Literature Reviews

The expansion of on-demand delivery services has been made possible by ghost kitchens and dark stores – grocery fulfillment centers which are located near consumers but are not open to customers [1]. These fulfillment centers have created new real estate opportunities. Several major ghost kitchen operators are known for building large portfolios out of warehouses, empty strip malls, or other storefronts near areas with growing on-demand food-delivery markets [1]. Restaurants are dispersing away from ground-floor locations in popular retail districts as ghost kitchens increase their urban real estate [1], [2].

One emerging area of study is the impact of on-demand delivery services on restaurant formation and viability. The services charge participating restaurants delivery fees as high as 30 percent of order value, though some cities have imposed caps of 15 percent [3].

A scoping review of public health impacts from on demand food and alcohol delivery published in SSM Population Health found that on-demand delivery services increase geographical access to food but tend to market unhealthy and discretionary foods, and are likely increasing existing health issues and inequities [1]. The review also highlighted concerns over poor age verification processes potentially allowing minors to access alcohol more easily [1].

A shift from dining in to at-home consumption can produce additional food packaging waste [1]. On-demand meal delivery may also affect travel activity, potentially increasing emissions. A study of delivery data in London, United Kingdom found that meal delivery by vehicle is “highly energy inefficient, producing 11 times more GHG [greenhouse gas emissions] per meal delivered by vehicle than by bicycle” [2]. However, this study did not identify if any travel activity was displaced by the substitution of meal delivery services; future research could explore if customers order from locations further away or substitute meal delivery for home cooking, activities that would increase energy consumption and resultant emissions. Policies to support bicycle use for delivery services can mitigate these increases [3], [4].

For robotic delivery services, the literature shows that the energy consumption and emissions of robotic delivery services do not necessarily outperform traditional ones, and are related to delivery distance, electrification, and operation [1], [5], [6].

While delivery service may impact wages and establishment creation, a review of the literature found no studies that considered impacts to municipal revenue through effects on municipal expenses, tax revenue, or nearby businesses.

On-demand delivery services have been shown to have a significant impact on transportation systems, both positively and negatively [1]. On the positive side, modern delivery services could reduce shopping trips to physical stores and related energy consumption [2] and greenhouse gas emissions [3]. Emissions from delivery services vary based on delivery scheduling [4], service coverage area [5], engine type (e.g., combustion or electric), and efficiency of cooling equipment [6]. On the negative side, the increasing number of delivery vehicles adds to crash risk in the transportation system, particularly for road users [7]. In addition, the delivery vehicles compete for limited curbside space in the urban area [8], [9].

Research on the impact of robotic delivery services on transportation systems is predominantly theoretical, due to scarce empirical evidence. The City of Pittsburgh [10] operated a six-month pilot program with Kiwibot and deployed a limited number of devices (less than 10 at any time) to deliver packages. Different from package delivery robots, which mostly operate on sidewalks and have a limited influence on the road traffic, future autonomous delivery vehicles could exert a huge impact on the traffic systems. Studies showed mixed results about the effects of autonomous vehicles on traffic flow efficiency, both positive and negative, depending on their modeling conditions [11].

Ghost kitchens, or restaurants without dining space that focus on online food orders, can reduce overhead costs from front-of-house staff and single-facility expenses [1]). This may affect the demand for hospitality workers and food service establishments in a jurisdiction.

One workforce-related concern for gig economy workers, who are independent contractors, is that they will be exploited if they become overly-dependent on a single platform [2] . Delivery service workers can increase their revenues by strategically switching between services (known as multihoming) and repositioning their locations to areas of high demand [3].

On-Demand Delivery Services can provide ride hail drivers with an alternative platform for gig work, and ride hail and delivery platforms must compete for workers, as Liu and Li [4] illustrate below:

A review of the literature yielded no social equity concerns that were independent of workforce-related issues. Those issues are covered under the heading “Education and Workforce.”

On-demand delivery services can lead to an increase in demand for curb space, leading to congestion and double parking which can pose safety risks to pedestrians and other curb users [1], [2]. Existing research primarily considers the impacts of ride-hail/transportation network companies (TNCs) on demand for curb space and associated safety impacts [2]. Common TNC traffic violations that impact safety include not yielding to pedestrians or obstructing public transit lanes and driveways, which can cause other drivers or travelers to move into less safe areas [2]. Study on the safety impacts unique to on-demand delivery service may not be needed.

From limited observations of robotic delivery services in the City of Pittsburgh, there were only 17 incidents involving vehicles or pedestrians reported throughout the program. However, the limited number of devices deployed makes it challenging to ensure their safety at larger scales [3].