The development of retrofit prioritization methods is warranted to select infrastructure components for improvement to achieve the greatest resilience gains within monetary, time, and operational constraints. Retrofit prioritization for infrastructure can be based on many metrics contributing to resilience (i.e., social impact due to outage, restoration performance, etc.) Ideally, all metrics and their interactions would be considered concurrently for optimal resilience gains; however, it is challenging and subjective to combine all community resilience considerations together when the metrics have different units. Therefore, it is necessary to compare retrofit prioritization methods considering relevant metrics and ways of identification and begin to integrate two priorities together, such as monetary and social impact concerns. This investigation looks at electric distribution network prioritization from three perspectives: 1) an optimal return-of-investment approach, in terms of spending retrofit and restoration resources to minimize post-event user dissatisfaction, 2) a phenomenological social impact mitigation approach, in the form of reducing household dislocation, to abate extreme post-disaster hardship, and 3) integration of the previous two priorities to investigate paring of the two objectives. The selected high criticality nodes for retrofit are compared between the perspectives at different system levels and local restrictions to understand how the identification frameworks favour differing components across retrofit levels and geographical areas. Understanding the contrasting frameworks' nodal prioritization individually and integratively reveals their respective application in communities with differing data availability and precedencies and enables future work to integrate prioritization perspectives. This study is demonstrated for the electric power distribution network subjected to multi-hazard events (i.e., earthquake and tsunami) in Seaside, Oregon, USA.