Table 1 Five logistics regimes to... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Five logistics regimes to characterise logistics cities in transition

Logistics regimes	Dominant actors	Main function	Trajectory	Labour organization	Real estate form / Spatial organisation	Current dynamics	Informality processing	Systemic role	Sustainability impacts	Characterisation in case studies
Standardised and Financialised Peri-urban Logistics Regime	Global logistics firms, 3PLs, developers, institutional investors	Mass storage, long-term warehousing, cost/time optimisation	Emergence (1950s–1980s), consolidation (1990s–2010s), current dominance	Formalized, subcontracted, specialized workforce	XL/XXL warehouses in peripheral areas, specialised logistics parks, high dependence on road infrastructure	Highly stable, strong spatial and financial inertia, high institutional visibility	Externalised informality (subcontracting, last-mile delivery)	Structuring regime: Sets norms, investments and temporalities	Optimises large-scale flows vs drives land consumption, and long-distance dependence	Paris [dominant regime]; Casablanca [secondary regime]
Intermediate Logistics Regime	Wholesalers, SMEs, distributors, local logistics operators	Interface between peri-urban and dense urban areas, buffer storage, specialisation	Industrial heritage (1950s–1980s), maintenance and recomposition	Hybrid workforce, family firms, local BtoB, subcontractors	Former warehouses, mixed-use areas (activity zones, urban fringes), high land inertia	Relative decline but high resilience	Limited but diffuse informality (precarious jobs, local arrangements)	Stabilises the system, absorbs spatial constraints, co-dependence with the dominant regime	Reduces redistribution distances, supports local economies vs faces congestion and fragmented structures	Paris [secondary regime]; Casablanca [secondary regime]
Urban Logistics Regime	Local or global logistics operators, urban logistics providers	Parcel delivery, technical innovations (cargo bikes, lockers), high operational intensity	Niche (1990s–2000s) → diffusion (2010s) → functional stabilisation (2020s)	Formal operators and subcontracted delivery workers	Micro-warehouses, urban hubs, ground-floor facilities, high land constraints	Sustained growth but economic and regulatory instability	Structural or gray informality (precarious work, hybrid statuses)	Enables the dominant regime in dense areas; key role in ecological transition	Low-emission delivery and proximity vs land-use conflicts, regulatory gaps and labour precarity	Paris [secondary regime]; Casablanca [niche regime]
Family-run or Artisanal Logistics Regime	Family firms, owner-drivers, micro-transporters	Neighborhood-level delivery, constrained markets, low capitalisation / standardisation	Historically structuring regime, progressive subalternisation	Family labour, self-employment, informal arrangements	Diffuse spaces: small warehouses, home storage, back shop, mixed uses	Persistent despite competition, high adaptability	Constitutive informality (self-employment, family networks)	Social and spatial buffer; ensures continuity of flows; informal cost regulation	Territorial embeddedness and resilience vs weak labour protection and uneven environmental performance	Casablanca [dominant regime]; Paris [niche regime]
Service-based Logistics Regime	Platforms, start-ups, cooperatives, gig workers	Proximity-based and fast delivery (food, groceries, small items)	Experimenta-tion → selection → absorption, marginalisation or disappearance	Gig work, self-employment, high subcontracting dependence	Temporary, hybrid, mobile forms	Highly unstable, dependent on market trends and venture capital	Experimental or opportunistic informality	Potential for system recomposition but also fragmentation	Accessibility, responsiveness vs socio-spatial fragmentation	Paris [niche regime]; Casablanca [niche regime]

Logistics regimes	Dominant actors	Main function	Trajectory	Labour organization	Real estate form / Spatial organisation	Current dynamics	Informality processing	Systemic role	Sustainability impacts	Characterisation in case studies
Standardised and Financialised Peri-urban Logistics Regime	Global logistics firms, 3PLs, developers, institutional investors	Mass storage, long-term warehousing, cost/time optimisation	Emergence (1950s–1980s), consolidation (1990s–2010s), current dominance	Formalized, subcontracted, specialized workforce	XL/XXL warehouses in peripheral areas, specialised logistics parks, high dependence on road infrastructure	Highly stable, strong spatial and financial inertia, high institutional visibility	Externalised informality (subcontracting, last-mile delivery)	Structuring regime: Sets norms, investments and temporalities	Optimises large-scale flows vs drives land consumption, and long-distance dependence	Paris [dominant regime]; Casablanca [secondary regime]
Intermediate Logistics Regime	Wholesalers, SMEs, distributors, local logistics operators	Interface between peri-urban and dense urban areas, buffer storage, specialisation	Industrial heritage (1950s–1980s), maintenance and recomposition	Hybrid workforce, family firms, local BtoB, subcontractors	Former warehouses, mixed-use areas (activity zones, urban fringes), high land inertia	Relative decline but high resilience	Limited but diffuse informality (precarious jobs, local arrangements)	Stabilises the system, absorbs spatial constraints, co-dependence with the dominant regime	Reduces redistribution distances, supports local economies vs faces congestion and fragmented structures	Paris [secondary regime]; Casablanca [secondary regime]
Urban Logistics Regime	Local or global logistics operators, urban logistics providers	Parcel delivery, technical innovations (cargo bikes, lockers), high operational intensity	Niche (1990s–2000s) → diffusion (2010s) → functional stabilisation (2020s)	Formal operators and subcontracted delivery workers	Micro-warehouses, urban hubs, ground-floor facilities, high land constraints	Sustained growth but economic and regulatory instability	Structural or gray informality (precarious work, hybrid statuses)	Enables the dominant regime in dense areas; key role in ecological transition	Low-emission delivery and proximity vs land-use conflicts, regulatory gaps and labour precarity	Paris [secondary regime]; Casablanca [niche regime]
Family-run or Artisanal Logistics Regime	Family firms, owner-drivers, micro-transporters	Neighborhood-level delivery, constrained markets, low capitalisation / standardisation	Historically structuring regime, progressive subalternisation	Family labour, self-employment, informal arrangements	Diffuse spaces: small warehouses, home storage, back shop, mixed uses	Persistent despite competition, high adaptability	Constitutive informality (self-employment, family networks)	Social and spatial buffer; ensures continuity of flows; informal cost regulation	Territorial embeddedness and resilience vs weak labour protection and uneven environmental performance	Casablanca [dominant regime]; Paris [niche regime]
Service-based Logistics Regime	Platforms, start-ups, cooperatives, gig workers	Proximity-based and fast delivery (food, groceries, small items)	Experimenta-tion → selection → absorption, marginalisation or disappearance	Gig work, self-employment, high subcontracting dependence	Temporary, hybrid, mobile forms	Highly unstable, dependent on market trends and venture capital	Experimental or opportunistic informality	Potential for system recomposition but also fragmentation	Accessibility, responsiveness vs socio-spatial fragmentation	Paris [niche regime]; Casablanca [niche regime]