ABSTRACT
The present study compared the qualitative risk assessment approach of the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) protocol with the quantitative risk assessment approaches that are adopted in Canadian and International standards for infrastructure elements such as industrial facilities, pipelines, and utilities. The advantages and challenges of both approaches are described along with the feasibility of conducting cost-benefit analyses and optimal life-cycle stage of risk mitigation in the context of climate adaptation with each approach. In particular, the differences in the approaches to address uncertainties arising from climate hazards over the duration of interest, the differentiation of chronic risks from acute risks, and risk measures to address the time-dependency of hazards and vulnerability will be highlighted. A case study in public domain where PIEVC was applied is selected to demonstrate the differences in the expected outcomes of qualitative and quantitative approaches.
