Ajay Bhave

Robustness analysis can support the design and operation of large‐scale water infrastructure projects confronting deeply uncertain futures. However, diverse actors, contextual specificities, sectoral interests, and risk attitudes make it difficult to identify an appropriate robustness metric to rank decision alternatives under deep uncertainty. Here, we clarify how methodological choices affect robustness evaluation using the multi‐actor, multi‐sector Inchampalli‐Nagarjuna Sagar water transfer megaproject in Southern India. We compare a suite of water transfer strategies discovered using evolutionary multi‐objective direct policy search (EMODPS), a strategy proposed by regional authorities and the status quo of no water transfer. We stress‐test these strategies across scenarios that capture climatic and socioeconomic uncertainties and rank them using robustness metrics representing sectoral perspectives and priorities of different actors with varying risk attitudes. Results show a considerable impact of metric choices on robustness rankings of strategies, with compromise solution discovered via EMODPS as robust. The no‐transfer strategy results in the worst water supply robustness with an average volumetric deficit of 17% of total historical demands but emerges as a robust alternative for 6 out of 12 combinations of actor‐sectors with high risk aversion. Also, changes in the amplitude of the Indian Summer Monsoon is identified as the most important uncertain factor determining the failure of strategies. Our findings highlight that the selection of robust solutions should be guided by an understanding of how assumed risk attitudes shape stakeholders' perceptions of vulnerabilities. These findings are generalizable to large infrastructure projects with diverse stakeholders and multisectoral impacts.