Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/113713
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Logistics and Maritime Studiesen_US
dc.creatorCai, Jen_US
dc.creatorDing, Yen_US
dc.creatorJian, Sen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-19T01:46:59Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-19T01:46:59Z-
dc.identifier.issn1366-5545en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/113713-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ltden_US
dc.subjectDuopoly competitionen_US
dc.subjectGovernment regulationen_US
dc.subjectPrice discriminationen_US
dc.subjectTransport equityen_US
dc.titleRegulation of price discrimination in the transportation market under duopoly competitionen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.volume199en_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2025.104127en_US
dcterms.abstractWith significant advancements in platform economy and big data technologies, service providers can implement highly targeted discriminatory pricing strategies, as exemplified by charging different prices to fresh and frequent customers for identical products. This practice raises significant concerns about fairness and consumer protection. Motivated by these real-world observations, we develop a two-period pricing competition model. Our model simulates a scenario where two heterogeneous suppliers initially compete on price to attract customers in period 1. In period 2, they attempt to attract wait-and-see customers by offering lower prices for their remaining resources. A Hotelling framework accounting for customer heterogeneity and supply–demand congestion effects is used to capture customers’ strategic decision-making process and integrate the two separate periods. To regulate price discrimination, a price equity constraint is imposed at the beginning of period 2 to narrow the price gap between existing and wait-and-see customers. To quantify the impact of this regulation, we conduct a numerical study using car parking data from Hong Kong, examining changes in consumer surplus and social welfare. Our findings reveal that an appropriate level of equity regulation can incentivize customers to switch from advantaged to disadvantaged suppliers, fostering a more competitive market and mitigating the risk of monopolies. Conversely, excessively stringent price equity regulations can have unintended negative consequences, potentially diminishing overall social welfare.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsembargoed accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationTransportation research. Part E, Logistics and transportation review, July 2025, v. 199, 104127en_US
dcterms.isPartOfTransportation research. Part E, Logistics and transportation reviewen_US
dcterms.issued2025-07-
dc.identifier.eissn1878-5794en_US
dc.identifier.artn104127en_US
dc.description.validate202506 bcchen_US
dc.description.oaNot applicableen_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera3671a-
dc.identifier.SubFormID50647-
dc.description.fundingSourceSelf-fundeden_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.date.embargo2028-07-31en_US
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Open Access Information
Status embargoed access
Embargo End Date 2028-07-31
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.