.164 | 0.316 | 3.163 | 0.316 | 3.161 |
X2 | Slope | 0.594 | 1.685 | 0.594 | 1.683 | 0.595 | 1.681 |
X3 | POP | 0.682 | 1.466 | 0.692 | 1.445 | 0.692 | 1.444 |
X4 | SLPrice | 0.165 | 6.044 | 0.166 | 6.022 | 0.203 | 4.918 |
X5 | Dist_Res_Qua | 0.142 | 7.021 | 0.143 | 6.984 | 0.143 | 6.969 |
X6 | Dist_Res_CC | 0.292 | 3.419 | 0.293 | 3.419 | 0.296 | 3.376 |
X7 | Dist_Res_Vil | 0.533 | 1.878 | 0.533 | 1.877 | 0.557 | 1.797 |
X8 | Dist_Res_Dor | 0.183 | 5.475 | 0.183 | 5.458 | 0.183 | 5.454 |
X9 | Dist_Com_ResB | 0.151 | 6.637 | 0.151 | 6.626 | 0.154 | 6.49 |
X10 | Dist_Com_OffB | 0.14 | 7.142 | 0.14 | 7.13 | 0.14 | 7.128 |
X11 | Dist_Road_Pri | 0.452 | 2.212 | 0.458 | 2.182 | 0.458 | 2.181 |
X12 | Dist_Road_Sec | 0.305 | 3.282 | 0.307 | 3.256 | 0.309 | 3.241 |
X13 | Dist_Road_Ter | 0.375 | 2.664 | 0.377 | 2.65 | 0.378 | 2.643 |
X14 | Dist_Road_Unc | 0.559 | 1.788 | 0.56 | 1.786 | 0.56 | 1.785 |
X15 | Dist_Road_Res | 0.424 | 2.359 | 0.425 | 2.356 | 0.425 | 2.353 |
X16 | Dist_Road_Spe | 0.326 | 3.066 | 0.327 | 3.062 | 0.328 | 3.052 |
X17 | Dist_Road_Path | 0.32 | 3.123 | 0.324 | 3.091 | 0.325 | 3.079 |
X18 | Dist_MetroExit | 0.155 | 6.452 | 0.155 | 6.452 | 0.159 | 6.271 |
X19 | Dist_BusStop | 0.38 | 2.63 | 0.381 | 2.623 | 0.382 | 2.618 |
X20 | Dist_ParkingLot | 0.11 | 9.098 | 0.11 | 9.096 | 0.11 | 9.095 |
X21 | Dist_WaterArea | 0.693 | 1.444 | 0.695 | 1.438 | 0.698 | 1.433 |
X22 | Dens_ParkingLot | 0.139 | 7.196 | 0.173 | 5.769 | 0.175 | 5.704 |
X23 | Dens_MetroExit | 0.097 | 10.286 | 0.097 | 10.283 | Omitted | |
X24 | Dens_BusStop | 0.098 | 10.235 | 0.108 | 9.241 | 0.114 | 8.756 |
X25 | Dens_ComB | 0.16 | 6.251 | 0.178 | 5.632 | 0.211 | 4.741 |
X26 | Dens_ResB | 0.086 | 11.685 | Omitted | |||
X27 | Dens_Road | 0.106 | 9.401 | 0.11 | 9.087 | 0.119 | 8.395 |
Method | Discrimination | Calibration | Optimization | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Accuracy | F-Measure | Brier Score | Reduction Ratio | |
FSSM | 88.20% | 88.50% | 0.088 | 68.00% |
BSEM | 88.40% | 88.70% | 0.085 | 48.00% |
Variable Type | Variable Code | Selected | Coefficient | Wald |
---|---|---|---|---|
Topographic Factors | DEM | Y | 0.019 | 10.5 |
Slope | N | - | - | |
Social Factors | POP | N | - | - |
SLPrice | Y | −0.0001 | 29 | |
Accessibility Factors: Proximity to various types of building | Dist_Res_Qua | Y | −0.0032 | 45.5 |
Dist_Res_CC | N | - | - | |
Dist_Res_Vil | Y | −0.0002 | 6.7 | |
Dist_Res_Dor | N | - | - | |
Dist_Com_ResB | N | - | - | |
Dist_Com_OffB | Y | −0.0013 | 18.6 | |
Accessibility Factors: Proximity to various types of road | Dist_Road_Pri | N | - | - |
Dist_Road_Sec | Y | −0.0006 | 9.3 | |
Dist_Road_Ter | N | - | - | |
Dist_Road_Unc | N | - | - | |
Dist_Road_Res | N | - | - | |
Dist_Road_Spe | N | - | - | |
Dist_Road_Path | N | - | - | |
Accessibility Factors: Proximity to various types of transport | Dist_MetroExit | N | - | - |
Dist_BusStop | Y | −0.0039 | 28.4 | |
Dist_ParkingLot | N | - | - | |
Dist_WaterArea | N | - | - | |
Urban development Factors: Density of various types of POI | Dens_ParkingLot | N | - | - |
Dens_BusStop | N | - | - | |
Dens_ComB | Y | 0.090 | 20.7 | |
Dens_Road | N | - | - |
F-Measure | Brier Score | AUC | |
---|---|---|---|
Training dataset | 89.11% | 0.088 | 0.954 |
Test dataset | 91.69% | 0.069 | 0.963 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zheng, Z.; Morimoto, T.; Murayama, Y. A GIS-Based Bivariate Logistic Regression Model for the Site-Suitability Analysis of Parcel-Pickup Lockers: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10100648
Zheng Z, Morimoto T, Murayama Y. A GIS-Based Bivariate Logistic Regression Model for the Site-Suitability Analysis of Parcel-Pickup Lockers: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2021; 10(10):648. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10100648
Chicago/Turabian StyleZheng, Zilai, Takehiro Morimoto, and Yuji Murayama. 2021. "A GIS-Based Bivariate Logistic Regression Model for the Site-Suitability Analysis of Parcel-Pickup Lockers: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10, no. 10: 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10100648