The Huff Versus the Pareto-Huff Customer Choice Rules in a Discrete Competitive Location Model

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10961)


An entering firm wants to compete for market share in a given area by opening some new facilities selected among a finite set of potential locations. Customers are spatially separated and other firms are already operating in that area. In this paper, we analyse the effect of two different customers’ behavior over the optimal solutions, the Huff and the Pareto-Huff customer choice rules. In the first, the customer splits its demand among all competing facilities according to its attractions. In the second, the customer splits its demand among the facilities that are Pareto optimal with respect to the attraction (to be maximized) and the distance (to be minimized), proportionally to their attractions. So, a competitive facility location problem on discrete space is considered in which an entering firm wants to locate a fixed number of new facilities for market share maximization when both Huff and Pareto-Huff customer behavior are used. In order to solve these two models, a heuristic procedure is proposed to obtain the best solutions, and it is compared with a classical genetic algorithm for a set of real geographical coordinates and population data of municipalities in Spain.



This research has been supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain under the research project MTM2015-70260-P, and the Fundación Séneca (The Agency of Science and Technology of the Region of Murcia) under the research project 19241/PI/14, and also by a grant (No. MIP-051/2014) from the Research Council of Lithuania.


  1. 1.
    Campos, C.M., Santos-Pe\(\tilde{n}\)ate, D.R., Moreno, J.A.: An exact procedure and LP formulations for the leader-follower location problem. Top 18(1), 97–121 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis, L.: Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drezner, T., Drezner, Z.: Finding the optimal solution to the Huff based competitive location model. Comput. Manag. Sci. 1(2), 193–208 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernández, P., Pelegrín, B., Lančinskas, A., Žilinskas, J.: New heuristic algorithms for discrete competitive location problems with binary and partially binary customer behavior. Comput. Oper. Res. 79, 12–18 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Francis, R.L., Lowe, T.J., Tamir, A.: Demand point aggregation for location models. In: Hamacher, H., Drezner, Z. (eds.) Facility Location: Application and Theory, pp. 207–232 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friesz, T.: Competitive networks facility location models: a survey. Pap. Reg. Sci. 65, 47–57 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hakimi, L.: Location with spatial interactions: competitive locations and games. In: Drezner, Z. (ed.) Facility Location: A Survey of Applications and Methods, pp. 367–386 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1975)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huff, D.: Defining and estimating a trade area. J. Mark. 28, 34–38 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peeters, P.H., Plastria, F.: Discretization results for the Huff and Pareto-Huff competitive location models on networks. TOP 6, 247–260 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ReVelle, C., Eiselt, H., Daskin, M.: A bibliography for some fundamental problem categories in discrete location science. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 184(3), 817–848 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serra, D., Eiselt, H.A., Laporte, G., ReVelle, C.S.: Market capture models under various customer-choice rules. Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Des. 26, 741–750 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serra, D., Colomé, R.: Consumer choice and optimal location models: formulations and heuristics. Pap. Reg. Sci. 80(4), 439–464 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sinnott, R.W.: Virtues of the haversine. Sky Telescope 68(2), 159 (1984)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Statistics and Operations ResearchUniversity of MurciaMurciaSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Mathematics and InformaticsVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations