Four Decades of Ganga Rejuvenation: Evidence, Outcomes, and Road Ahead
Résumé fourni par la source
ABSTRACT The Ganga River has undergone four decades of successive restoration efforts, from the Ganga Action Plan (GAP‐I, 1985) through the ongoing Namami Gange Mission (2014–present). This review synthesizes scientific and policy literature from 1985 to 2025, examining pollution sources, water quality dynamics, and institutional performance. Municipal sewage remains the principal pollution source (~70% of total pollution load); however, treatment capacity has expanded markedly from 1192 MLD in 2011 to over 8200 MLD today. Industrial pollution management has also improved through real‐time monitoring of > 2800 grossly polluting industries and enhanced regulatory compliance. These interventions have resulted in improved water quality, including reductions in BOD at 43 monitoring locations, improved DO at 32 locations, and reduced fecal coliform levels at 25 locations (up to September 2023). A performance assessment using a six‐dimensional composite scoring framework reveals that the Namami Gange program achieved an effectiveness score of 7.8/10, compared to a 3.2/10 score for the National Ganga River Basin Authority, reflecting improvements in financial management, real‐time monitoring, and ecological focus. Nevertheless, future river restoration progress can be accelerated by strengthening sewerage connectivity, sludge management, advanced monitoring systems, enhanced ecological conservation, and environmental flow management to secure the long‐term sustainability and resilience of the Ganga river.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Four Decades of Ganga Rejuvenation: Evidence, Outcomes, and Road Ahead
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2026
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.