Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating and selecting agricultural insurance packages through an AHP-based fuzzy TOPSIS Method

  • Soft computing in decision making and in modeling in economics
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Participating in agricultural insurance programs can help farmers reduce risks of financial loss caused by adverse impacts, such as climate change. However, farmers in many developing countries face numerous obstacles to select a suitable agricultural insurance package, which can be attributed to different packages with various criteria including quantitative and qualitative, their different importance, and the aggregation of those weighted criteria. Thus, developing a method for evaluating packages has become a critical issue. To resolve the above problems, this paper proposes an AHP-based fuzzy TOPSIS method, in which ratings of alternative packages versus qualitative criteria are assessed in linguistic values represented by fuzzy numbers. In the proposed method, the criteria weights and the weights of distances of each alternative from positive and negative ideal solutions are generated by AHP to present the objectivity of the weight derivation process. In addition, the mean of removals is used to rank the final fuzzy values to clearly develop the formulas of the ranking procedure to help facilitate the decision-making process. A numerical example of evaluating and selecting agricultural insurance packages is presented to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method. Finally, a numerical comparison is conducted to show the robustness of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data can be seen in Tables 3–34. Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.

References

  • Adem A, Daǧdeviren M (2016) A life insurance policy selection via hesitant fuzzy linguistic decision-making model. Procedia Comput Sci 102(8):398–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali SA, Parvin F, Al-Ansari N, Pham QB, Ahmad A, Raj MS, Anh DT, Ba LH, Thai VN (2021) Sanitary landfill site selection by integrating AHP and FTOPSIS with GIS: a case study of Memari Municipality, India. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(6):7528–7550

    Google Scholar 

  • Asuquo MP, Wang J, Zhang L, Phylip-Jones G (2019) Application of a multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) model for selecting appropriate maintenance strategy for marine and offshore machinery operations. Ocean Eng 179(2):246–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Tinh BD, Tuan TH, Magnussen K, Navrud S (2014) Modeling demand for catastrophic flood risk insurance in coastal zones in Vietnam using choice experiments. Environ Dev Econ 19(2):228–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen SM, Lee LW (2010) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 37(4):2790–2798

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen TY, Tsao CY (2008) The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 159(11):1410–1428

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen SY, Lu CC (2014) Assessing the competitiveness of insurance corporations using fuzzy correlation analysis and improved fuzzy modified Topsis. Expert Syst 32(3):392–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu TC, Le HT (2020) An extension to fuzzy ELECTRE. Soft Comput 24(10):7541–7555

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu TC, Kysely M (2020) online) Ranking objectives of advertisements on Facebook by a fuzzy TOPSIS method. Electron Commer Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-019-09394-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doukas H, Karakosta C, Psarras J (2010) Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Expert Syst Appl 37(7):5491–5497

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D, Prade H (1978) Operations on fuzzy numbers. Int J Syst Sci 9(6):613–626

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Duc DM (2017) Agricultural insurance in Vietnam: pilot programme and pre-conditions for a public-private partnership approach. Asia Pacific J Public Adm 39(1):63–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi G, Srivastava RK, Srivastava SK (2018) A generalised fuzzy TOPSIS with improved closeness coefficient. Expert Syst Appl 96:185–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahad S, Inayat T, Wang J, Dong L, Hu G, Khan S, Khan A (2020) Farmers’ awareness level and their perceptions of climate change: A case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 96:104669

  • Fahad S, Wang J, Hu G, Wang H, Yang X, Shah AA, Huong NTL, Bilal A (2018a) Empirical analysis of factors influencing farmers crop insurance decisions in Pakistan: evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Land Use Policy 75(4):459–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahad S, Wang J (2018) Farmers’ risk perception, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change in rural Pakistan. Land Use Policy 79:301–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahad S, Wang J (2020) Climate change, vulnerability, and its impacts in rural Pakistan: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(2):1334–1338

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahad S, Wang J, Hu G, Wang H, Yang X, Shah AA, Huong NTL, Bilal A (2018b) Empirical analysis of factors influencing farmers crop insurance decisions in Pakistan: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Land Use Policy 75:459–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallahpour A, Olugu EU, Musa SN, Wong KY, Noori S (2017) A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Comput Ind Eng 105:391–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Garg CP (2016) A robust hybrid decision model for evaluation and selection of the strategic alliance partner in the airline industry. J Air Transp Manag 52:55–66

    Google Scholar 

  • General statistics office of Vietnam (2019) Agriculture and aquaculture census

  • General statistics office of Vietnam (2016) Agriculture and aquaculture census

  • Ha MH, Yang Z, Heo MW (2017) A new hybrid decision making framework for prioritising port performance improvement strategies. Asian J Shipp Logist 33(3):105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacioglu U, Chlyeh D, Yilmaz MK, Tatoglu E, Delen D (2021) Crafting performance-based cryptocurrency mining strategies using a hybrid analytics approach. Decis Support Syst 142:113473

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatami-Marbini A, Kangi F (2016) An extension of fuzzy TOPSIS for a group decision making with an application to Tehran stock exchange. Appl Soft Comput J 52:1084–1097

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho CC, Huang C, Ou CY (2018) Analysis of the factors influencing sustainable development in the insurance industry. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(4):391–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huong NTL, Bo YS, Fahad S (2017) Farmers’ perception, awareness and adaptation to climate change: evidence from Northwest Vietnam. Int J Climate Change Strateg Manage 25(22):21833–21843

    Google Scholar 

  • Huong NTL, Bo YS, Fahad S (2019) Economic impact of climate change on agriculture using Ricardian approach: A case of northwest Vietnam. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 18(4):449–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Huong NTL, Yao S, Fahad S (2018) Assessing household livelihood vulnerability to climate change: The case of Northwest Vietnam. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 25(5):1157–1175

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C, Suder A, Bekar ET (2015) Fuzzy multiattribute consumer choice among health insurance options. Technol Econ Dev Econ 22(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gupta MM (1985) Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: theory and application. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kim JD, Moon EL, Jeong E, Hong DH (2017) Ranking methods for fuzzy numbers: The solution to Brunelli and Mezei’s conjecture. Fuzzy Sets Syst 315:109–113

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ksenija M, Boris D, Snežana K, Sladjana B (2017) Analysis of the efficiency of insurance companies in Serbia using the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 30(1):550–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulak O, Kahraman C (2005) Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Inf Sci 170(2–4):191–210

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo T (2017) A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. Eur J Oper Res 260(1):152–160

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lai YJ, Liu TY, Hwang CL (1994) TOPSIS for MODM. Eur J Oper Res 76(3):486–500

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Li DF (2009) Relative ratio method for multiple attribute decision making problems. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 8(2):289–311

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Liang X, Meng X (2019) An extended FTOPSIS method for freeway route selection in the pre-feasibility study stage. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 526(7)

  • Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Streimikiene D, Jusoh A, Nor KMD, Khoshnoudi M (2016) Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy saving technologies and solutions in five star hotels: A new hierarchical framework. Energy 117:131–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U (2019) Investigating the trans-boundary of air pollution between the BRICS and its neighboring countries: an empirical analysis. Green Energy Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06001-5_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Solarin SA (2019) The control of corruption and energy efficiency relationship: an empirical note. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(17):17277–17283

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter R, Ying J (2019) Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand. J Econ Behav Organ 180:938–954

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauly VM (2000) Insurance reimbursement. Case Manager 16(3):34–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajak M, Shaw K (2019) Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications by using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Technol Soc 58:101–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajkumar PAM, Kannan N (2014) Factors affecting customer’s preferences for selection of life insurance companies: an empirical study with reference to Tamilnadu. Int J Account Business Manage 2(1):87–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei M, Mostafaeipour A, Qolipour M, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2018) Investigation of the optimal location design of a hybrid wind-solar plant: A case study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 43(1):100–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Salih MM, Zaidan BB, Zaidan AA, Ahmed MA (2019) Survey on fuzzy TOPSIS state-of-the-art between 2007 and 2017. Comput Oper Res 104:207–227

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shen F, Ma X, Li Z, Xu Z, Cai D (2017) An extended intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method based on a new distance measure with an application to credit risk evaluation. Inf Sci 428:105–119

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Siddiqui MH, Sharma TG (2010) Analyzing customer satisfaction with service quality in life insurance services. J Target Meas Anal Mark 18(3–4):221–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Sihem E (2017) Economic and socio-cultural determinants of agricultural insurance demand across countries. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 18(2):177–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Solangi YA, Tan Q, Khan MWA, Mirjat NH, Ahmed I (2018) The selection of wind power project location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A factor analysis, AHP, and fuzzy-TOPSIS application. Energies 11(8):1940

  • Soleimani F, Alizadeh Meshkani F, Naami A (2013) An exploration study to detect important factors influencing insurance firms. Manage Sci Lett 3:2691–2698

    Google Scholar 

  • Thuy D (2015) Promoting of agricultural insurance by public-private partnerships. https://www.thesaigontimes.vn/136822/Thuc-day-bao-hiem-nong-nghiep-bang-PPP.html.

  • Valahzaghard MK, Ferdousnejhad M (2013) Ranking insurance firms using AHP and Factor Analysis. Manage Sci Lett 3:937–942

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Ye T, Shi P (2015) Factors affecting farmers’ crop insurance participation in China. Can J Agric Econ 64(3):479–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Walczak D, Rutkowska A (2017) Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method. Eur J Oper Res 260(2):706–714

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YJ, Lee HS (2007) Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decision-making. Comput Math Appl 53(11):1762–1772

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yang ZL, Bonsall S, Wang J (2011) Approximate TOPSIS for vessel selection under uncertain environment. Expert Syst Appl 38(12):14523–14534

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, part 1, 2 and 3. Information Science 8(3):199–249, 8(4):301–357, 9(1):43–80

  • Zhang X, Xu Z (2014) Extension of TOPSIS to multiple criteria decision making with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 29(2):495–524

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous referees and Prof. Raffaele FL Cerulli for providing helpful comments. Their insights and suggestions led to a better presentation of the ideas expressed in this paper. This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant MOST 108-2410-H-218-011.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant MOST 108-2410-H-218-011.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Management and Information, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan City, Taiwan

    Ta-Chung Chu

  2. College of Business, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan City, Taiwan

    Thi Hong Phuong Le

Authors
  1. Ta-Chung Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thi Hong Phuong Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ta-Chung Chu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chu, TC., Le, T.H.P. Evaluating and selecting agricultural insurance packages through an AHP-based fuzzy TOPSIS Method. Soft Comput 26, 7339–7354 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-06964-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-06964-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation