IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v41y2021i3d10.1007_s10669-021-09797-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expected loss utility for natural hazards and its application in pricing property insurance products

Author

Listed:
  • Mei Cai

    (Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology
    Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology)

  • Wenfei Xiu

    (Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment Corporation)

  • Guo Wei

    (University of NorthCarolina at Pembroke)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei Cai & Wenfei Xiu & Guo Wei, 2021. "Expected loss utility for natural hazards and its application in pricing property insurance products," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 377-391, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:41:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-021-09797-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-021-09797-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-021-09797-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-021-09797-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    4. Dessaint, Olivier & Matray, Adrien, 2017. "Do managers overreact to salient risks? Evidence from hurricane strikes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 97-121.
    5. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    6. Benali, Nadia & Feki, Rochdi, 2017. "The impact of natural disasters on insurers’ profitability: Evidence from Property/Casualty Insurance company in United States," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1394-1400.
    7. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    8. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    9. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    10. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-35, April.
    11. Cerroni, Simone & Notaro, Sandra & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2012. "Eliciting and estimating valid subjective probabilities: An experimental investigation of the exchangeability method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 201-215.
    12. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert & Igor Linkov, 2021. "Integrating data from physical and social science to address emerging societal challenges," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 331-333, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mei Cai & Stephen M. Marson, 2021. "A regional Natech risk assessment based on a Natech-prone facility network for dependent events," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(3), pages 2155-2174, July.
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    3. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    4. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    5. Ilke AYDOGAN & Loïc BERGER & Valentina BOSETTI & Ning LIU, 2022. "Three layers of uncertainty," Working Papers 2022-iRisk-01, IESEG School of Management.
    6. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2020. "A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    7. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Vincent Théroude, 2023. "More Ambiguous or More Complex? An Investigation of Individual Preferences under Uncertainty," Working Papers of BETA 2023-10, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    9. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2016. "The Ellsberg paradox: A challenge to quantum decision theory?," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/08, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    10. repec:hal:journl:hal-03031751 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ilke AYDOGAN & Loïc BERGER & Vincent THEROUDE, 2023. "More Ambiguous or More Complex? An Investigation of Individual Preferences under Model Uncertainty," Working Papers 2023-iRisk-02, IESEG School of Management.
    12. Florian Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2015. "An experimental test of the Anscombe-Aumann Monotonicity axiom," ECON - Working Papers 207, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised May 2017.
    13. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    14. Fan Wang, 2022. "Rank-Dependent Utility Under Multiple Priors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8166-8183, November.
    15. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    16. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    17. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    18. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Anna Conte & John D. Hey, 2018. "Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 7, pages 169-188, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    21. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:41:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-021-09797-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.