Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 117–132 | Cite as

Solving a Location Problem of a Stackelberg Firm Competing with Cournot-Nash Firms

  • Paul G. Berglund
  • Changhyun Kwon


We study a discrete facility location problem on a network, where the locating firm acts as the leader and other competitors as the followers in a Stackelberg-Cournot-Nash game. To maximize expected profits the locating firm must solve a mixed-integer problem with equilibrium constraints. Finding an optimal solution is hard for large problems, and full-enumeration approaches have been proposed in the literature for similar problem instances. We present a heuristic solution procedure based on simulated annealing. Computational results are reported.


Location analysis Stackelberg-Cournot-Nash equilibrium Game theory Variational inequality Simulated annealing 


  1. Arostegui M, Kadipasaoglu S, Khumawala B (2006) An empirical comparison of tabu search, simulated annealing and genetic algorithms for facilities location problems. Int J Prod Econ 103(2):742–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berglund P, Kwon C (2013) Robust facility location problem for hazardous waste transportation. Netw Spat Econ (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. Cournot A (1838) Recherches sur les principes mathématiques de la théorie des richesses. [Research into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. English translation by N. Bacon. MacMillan, New York, 1897.]Google Scholar
  4. Dafermos S, Nagurney A (1984) Sensitivity analysis for the general spatial economic equilibrium problem. Oper Res 32(5):1069–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobson G, Kamarkar U (1985) Competitive location on a network. Oper Res 35(4):565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drezner T, Drezner Z, Salhi S (2002) Solving the multiple competitive facilities location problem. Eur J Oper Res 142(1):138–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edmunds T, Bard J (1992) An algorithm for the mixed-integer nonlinear bilevel programming problem. Ann Oper Res 34(1):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eiselt H, Laporte G, Thisse J (1993) Competitive location models: a framework and bibliography. Transp Sci 27(1):44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Facchinei F, Pang J-S (2003) Finite-Dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. Friesz T (2010) Dynamic optimization and differential games. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Friesz T, Harker P, Tobin R (1984) Alternative algorithms for the general network spatial price equilibrium problem. J Reg Sci 24(4):475–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friesz T, Miller T, Tobin R (1988) Competitive network facility location models: a survey. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 65(1):47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friesz T, Tobin R, Miller T (1989) Existence theory for spatially competitive network facility location models. Ann Oper Res 18(1):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friesz T, Rigdon M, Mookherjee R (2006) Differential variational inequalities and shipper dynamic oligopolistic network competition. Transp Res B 40(6):480–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabriel S, Shim Y, Conejo A, de la Torre S, Garcia-Bertrand S (2010) A Benders decomposition method for discretely-constrained mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints. J Oper Res Soc 61(9):1404–1419Google Scholar
  16. Golden B, Skiscim C (1986) Using simulated annealing to solve routing and location problems. Nav Res Logist Q 33(2):261–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hale TS, Moberg CR (2003) Location science research: a review. Ann Oper Res 123(1–4):21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harker P (1984) A variational inequality approach for the determination of oligopolistic market equilibrium. Math Program 30(1):105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harker P (1986) Alternative models of spatial competition. Oper Res 34(3):410–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harker PT, Pang J-S (1990) Finite-dimensional variational inequality and nonlinear complementarity problems: a survey of theory, algorithms and applications. Math Program 48(1–3):161–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Konur D, Geunes J (2012) Competitive multi-facility location games with non-identical firms and convex traffic congestion costs. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 48(1):373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kress D, Pesch E (2011), Sequential competitive location on networks. Eur J Oper Res (in press). doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.06.036
  23. Luo Z, Pang J, Ralph D (1996) Mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller T, Tobin R, Friesz T (1991) Stackelberg games on a network with cournot-nash oligopolistic competitors. J Reg Sci 31(4):435–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller T, Friesz T, Tobin R (1992) Heuristic algorithms for delivered price spatially competitive network facility location problems. Ann Oper Res 34(1):177–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller TC, Friesz TL, Tobin RL (1996) Equilibrium facility location on networks. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller T, Friesz T, Tobin R, Kwon C (2007) Reaction function based dynamic location modeling in Stackelberg-Nash-Cournot competition. Netw Spat Econ 7(1):77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murray A, Church R (1996) Applying simulated annealing to location planning models. J Heuristics 2(1):31–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nagurney A (1987) Computational comparisons of spatial price equilibrium methods. J Reg Sci 27(1):55–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nagurney A (1999) Network economics: a variational inequality approach, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  31. Parvaresh F, Golpayegany SH, Husseini SM, Karimi B (2013) Solving the p-hub median problem under intentional disruptions using simulated annealing. Netw Spat Econ. (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  32. Plastria F (2001) Static competitive facility location: an overview of optimisation approaches. Eur J Oper Res 129(3):461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plastria F, Vanhaverbeke L (2007) Aggregation without loss of optimality in competitive location models. Netw Spat Econ 7(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Redondo JL, Fernández J, Garcáa I, Ortigosa PM (2009) Solving the multiple competitive facilities location and design problem on the plane. Evol Comput 17(1):21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Samuelson P (1952) Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming. Am Econ Rev 42(3):283–303Google Scholar
  36. Santos-Peñate DR, Suárez-Vega R, Dorta-González P (2007) The leader-follower location model. Netw Spat Econ 7(1):45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Serra D, ReVelle C (1999) Competitive location and pricing on networks. Geogr Anal 31(2):109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shahabi M, Akbarinasaji S, Unnikrishnan A, James R (2013) Integrated inventory control and facility location decisions in a multi-echelon supply chain network with hubs. Netw Spat Econ (forthcoming).
  39. Sherali H, Soyster AL, Murphy FH (1983) Stackelberg-Nash-Cournot equilibria: characterizations and computations. Oper Res 31(2):253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Takayama T, Judge GG (1971) Spatial and temporal price and allocation models. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Tobin R, Friesz T (1986) Spatial competition facility location models: definition, formulation and solution approach. Ann Oper Res 6(3):47–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tobin R, Miller T, Friesz T (1995) Incorporating competitors reactions in facility location decisions: a market equilibrium approach. Locat Sci 3(4):239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.3GtmsSheltonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity at BuffaloSUNY, BuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations