Robust Model of Discrete Competitive Facility Location Problem with Partially Proportional Rule

Table 1

Comparison of optimal solutions in Plan 1 and Plan 2.

Customer	Demand interval
Plan 1
Delaware	[1.68493, 6.66168]	1	1
Illinois	[38.26352, 114.30602]	0	0
Louisiana	[11.18588, 42.19973]	1	1
Maryland	[10.42390, 47.81468]	0	1
Mississippi	[12.89600, 25.73216]	1	1
New Jersey	[14.44933, 77.30188]	0	0
North Carolina	[16.17949, 66.28637]	0	0
Pennsylvania	[52.58113, 118.81643]	0	0
Virginia	[16.55980, 61.87358]	0	0
Wisconsin	[16.93330, 48.91769]	0	0
Washington DC	[2.30392, 6.06900]	1	1
Plan 2
Delaware	[1.68493, 6.66168]	1	1
Florida	[3.91422, 129.37926]	0	0
Georgia	[18.37353, 64.78216]	0	0
Kentucky	[18.58635, 36.85296]	1	1
Maryland	[10.42390, 47.81468]	1	1
Michigan	[20.93890, 92.95297]	0	0
New Jersey	[14.44933, 77.30188]	0	0
North Carolina	[16.17949, 66.28637]	0	0
Pennsylvania	[52.58113, 118.81643]	0	0
Virginia	[16.55980, 61.87358]	0	1
Washington DC	[2.30392, 6.06900]	1	1