Advertisement

Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 63–76 | Cite as

Incorporating Waiting Time in Competitive Location Models

  • Francisco Silva
  • Daniel Serra
Article

Abstract

In this paper we propose a metaheuristic to solve a new version of the Maximum Capture Problem. In the original MCP, market capture is obtained by lower traveling distances or lower traveling time, in this new version not only the traveling time but also the waiting time will affect the market share. This problem is hard to solve using standard optimization techniques. Metaheuristics are shown to offer accurate results within acceptable computing times.

Keywords

Market capture Queuing Ant colony optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carreras M, Daniel S (1998) On optimal location with threshold requirements. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 33:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo V (1991) Distributed optimization by ant colonies. Proceedings of ECAL91—European Conference on Artificial Life. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 134–142Google Scholar
  3. Cordeau JF, Gendreau M, Laporte G (1997) A tabu search algorithm for periodic and multi-depot vehicle routing problems. Networks 30:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorigo M, Thomas S (2003) The ant colony optimization metaheuristics: algorithms, applications and advances. In: Glover F, Kochenberger G (eds) Handbook of metaheuristics. Kluwer, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Drezner T (1994) Locating a single new facility among existing, unequally attractive facilities. J Reg Sci 34(2):237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drezner T, Drezner Z (1996) Competitive facilities: market share and location with random utility. J Reg Sci 36(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drezner T, Eiselt HA (2002) Consumers in competitive location models. In: Drezner Z, Hemacher HW (eds) Facility location: applications and theory. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Eiselt HA, Gilbert L (1989) The maximum capture problem in a weighted network. J Reg Sci 29(3):433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hakimi SL (1983) On locating new facilities in a competitive environment. Eur J Oper Res 12:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kariv O, Hakimi SL (1979) An algorithm approach to network location problems, part II: the P-median. SIAM J Appl Math 37:539–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kohlberg E (1983) Equilibrium store locations when consumers minimize travel time plus waiting time. Econ Lett 11:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lourenço H, Daniel S (1998) Adaptive approach heuristics for the generalized assignment problem. Econ Work Pap 288. Universitat Pompeu FabraGoogle Scholar
  13. Maniezzo V, Alberto C (1999) The ant system applied to the quadratic assignment problem. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 11(5)Google Scholar
  14. Marianov V, Serra D (1998) Probabilistic, maximal covering location-allocation models for ciongested systems. J Reg Sci 38:401–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Plastria F (2001) Static competitive facility location: an overview of optimization approaches. Eur J Oper Res 129:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ReVelle C (1986) The maximum capture or sphere of influence location problem: hotelling revised on a network. J Reg Sci 26(2)Google Scholar
  17. Rosing KE, ReVelle C (1997) Heuristic concentration: two stage solution construction. Eur J Oper Res 97:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Serra D, ReVelle C (1993) The pq-median problem: location and districting of hierarchical facilities. Location Sci 1(4):299–312Google Scholar
  19. Serra D, ReVelle C (1994) Market capture by two competitors: the preemptive location problem. J Reg Sci 34(4):549–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Serra D, ReVelle C (1995) Competitive location in discrete space. In: Zvi Drezner (ed) Facility location: applications and methods. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Serra D, Ratick S, ReVelle C (1996) The maximum capture problem with uncertainty. Environ & Plann B 23(4):49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Serra D, ReVelle C, Rosing K (1999a) Surviving in a competitive spatial market: the threshold capture model. J Reg Sci 39(4):637–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Serra D, Eiselt HA, Laporte G, ReVelle C (1999b) Market capture models under various customer choice rules. Environ & Plann B 26(5):741–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stützle T, Hoos H (1997) MAX–MIN ant system for quadratic assignment problems. TH Darmstadt, FB. Informatik Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Stützle T, Hoos H (1998) Improvements on the ant system: introducing MAX–MIN ant system. In: Smith GD, Steele NC, Albrecht R (eds) Artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms. p 245–249Google Scholar
  26. Stützle T (1998) An ant approach for the flow shop problem. TH Darmstadt, FB. Informatik Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Swain R (1974) A parametric decomposition algorithm for the solution of uncapacitated location problem. Manage Sci 21:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GREL, IETUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.CEEAplAUniversidade dos AçoresPonta DelgadaPortugal

Personalised recommendations