Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) protocol was developed nearly two decades ago by Engineers Canada to address the climate risk to the public infrastructure in Canada. The PIEVC protocol is a qualitative risk assessment approach that considers the hazards due to the climate change and their impact on the infrastructure performance over a specified time horizon. More than a hundred assessments to the public infrastructure across Canada were completed using this qualitative approach. As the primary focus on the risk assessment approach is qualitative, the metrics for risk tolerance is set by the asset owners and may vary widely within the same location based on the asset ownership. The qualitative nature of the risk measures also prevents integration of risk assessment results from multiple asset owners in a region for Provincial level risk assessment and investment decisions for disaster preparedness and climate risk reduction.
In contrast, quantitative risk assessment approaches have been adopted for investment decision-making on a variety of public infrastructure components to address extreme events such as seismic hazards within Canada and internationally. Although, the quantitative assessments are resource-intensive and do not have a wide adoption, they are nevertheless recognized to provide a consistent approach for addressing uncertainties, and for risk-informed decision-making of infrastructure investments.
The present study proposes to compare the qualitative risk assessment approach of the PIEVC 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 will be 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 protocol was applied will be selected to demonstrate the comparison.