Skip to main content
Log in

An Improved Branch & Bound Method for the Uncapacitated Competitive Location Problem

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, the problem of locating new facilities in a competitive environment is considered. The problem is formulated as the firm expected profit maximization and a set of nodes is selected in a graph representing the geographical zone. Profit depends on fixed and deterministic location costs and, since customers are independent decision-makers, on the expected market share. The problem is an instance of nonlinear integer programming, because the objective function is concave and submodular. Due to this complexity a branch & bound method is developed for solving small size problems (that is, when the number of nodes is less than 50), while a heuristic is necessary for larger problems. The branch & bound is called data-correcting method, while the approximate solutions are obtained using the heuristic-concentration method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benati, S. (1997). “Submodularity in Competitive Location Problems.” Ricerca Operativa 26, 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benati, S. (1999). “The Maximum Capture Problem with Heterogeneous Customers.” Computers and Operations Research 26, 1351–1367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benati, S. (2000). “NP-Hardness of Some Competitive Location Models with Random Utilities.” Studies in Locational Analysis 14, 211–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benati, S. and P. Hansen. (2002). “The Maximum Capture Problem with Random Utilities: Problem Formulation and Algorithms.” European Journal of Operational Research 143, 518–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, O. and K. Dmitry. (1998). “Flow Intercepting Spatial Interaction Model: A New Approach to Optimal Location of Competitive Facilities.” Location Science 6, 41–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brimberg, J., P. Hansen, N. Mladenović, and E.D. Taillard. (2000). “Improvements and Comparison of Heuristics for Solving the Multisource Weber Problem.” Operations Research 48, 440–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, D.S., W.S. Desarbo and P.T. Harker. (1990). “Product Positioning Under Price Competition.” Management Science 38, 175–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, T. and Z. Drezner. (1996). “Competitive Facilities: Market Share and Location with Random Utility.” Journal of Regional Science 36, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiselt, H.A. and G. Laporte. (1997). “Demand Allocation Functions.” Location Science.

  • Fotheringham, A.S. and M.E. O'Kelly. (1989). Spatial Interaction Models: Formulations and Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldengorin, B. (1995). “Requirements of Standard: Optimization Models and Algorithms.” Russian Operations Research. Hoogezand, The Netherlands.

  • Goldengorin, B., G. Sierksma, G.A. Tijssen, and M. Tso. (1999). “The Data-Correcting Algorithm for the Minimization of Supermodular Functions.” Management Science 45, 1359–1551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakimi, S.L. (1990). “Locations with Spatial Interactions: Competitive Location and Games.” In Mirchandani and Francis (eds.), Discrete Location Theory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P. and N. Mladenović. (1998). “Variable Neighbourhood Search for the p-Median Problem.” Location Science 5(4), 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P. and N. Mladenović. (1999). “An Introduction to Variable Neighborhood Search.” In S. Voss et al. (eds.), Metaheuristics, Advances and Trends in Local Search Paradigms for Optimization. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 433–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P., N. Mladenović, and D. Perez-Brito. (2001). “Variable Neighborhood Decomposition Search.” Journal of Heuristics 7, 335–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, G. (1983). “The Use of Random Utility Theory in Building Location–Allocation Models.” In J.F. Thisse and H.G. Zoller (eds.), Locational Analysis of Public Facilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemhauser, G.L. and L.A. Wolsey. (1981). “Maximizing Submodular Set Functions: Formulations and Analysis of Algorithms.” Annals of Discrete Mathematics 11, 279–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemhauser, G.L. and L.A. Wolsey. (1988). Integer and Combinatorial Optimization. New York: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Kelly, M.E. (1999). “Trade-Area and Choice Based Samples: Methods.” Environment and Planning A 31, 613–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plastria, F. (2001). “Static Competitive Facility Location: An Overview of Optimization Approaches.” European Journal of Operational Research 129, 461–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • ReVelle, C. and D. Serra. (1995). “Competitive Location in Discrete Space.” In Z. Drezner (ed.), Facility Location: A Survey of Applications and Methods. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosing, K.E. and C.S. ReVelle (1997). “Heuristic Concentration: Two Stage Solution Construction.” European Journal of Operational Research 104, 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosing, K.E., C.S. ReVelle, and D.A. Shilling. (1999). “A Gamma-Heuristic for the p-Median Problem.” European Journal of Operational Research 117, 522–532.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benati, S. An Improved Branch & Bound Method for the Uncapacitated Competitive Location Problem. Annals of Operations Research 122, 43–58 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026182020346

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026182020346

Navigation