DRONE-BASED DELIVERY IN LOGISTICS
Keywords:
drone delivery; UAV logistics; last-mile delivery; life-cycle assessment (LCA); techno-economic analysis (TEA); regulation; hybrid logisticsAbstract
This systematic review synthesizes peer-reviewed and policy literature (2025–2026) on drone-based last-mile delivery, emphasizing economic viability, life-cycle environmental impacts, and regulatory constraints. A structured search across Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and selected policy portals yielded 32 studies for in-depth analysis. Results show that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) provide meaningful operational advantages — notably delivery speed and reach for lightweight and urgent shipments — while environmental benefits are conditional on operational context and energy sources. Techno-economic studies indicate drones are financially attractive in niche applications (medical, emergency, remote delivery), but high capital expenditures, infrastructure needs, and regulatory fragmentation limit scale-up. The review concludes with concrete policy and business recommendations and highlights priority research directions, including integrated LCA–TEA–network modeling and large-scale real-world pilots.
References
A. Goodchild, J. Toy, “Delivery by drone: An evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle technology in reducing CO₂ emissions in the delivery service industry,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 95 (2018) 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.06.017.
C. C. Murray, A. G. Chu, “The Flying Sidekick Traveling Salesman Problem: Optimization of drone-assisted parcel delivery,” Transportation Research Part C, 54 (2015) 86–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.03.005.
A. Kumar, “Environmental implications of drone-based delivery systems: A structured review,” Journal of Cleaner Logistics (special issue), 7(1) (2025) 24. [MDPI / review page] https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/7/1/24.
D. Bao, Y. Yan, Y. Li, J. Chu, “The future of last-mile delivery: Lifecycle environmental and economic impacts of drone–truck parallel systems,” Drones 9(1) (2025) 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones9010054.
K. Dorling, J. Heinrichs, G. Messier, S. Magierowski, “Vehicle routing problems for drone delivery,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (2017), arXiv preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02305.
(Representative technology/operational literature) — various authors on battery/payload constraints and multi-drone coordination; see Otto et al. (2018), Dorling et al. (2017) and Murray & Chu (2015).
X. Li, Y. Zhao, T. Wang, “Beyond the last-mile: Environmental and economic assessment of the drone takeaway delivery system,” Sustainable Cities and Society (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2025.105084.
F. Müller, J. Schmidt, T. Weber, “Economic and operational evaluation of UAV-based delivery systems in urban logistics,” Transportation Research Procedia 72 (2024) 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2024.02.015.
EASA, “U-Space — Easy access rules and guidance,” European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) consolidated documentation and guidance (2024–2025). https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/regulations/u-space.
Zipline press & operational material (case studies and announcements). See Zipline newsroom and fact sheets (2024–2025) for scale-up and impact: https://www.zipline.com/newsroom.
(Supplementary: policy & news on funding/scale-up) — Axios/Financial Times coverage of large-scale funding and international rollouts (2025). (e.g., Axios: State Department to fund expansion of Zipline: https://www.axios.com/2025/11/25/state-department-africa-zipline).
Azerbaijan
Türkiye
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Korea
Japan
India
United States of America
Kosovo