deletions | additions       diff --git a/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex b/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex  index cdb0cbd..4b392b5 100644  --- a/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex  +++ b/If_you_wait_to_do__.tex 
...
Chapter I introduces the reader to the location choice models. The list of the key factors that potentially influence the locational decisions has been created baseed on the research of Maoh (2005), Strotmann (2007), Liviano-Solis and Arauzo-Carod (2011), Rocha (2008), Maoh and Kanaroglou (2005, 2007), Bondomi and Greenbaum (2007), Bodenmann (2011), Duvereux et al. (2007), Neumark and Kolko (2010), De Bok (2004), Bodenmann and Axhausen (2012, 2010), and the review of Arauzo-Carod et al. (2010). Chapter I provides also a discussion on the first attempts to incorporate spatial effects into location choice models starting with Bhat and Guo (2004) on modeling spatial dependence in residential locations using a mixed logit. Sener et al. (2011) propose the generalized spatially correlated logit and Miyamoto et al. (2004) the mixed logit with the error autocorrelation and an autocorrelated deterministic component of utility to model the residential behavior. Garrido and Mahmassani (2000) discusses a multinomial probit with spatially and temporally correlated error structure to analyze and forecast the distribution of freight flows.   Nguyen et al. (2012) discusses a tree-stage firm relocation model wherein spatial correlation between zones has been implemented in the error term and spatial interactions among firms in the deterministic part. Klier and McMillen (2008) provide a description of the GMM generalized method of moments  spatial logit to model the clustering of the auto supplier establishments. Chapter II continues with a discussion on further attempts to incorporate spatial effects into establishments location choice models. It highlights the fact that, whenever a distance metric has been used in the weight matrix to implement a spatial aspect into the establishments location models (see the research of Dube et al., 2016; Bhat et al., 2014; Liviano-Solis and Arauzo-Carod, 2013; Lambert et al., 2010; and Klier and McMillen, 2008), the Euclidean distance was employed. The debate in this chapter demonstrates that there are insights to be gained by mindfully reconsidering and measuring distance depending on a given problem, such as a high congestion, speed limits, or physical uncrossable barriers which can diminish or totally eliminate the linkage between neighboring areas. Alternative distance metrices can be proposed and tested. Several studies, such as the ones by Combes and Lafourcade (2005), Graham (2007), Duran-Fernandez and Santos (2014), Weisbrod (2008), Faber (2014), or Kwon (2002) encourage the use of real distance metric based on the transport network over geographical distance metrics.  %Several studies, such as the ones by Bodsen and Peeters (1975), Aten (1997), Duran-Fernandez and Santos (2014), Conley and Ligon (2002), Slade (2005), Le Gallo and Dall'erba (2008), and Fingleton (2008) have considered metrics not purely based on topography, including network distances and transport costs.   %xxx Yet, following the remarks of Miller (2004) and Miller (2003) and other authors, that due to xxx,  Chapter II   concerns xxx, starting with X and X et al. on entry games and competition.