IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v343y2024i1d10.1007_s10479-024-06259-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Catastrophic risk: indication, quantitative assessment and management of rare extreme events using a non-expected utility framework

Author

Listed:
  • Gebhard Geiger

    (Technical University of Munich)

Abstract

The paper develops a conceptual framework for the analysis and management of catastrophic risk. The framework serves to assess rare extreme events in systematic, quantitative and consistent ways. It dispenses with probabilistic extreme value theory, concentrating on descriptive statistics and simple probability distributions. Risk assessment is based on a recently developed axiomatic approach to non-expected utility preferences defined on the set of risky alternative courses of action available to an agent. The utility values of catastrophic risks are given an explicit algebraic representation, which shows them to be highly unstable (“elastic”) in the sense that they respond disproportionately to small perturbations of the decision outcomes and their probabilities. Various elasticity coefficients are defined for the outcome variables and utility preferences attached to them. They indicate whether a variable possibly takes on large negative values. The coefficients can also be defined as sample statistics and, thus, computed from observed data. The approach admits various applications to practical problems of disaster risk management. The applications include estimations of the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of risk management, the specification of limits of acceptance of catastrophic risk for regulatory purposes, and safety and security systems design and dimensioning.

Suggested Citation

  • Gebhard Geiger, 2024. "Catastrophic risk: indication, quantitative assessment and management of rare extreme events using a non-expected utility framework," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 343(1), pages 223-261, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:343:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-024-06259-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-024-06259-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-024-06259-z
    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/s10479-024-06259-z?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. Gebhard Geiger, 2012. "Multi-attribute non-expected utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 263-292, July.
    2. Geiger, Gebhard, 2015. "Risk pricing in a non-expected utility framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 944-948.
    3. Carling, Kenneth, 2000. "Resistant outlier rules and the non-Gaussian case," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-258, May.
    4. Laurens de Haan & Chen Zhou, 2021. "Trends in Extreme Value Indices," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 116(535), pages 1265-1279, July.
    5. Danijel Schorlemmer & Stefan Wiemer & Max Wyss, 2005. "Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7058), pages 539-542, September.
    6. Ikefuji, Masako & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Magnus, Jan R. & Muris, Chris, 2015. "Expected utility and catastrophic consumption risk," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 306-312.
    7. Geiger, Gebhard, 2008. "An axiomatic account of status quo-dependent non-expected utility: Pragmatic constraints on rational choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 116-142, March.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Denuit Michel & Dhaene Jan & Goovaerts Marc & Kaas Rob & Laeven Roger, 2006. "Risk measurement with equivalent utility principles," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, July.
    10. Yuri Ermoliev & Marek Makowski & Kurt Marti, 2012. "Robust Management of Heterogeneous Systems under Uncertainties," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Yuri Ermoliev & Marek Makowski & Kurt Marti (ed.), Managing Safety of Heterogeneous Systems, edition 127, pages 1-16, Springer.
    11. Enrico Diecidue & Moshe Levy & Jeroen Ven, 2015. "No aspiration to win? An experimental test of the aspiration level model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 245-266, December.
    12. J. Rolf Olsen & James H. Lambert & Yacov Y. Haimes, 1998. "Risk of Extreme Events Under Nonstationary Conditions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 497-510, August.
    13. K. Krishnamoorthy & Shubhabrata Mukherjee & Huizhen Guo, 2007. "Inference on Reliability in Two-parameter Exponential Stress–strength Model," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 261-273, May.
    14. Erhard Petzel & Roman Czaja & Gebhard Geiger & Christian Blobner, 2015. "Does lift of liquid ban raise or compromise the current level of aviation security in the European Union? Simulation-based quantitative security risk analysis and assessment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(7), pages 808-821, August.
    15. Grechuk, Bogdan & Zabarankin, Michael, 2014. "Risk averse decision making under catastrophic risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(1), pages 166-176.
    16. Hans Visser & Arthur Petersen & Willem Ligtvoet, 2014. "On the relation between weather-related disaster impacts, vulnerability and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 461-477, August.
    17. Henry Lam & Clementine Mottet, 2017. "Tail Analysis Without Parametric Models: A Worst-Case Perspective," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(6), pages 1696-1711, December.
    18. Goovaerts, Marc J. & Kaas, Rob & Laeven, Roger J.A., 2010. "Decision principles derived from risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 294-302, December.
    19. Y. Ermoliev & L. Hordijk, 2006. "Facets of Robust Decisions," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Coping with Uncertainty, pages 3-28, Springer.
    20. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng & Chris C. Heyde, 2013. "External Risk Measures and Basel Accords," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 393-417, August.
    21. R. Mechler, 2016. "Reviewing estimates of the economic efficiency of disaster risk management: opportunities and limitations of using risk-based cost–benefit analysis," 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. 81(3), pages 2121-2147, April.
    22. Samuel Drapeau & Michael Kupper, 2013. "Risk Preferences and Their Robust Representation," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 28-62, February.
    23. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen Van De Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, May.
    24. Gebhard Geiger, 2020. "Conditional non-expected utility preferences induced by mixture of lotteries: a note on the normative invalidity of expected utility theory," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 431-448, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    2. Belles-Sampera, Jaume & Merigó, José M. & Guillén, Montserrat & Santolino, Miguel, 2013. "The connection between distortion risk measures and ordered weighted averaging operators," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 411-420.
    3. Gebhard Geiger, 2020. "Conditional non-expected utility preferences induced by mixture of lotteries: a note on the normative invalidity of expected utility theory," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 431-448, June.
    4. Wang, Wei & Xu, Huifu & Ma, Tiejun, 2023. "Optimal scenario-dependent multivariate shortfall risk measure and its application in risk capital allocation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 322-347.
    5. Levy, Moshe, 2022. "An inter-temporal CAPM based on First order Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 734-739.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    8. Gilles Boevi Koumou & Georges Dionne, 2022. "Coherent Diversification Measures in Portfolio Theory: An Axiomatic Foundation," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Gebhard Geiger, 2012. "Multi-attribute non-expected utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 263-292, July.
    10. Dhaene, Jan & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Zhang, Yiying, 2022. "Systemic risk: Conditional distortion risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 126-145.
    11. Nicola Smith & Charlotte Brown & Garry McDonald & Morag Ayers & Robert Kipp & Wendy Saunders, 2017. "Challenges and Opportunities for Economic Evaluation of Disaster Risk Decisions," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-120, June.
    12. Ikefuji, Masako & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Magnus, Jan R. & Muris, Chris, 2015. "Expected utility and catastrophic consumption risk," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 306-312.
    13. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Müller, Fernanda Maria & Moresco, Marlon Ruoso, 2020. "On a robust risk measurement approach for capital determination errors minimization," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 199-211.
    14. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    15. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Ola Mahmoud, 2016. "Diversification preferences in the theory of choice," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 39(2), pages 143-174, November.
    16. Geiger, Gebhard, 2015. "Risk pricing in a non-expected utility framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 944-948.
    17. Engström, Per & Nordblom, Katarina & Stefánsson, Arnaldur, 2022. "Loss aversion and indifference to tax rates: Evidence from tax filing data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 287-311.
    18. Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2017. "Characterization of acceptance sets for co-monotone risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 147-152.
    19. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    20. Iulia Lupu & Ana Barbara Bobirca & Paul Gabriel Miclaus & Tudor Ciumara, 2020. "Risk Management of Companies Included in the EURO STOXX Sustainability Index. An Investors' Perception," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(55), pages 707-707, August.
    21. Dennis W. Jansen & Liqun Liu, 2022. "Portfolio choice in the model of expected utility with a safety-first component," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(1), pages 187-207, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Catastrophic risk; Disaster risk; Extreme events; Non-expected utility; Risk management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:annopr:v:343:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-024-06259-z. 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.