Territorial Resilience and Green Logistics: Government Actions in the Face of Climate Challenges

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a synthesized framework for studying government roles in green logistics resilience, identifying key dimensions for empirical research.

🏢実務担当者:Offers insights on how policy integration affects logistics decarbonization efforts, but lacks specific operational tools.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the necessity of multilevel governance and policy coherence for effective green logistics transitions, cautioning against symbolic targets.

Resilience has increasingly been framed not as a simple ability to “bounce back” after shocks, but as a capacity to absorb, adapt, and transform under natural and anthropogenic disturbances while maintaining functional continuity and acceptable service levels (Gonçalves & Ribeiro, 2020). This perspective becomes critical in contexts where mobility, climate pressures, and logistics infrastructure intersect, as transport and supply networks operate as socio-ecological systems exposed to extreme events, environmental variability, and accelerating urban demands. Despite the expansion of sustainability, decarbonisation, and green logistics agendas, relevant gaps remain in understanding how public policies, multilevel governance, and institutional arrangements effectively translate into territorial resilience in transport and logistics systems. In particular, the lack of integration across institutional, territorial, and technological dimensions tends to produce partial and poorly coordinated responses that fall short of addressing the complexity of contemporary climate and socio-economic risks, motivating the guiding question: How do government actions guide and promote resilience and green logistics in the face of climate challenges? Accordingly, this study aimed to analyse how recent scientific literature addresses the role of government actions in promoting territorial resilience and green logistics under climate challenges. The analysis was structured around three analytical objectives: (i) to identify how governmental actions are discussed in terms of governance, policy integration, and multilevel coordination; (ii) to describe how government action is addressed in the organisation of territory, infrastructure, and operational capacity for resilience under climate shocks; and (iii) to characterise how public policies and state instruments are associated with transitions toward low-carbon and green logistics. Methodologically, we conducted an integrative literature review guided by the PRISMA logic. Searches were performed in the Web of Science Core Collection using a combined query on green/sustainable logistics and transport, government/governance/public policy, and climate change/adaptation/mitigation/resilience. After applying open-access and eligibility filters (2020–2026; articles and reviews), screening titles/abstracts, and full-text assessment, the final sample comprised 29 studies. Findings converge around three result blocks. First, the literature highlights that territorial resilience and sustainability in transport and logistics depend less on isolated interventions than on governments’ capacity to articulate policies, scales, and actors through multilevel governance, policy integration, and legitimacy-building mechanisms. Second, results show that resilience is simultaneously institutional and territorial-operational: public decisions regarding infrastructure use, spatial organisation, and disaster-response capacities shape the ability of logistics systems to function under stress and recover from shocks. Third, the literature frames low-carbon transition as both technological and political, showing that green logistics diffusion, electrification, digitalisation, and circular strategies rely on the coherence between regulatory instruments, incentives, implementation capacity, and institutional alignment—while also revealing risks of symbolic compliance when ambitious targets are not matched by enforcement, coordination, and resources.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jan1203first seen 2026-06-29 08:07:50