deletions | additions       diff --git a/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex b/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex  index fee9aae..e150c2e 100644  --- a/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex  +++ b/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex 
...
The literature of  Chapter IV starts with the the trailbreaking work of Teitz (1968) who introduces the idea that a firm serves the market from multiple locations in the context of Hotelling's linear city model. Since then other researchers, such as Thill (1997), Chu and Lu (1998), Pal and Sarkar (2002), Janssen et al. (2005), Karamychev and van Reeven (2009), Iida and Matsubayashi (2011), Takaki and Matsubayashi (2013), Neven (1987), Peng and Tabuchi (2007), Granot et al. (2010), or Nishida (2015) have been proposing multi-store firms location models.o  starting with the The light is then put on  the trailbreaking work research by: Yang (2015) and Igami and Yang (2015) who study Canada's fast food hamburger industry  of Teitz (1968) five substituable with one another chains; Toivanen and Waterson (2005)  who introduces the idea that a firm serves the market from multiple locations analyze fast food restaurants  in the context of Hotelling's linear city model. Since then other researchers, such as Thill (1997), Chu and Lu (1998), Pal UK;  and Sarkar (2002), Janssen Thomansen (2005) who focuses on two fast food chains in California. For comparison, three other studies are mentioned in chapter IV, these are: Nishida (2015) on convenience-store chains in Japan, Schiraldi  et al. (2005), Karamychev and van Reeven (2009), Iida and Matsubayashi (2011), Takaki (2013)  and Matsubayashi (2013), Neven (1987), Peng Holmes (2011) on the UK supermarket industry, such as Walmart  and Tabuchi (2007), Granot et al. (2010), or Nishida (2015) have been proposing multi-store firms location models. other supercenters.  Chapter IV pronounces the fact that location-store models typically do not consider competing rival-chain stores and the strategic interactions between stores within the same chain. The profitability is a function of player i's entire network and the competitors' networks (Nishida, 2015). The literature on business stealing and learning effects, cannibalization effects and economies of scale described in Chapter IV (see, e.g., Toivanen and Waterson, 2005; Aquirregabiria and Suzuki, 2015))  is not consistent in specifying which of these effects has a prevailing influence on location decisions and depends on the tore type. In addition, Nishida (2015) and Toivanen and Waterson (2005) incorporate some form of spatial competition, demonstrating that the store's profitability is influenced by stores in the same location and and by those in the adjacent locations, incorporating the interdependence of markets.  Yang (2015) and Igami and Yang (2015) study Canada's fast food hamburger industry of five substituable with one another chains. Toivanen and Waterson (2005) analyze fast food restaurants in the UK. Thomansen (2005) focuses on two fast food chains in California. Nishida (2015) convenience-store chains in Japan. Schiraldi et al. (2013) and Holmes (2011) observe the UK supermarket industry, such as Walmart and other supercenters. %Nwogugu (2006) distance  Nwogugu (2006) distance   X discusses  
...
Firms are expected to carefully choose locations to ease the access to the highest number of spatially dispersed potential customers.  Igami and Yang (2015) observe that fast food stores seem to compete within relatively small markets concentrating their efforts on a micro- level location. Their results indicate a highly localized nature of competition among fast food stores. The authors state that a distance criterion equal or greater than a mile (1,61 kilometer) would appear to be useless for an empiri- cal analysis of competition among fast food stores. According to calculations of Thomadsen (2005) for the fast food market (McDonald’s and Burger King) in Santa Clara County, only outlets within 0.5 mile (800 meters) will compete as close substitutes, even in car-obsessed California.