Abstract
Due to climatic hazards and extreme weather events, the pricing of property insurance products is increasingly attracting the attention of policyholders, insurance companies, and governments. Pricing based on market-oriented methods has to consider the affecting factors from policyholders’ perceived value. Pricing strategy design generates the need for natural hazards risk assessments. A natural hazard risk assessment is closely related to the human factors of a disaster-bearing body. In response to this need, we design an extension of the expected utility that is inconsistent with the additive expected utility, considering the human factors of policyholders, which is referred to as the expected loss utility (ELU). The ELU presents two improvements of the currently used utility. First, subjective probability, which is derived from individual predictions over acts, is applied to the ELU function to overcome the disadvantage that objective probability attaches to uncertainty does not reflect the uncertainty of human factors. Policyholders’ risk attitudes are reflected by the interpretation of interactions among uncertain events. Second, the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation (HFLPR) is employed as the assessment of individual loss evaluation to reflect a policyholder’s hesitation. We apply the techniques of fuzzy linguistic term aggregation and perform a comparison to simplify our loss utility function. A detailed process of expected loss assessment is proposed due to variations in natural environment factors, local social characteristics, and disaster-bearing body factors. An illustrative example is given to perform a comparison with cumulative prospect theory to show the merits of the ELU. This study quantifies policyholder’s cognition of uncertain event and the cognition’s influence on risk assessment which can guide pricing strategy of property insurance products.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
\(\mu \left(i\right)\)is the simple form of \(\mu \left({x}_{i}\right)\). \(\mu \left(i,j\right)\) is the simple form of \(\mu \left({x}_{i}\cup {x}_{j}\right)\).
We assume \(\mu\) satisfies 2-order additive. For a 2-order additive measure, i.e. the Möbius representation \(a\left(S\right)=0\) whenever |S|> 2.
References
Adelson R (1971) Utility theory for decision making by Peter C. Fishburn. Oper Res Quart (1970–1977) 22:308–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/3008003
Allais M (1953) Le comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. Econometrica 21:503–546. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907921
Al-Nammari F, Alzaghal M (2015) Towards local disaster risk reduction in developing countries: challenges from Jordan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.005
Benali N, Feki R (2017) The impact of natural disasters on insurers’ profitability: evidence from Property/Casualty Insurance company in United States. Res Int Bus Finan 42:1394–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.078
Bottero M, Ferretti V, Figueira JR, Greco S, Roy B (2018) On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application. Eur J Oper Res 271:120–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.022
Cerroni S, Notaro S, Shaw WD (2012) Eliciting and estimating valid subjective probabilities: an experimental investigation of the exchangeability method. J Econ Behav Organ 84:201–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.001
Chateauneuf A, Cohen M (2000) Choquet expected utility model: a new approach to individual behavior under uncertainty and to social welfare. In: Grabisch MMT, Sugeno M (eds) Fuzzy measures and integrals: theory and applications. Physica-verlag, Heidelberg, pp 289–313
Chiţescu I, Plăviţu A (2017) Computing Choquet integrals. Fuzzy Sets Syst 327:48–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2017.02.009
Choquet G (1954) Theory of capacities. Annales de l’institut Fourier 5:131–295
Dessaint O, Matray A (2017) Do managers overreact to salient risks? Evidence from hurricane strikes. J Finan Econ 126:97–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.07.002
Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Consistency-driven automatic methodology to set interval numerical scales of 2-tuple linguistic term sets and its use in the linguistic GDM with preference relation. IEEE Trans Cybern 45:780–792. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcyb.2014.2336808
Dong Y, Li C-C, Herrera F (2016) Connecting the linguistic hierarchy and the numerical scale for the 2-tuple linguistic model and its use to deal with hesitant unbalanced linguistic information. Inf Sci 367:259–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.06.003
Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart J Econ 75:643–669
Evren Ö (2019) Recursive non-expected utility: connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity. Games Econ Behav 114:285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2019.02.004
Fishburn P (2001) Utility and subjective probability: contemporary theories. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (eds) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 16113–16121. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00638-0
Gallina V, Torresan S, Critto A, Sperotto A, Glade T, Marcomini A (2016) A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment. J Environ Manag 168:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.011
Gong Z, Wang Y, Wei G, Li L, Guo W (2020) Cascading disasters risk modeling based on linear uncertainty distributions. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 43:101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101385
Habib MS et al (2019) Large-scale disaster waste management under uncertain environment. J Clean Prod 212:200–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.154
Herrera F, Martinez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8:746–752. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.890332
Hogarth R, Kunreuther H (1989) Risk, ambiguity, and insurance. J Risk Uncertainty 2:5–35
Horanská Ľ, Šipošová A (2018) A generalization of the discrete Choquet and Sugeno integrals based on a fusion function. Inf Sci 451–452:83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.03.059
Izhakian Y (2017) Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory. J Math Econ 69:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2016.12.004
Kahneman AT (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty 5:297–323
Keynes JM (1921) A treatise on probability. Macmillan, London
Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Liu B (2004) Uncertainty theory. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Lourenzutti R, Krohling RA, Reformat MZ (2017) Choquet based TOPSIS and TODIM for dynamic and heterogeneous decision making with criteria interaction. Inf Sci 408:41–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.04.037
Mileti DS, O’Brien PW (1992) Warnings during disaster: normalizing communicated risk. Soc Probl 39:40–57
Mumo R, Watt R (2019) Residential insurance market responses after earthquake: a survey of Christchurch dwellers. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 40:101166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101166
Murofushi T, Sugeno M (1989) An interpretation of fuzzy measures and the Choquet integral as an integral with respect to a fuzzy measure. Fuzzy Sets Syst 29:201–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(89)90194-2
Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J Econ Behav Organ 3:323–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7
Ritzberger K (1996) On games under expected utility with rank dependent probabilities. Theor Decis 40:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133158
Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/tfuzz.2011.2170076
Rodríguez RM, Martínez L (2012) An analysis of symbolic linguistic computing models in decision making. Int J Gen Syst 42:121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2012.710442
Rodríguez RM, Martı́nez L, Herrera F (2013) A group decision making model dealing with comparative linguistic expressions based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Inf Sci 241:28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.04.006
Roselló L, Sánchez M, Agell N, Prats F, Mazaira FA (2014) Using consensus and distances between generalized multi-attribute linguistic assessments for group decision-making. Inf Fusion 17:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2011.09.001
Sajjad M, Chan JCL, Lin N (2020) Incorporating natural habitats into coastal risk assessment frameworks. Environ Sci Policy 106:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.004
Samuelson KAM, Lundberg D, Fridlund B (2008) Light vs. heavy sedation during mechanical ventilation after oesophagectomy—a pilot experimental study focusing on memory. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 52:1116–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01702.x
Savage J (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York
Schmeidler D (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57:571–587
Segal U (1987) The Ellsberg paradox and risk aversion: an anticipated utility approach. Int Econ Rev 28:175–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2526866
Shapley LS (1953) 17. A value for n-person games, vol 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400881970-018
Sugeno M (1974) Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. Ph.D.
Wang J, Wang J-q, Zhang H-y, Chen X-h (2015) Multi-criteria decision-making based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: an outranking approach. Knowl-Based Syst 86:224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.06.007
Wei C, Zhao N, Tang X (2014) Operators and comparisons of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:575–585
Wei C, Rodríguez RM, Martínez L (2018) Uncertainty measures of extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2724023
Wipulanusat W, Nakrod S, Prabnarong P (2009) Multi-hazard risk assessment using GIS and RS Applications: a case study of Pak Phanang Basin. Walailak J Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.2004/wjst.v6i1.76
Wu H, Ren P, Xu Z (2019a) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic consensus model based on trust-recommendation mechanism for hospital expert consultation. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27:2227–2241. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2896836
Wu P, Zhou L, Chen H, Tao Z (2019b) Additive consistency of hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation with a new expansion principle for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27:716–730. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2868492
Yang F, Tan J, Peng L (2020) The effect of risk perception on the willingness to purchase hazard insurance—a case study in the Three Gorges Reservoir region, China. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 45:101379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101379
Zhou W, Xu Z (2019) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic portfolio model with variable risk appetite and its application in the investment ratio calculation. Appl Soft Comput 84:105719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105719
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (71871121) and Foundation of CIC-FEMD the special topic “the influence of weather conditions on the spread of large-scale influenza virus” (2020xtzx002) and HRSA, US Department of Health & Human Services (No. H49MC0068).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
This section is to certify that we have no potential conflict of interest.
Research involving human and/or animal participants
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cai, M., Xiu, W. & Wei, G. Expected loss utility for natural hazards and its application in pricing property insurance products. Environ Syst Decis 41, 377–391 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-021-09797-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-021-09797-0