Urban water utilities sit at the junction of several systems: rivers and aquifers, treatment plants, buried distribution networks, energy supplies, public institutions and the communities that depend on them. A drought can reduce the volume of water entering a system, while extreme heat increases demand and worsens water-quality problems. A flood can overwhelm treatment facilities, damage electrical equipment and introduce pathogens into source waters. An aging pipeline can fail during an extreme event, disrupting supply, creating contamination pathways and imposing unexpected repair costs. The consequences can then spread into public health, political confidence and household finances. In this context, risk is not simply the probability of a hazard; it is the likelihood that a hazard, vulnerability and exposure will combine to interrupt service or cause harm.

The review was conducted using a structured screening process aligned with PRISMA guidelines. The researchers searched Google Scholar, OpenAlex, Web of Science and major scientific publishers for studies addressing risk assessment, risk management or vulnerability within real urban water utilities and defined case-study areas. From an initial pool of 2,180 articles, they selected 62 that contained enough methodological and contextual information to classify the type of risk, the analytical approach and the geographic setting. Studies focused only on agriculture, desalination, water sampling, generalized scenarios, conference proceedings or broad public-health questions were excluded. The result was not a new risk model, but a map of how the field currently thinks about urban water danger—and where that thinking remains incomplete.

Water demand and water quality dominated the research landscape. The review identified 42 studies focused on water-demand challenges, including supply–demand imbalances associated with population growth, urban expansion and climate change. Water quality appeared in 38 studies, reflecting concerns about contamination, pollution, inadequate treatment and the safety of drinking water. Infrastructure and governance, by comparison, appeared in 22 studies. This imbalance matters because the physical performance of a water network is inseparable from the institutions that finance, operate and regulate it. A utility may know that a pipe is approaching failure, for example, but still lack the funding, legal authority or political support needed to replace it before a crisis occurs.

The geographic distribution of the literature revealed further differences. China contributed 11 of the reviewed case studies and Iran six, while other regions were less visible in the peer-reviewed record. The authors caution that this pattern may reflect differences in publication practices rather than a simple difference in risk. In some countries, assessments are carried out by utilities, engineering firms or government agencies and remain in technical reports rather than academic journals. Across Asia and the Middle East, studies more often emphasized water demand and quality, consistent with rapid urbanization and severe water stress. Research from Europe, North America and Australia placed greater emphasis on aging infrastructure, resilience and adaptive management. Africa and South America were represented by fewer studies, many of which focused on operational reliability and water quality.

The researchers also examined how urban conditions shaped the risks being studied. Large cities with more than five million residents and mid-sized cities with one to five million people accounted for most of the reviewed cases. Plain terrains were associated most often with water-demand and water-quality concerns, while mountainous and mixed landscapes showed a more balanced range of challenges. Temperate climates formed the largest climatic category in the sample, although water demand and quality remained prominent across tropical, dry and continental settings. Economic strength did not eliminate risk: higher-income countries recorded substantial numbers of water-demand, quality and infrastructure-governance problems. The finding suggests that wealth can expand a utility’s capacity to respond, but it cannot by itself remove the underlying pressures created by growth, climate variability and complex infrastructure.

Six broad families of risk-analysis methods appeared in the studies. Probabilistic and simulation-based methods, including Monte Carlo simulations, stochastic models and agent-based models, were the most common, appearing in 17 studies. These tools represent uncertainty by assigning probabilities to events or system states and then exploring many possible futures. They can estimate the likelihood of shortages, pipe failures or infrastructure breakdowns under different climate and demand scenarios, but they usually require extensive historical data, monitoring networks and computing resources. Logic- and tree-based techniques, such as fault-tree analysis, event-tree analysis, bow-tie analysis and failure-mode and effects analysis, map how combinations of failures can produce an undesirable outcome. They are transparent and useful for tracing failure pathways, but depend heavily on expert judgment and predefined assumptions.

Fuzzy-logic methods appeared in 12 studies and were especially useful where information was incomplete or expressed in qualitative terms, such as “high vulnerability” or “moderate contamination risk.” Instead of forcing uncertain inputs into precise yes-or-no categories, fuzzy systems assign degrees of membership to overlapping categories. This can help utilities incorporate expert knowledge when reliable measurements are scarce, although subjective parameter choices can make results difficult to reproduce. Multi-criteria decision analysis, used in 13 studies, helps compare options that have competing costs and benefits. A utility might use it to weigh technical reliability against financial feasibility, environmental effects and public acceptance. Integrated and hybrid frameworks combine several of these techniques, while environmental index models provide relatively simple tools for mapping hazards and vulnerability. No method is universally superior; the appropriate choice depends on the risk, the data available and the decisions a utility must make.

Hybrid approaches accounted for 58.1 percent of the reviewed studies, demonstrating the field’s growing preference for combining numerical analysis with expert judgment and decision-support tools. Quantitative-only methods represented 29.0 percent, while qualitative approaches accounted for 12.9 percent. The pattern reflects a central reality of urban water management: utilities must make high-stakes decisions even when evidence is incomplete, uncertain or distributed across different institutions. Yet the review found that many studies still examine one issue at a time. Natural hazards may be analyzed independently from operational failures, and technical vulnerability may be calculated without considering financial constraints, governance disputes or public response. The authors describe this as a major weakness because real-world disruptions often cascade across domains. A flood can damage infrastructure, degrade water quality, increase treatment costs, reduce revenue and trigger political pressure simultaneously.

Perhaps the most striking gap emerged between research recommendations and their use in practice. The review contacted the corresponding authors of all 62 studies to determine whether proposed methods or recommendations had been adopted by utilities and whether outcomes had been evaluated. Only nine authors responded, a response rate of 14.5 percent. Although 49 studies reported practical outcomes, documented evidence of implementation and long-term evaluation was scarce. Academic–industry collaborations showed a stronger implementation focus than academic-only studies, but the analysis did not find statistically significant links between authorship type, funding source and research outcome. Public funding was the most common source, appearing in 34 studies, while private funding was reported in only one. The authors stress that the small sample and limited responses prevent firm causal conclusions, but the message is clear: a method can look impressive on paper and still remain untested in the utility control room.

The review points toward a new generation of urban water governance built around dynamic risk assessment. Smart sensors could provide continuous measurements of pressure, flow and water quality; geographic information systems could connect those data to terrain, land use and infrastructure maps; machine-learning models could identify patterns that precede failures; and shared data platforms could allow utilities, regulators and researchers to work from the same evidence. These tools would not replace engineering judgment or public decision-making. Instead, they could help utilities update risk estimates as conditions change, test adaptation pathways and act before a crisis becomes visible to the public. The authors also call for stronger attention to demand-side management, resource recovery, financial viability, regulatory constraints and stakeholder participation—factors that determine whether a technically sound solution can actually be sustained.

Examples from London, Valencia and Mar del Plata show how research can support practical planning when institutions work together. Adaptation pathways can help utilities compare staged responses to uncertain climate futures rather than committing prematurely to a single infrastructure project. Climate-informed, stakeholder-driven assessments can connect scientific projections with operational experience and public priorities. Hazard indices can help protect groundwater wells from contamination by identifying vulnerable areas and potential pollution sources. But such successes remain exceptions rather than the norm. The authors argue that future studies should report not only the risk score or recommended intervention, but also whether the recommendation was adopted, how it performed, what it cost and whether it remained effective over time. For cities facing a more crowded, hotter and less predictable world, resilience will depend not on predicting every failure, but on building water systems capable of learning, adapting and recovering when prediction falls short.

Aquatic ecosystems around the world are approaching a diagnostic crisis. Rivers, lakes, wetlands, and connected watersheds are being reshaped by climate change, urban expansion, agricultural runoff, dams, pollution, and increasingly extreme floods and droughts. Yet many assessments still examine water chemistry, aquatic organisms, or physical habitat as separate pieces of evidence. A new review published in Water & Ecology argues that this fragmented approach can miss the deeper processes driving ecosystem decline—and may prevent scientists and policymakers from recognizing collapse before it becomes difficult or impossible to reverse.

Led by Qiuwen Chen of the Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, the research team proposes that watershed aquatic ecosystem health should be understood as a dynamic social–ecological property rather than as a score produced by adding together isolated indicators. In this view, a healthy river system is not simply one with acceptable nutrient concentrations or a high number of species. It is a system whose hydrology, chemistry, organisms, habitats, human uses, institutions, and ecological processes continue to interact in ways that support resilience. The authors describe this perspective as process-based because it focuses not only on the condition of an ecosystem at a particular moment, but also on how that condition is produced and how it may change in the future.

“The main problem is fragmented diagnosis,” Chen says. “We track chemistry, species loss, and physical damage separately, yet none of these snapshots can reveal why the system is failing or where it is heading. We must treat the watershed as a coupled social–ecological system.” That distinction is important because environmental damage often emerges through interactions that cannot be detected by a single measurement. For example, altered river flow can change sediment transport, which can reshape habitat, reduce spawning areas, modify oxygen conditions, and favor pollution-tolerant species. At the same time, water withdrawals, land-use decisions, and economic demands may intensify the pressure. An assessment that records only one of these changes can underestimate the system’s overall vulnerability.

To examine how the field has developed, the researchers drew on bibliometric evidence from the Web of Science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure. They reviewed the growth of major assessment frameworks, including the United States Rapid Bioassessment Protocol, the European Union Water Framework Directive, and China’s evolving river-health initiatives. These programs have broadened environmental monitoring by incorporating biological communities, habitat condition, ecological function, and human pressures. However, the review identifies three continuing obstacles. Short-term observations at individual sites often fail to capture processes operating across decades and entire river basins. Scientists still have an incomplete mechanistic understanding of how hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological processes influence one another. And research findings are not consistently translated into decisions about restoration, water allocation, pollution control, or land management.

The authors argue that these challenges reflect a mismatch between the way watersheds function and the way they are commonly studied. Rivers are connected systems: what happens upstream can influence water quality, sediment movement, flood risk, habitat, and public health far downstream. A local improvement may therefore be offset by deterioration elsewhere in the basin, while a restoration project may not succeed if the hydrological or social conditions supporting it remain unchanged. The review brings together three research strands that are often treated separately—biological integrity, habitat structure, and governance. Biological integrity examines whether communities of fish, invertebrates, algae, microbes, and other organisms resemble those expected under relatively healthy conditions. Habitat assessment considers flow, channel form, connectivity, substrate, riparian vegetation, and the availability of refuges. Governance addresses the institutions, policies, economic incentives, and public values that determine how water and land are used. The researchers say that only their integration can move assessment from static reporting toward anticipatory decision-making.

Climate change makes this shift especially urgent because historical environmental baselines are becoming less reliable. Traditional assessments often compare current conditions with a fixed reference state based on past temperature, rainfall, streamflow, or species distributions. But warming temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, altered snowmelt, sea-level rise, and more frequent extreme events mean that the past may no longer provide a stable template for the future. A river that once experienced predictable seasonal flows may now alternate between prolonged low water and intense floods. Under these conditions, ecosystem health must be assessed against non-stationary baselines that recognize changing climate conditions while still distinguishing natural adjustment from damage caused by human activity. This requires longer-term monitoring, better climate–ecology models, and indicators capable of detecting changes in resilience, recovery, and ecological function rather than merely measuring whether a threshold has been crossed.

The review also examines the expanding role of artificial intelligence and remote sensing. Satellites, drones, automated sensors, and high-frequency monitoring stations can generate information across much larger areas and more rapidly than conventional field surveys. Machine-learning systems may help identify patterns in water temperature, turbidity, chlorophyll, vegetation cover, channel change, or biodiversity that would be difficult to detect manually. They may also help predict nonlinear responses, such as sudden oxygen depletion or rapid habitat loss after a flood. But the researchers caution that artificial intelligence cannot replace ecological understanding. A model may accurately recognize a pattern without explaining the mechanism behind it, and a black-box prediction can fail when environmental conditions shift beyond the data used for training. For AI to support reliable watershed management, the authors say, it must be linked to process-based hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological knowledge, with transparent validation and continuous field verification.

Molecular ecology is another technology reshaping the way aquatic ecosystems can be monitored. Environmental DNA, or eDNA, allows researchers to detect genetic material released by organisms into water through skin cells, mucus, scales, feces, pollen, or decomposing tissue. By analyzing these traces, scientists can identify a broad range of species without capturing them individually, including rare, elusive, invasive, or difficult-to-survey organisms. Across large river basins, eDNA could provide a faster picture of biodiversity distribution and reveal biological changes that conventional sampling misses. However, the technique still requires careful interpretation. DNA can be transported by flowing water, persist for different lengths of time under different conditions, or originate from organisms that are present only upstream. Sampling design, laboratory controls, reference databases, and integration with physical observations are therefore essential. The review presents eDNA not as a replacement for ecological surveys, but as a powerful component of a broader monitoring system.

The authors also highlight a major change in restoration philosophy: the growing use of nature-based solutions. Conventional water management has often emphasized engineered structures and pollution treatment, such as channels, barriers, concrete banks, and centralized facilities. These tools can be effective for specific problems, but they may also simplify habitats, disconnect rivers from floodplains, and weaken the ecological processes that allow ecosystems to regulate themselves. Nature-based approaches seek to restore those processes through measures such as wetland protection, floodplain reconnection, riparian vegetation recovery, ecological flow management, and the rebuilding of habitat complexity. Their objective is not merely to create a visually improved landscape, but to recover functions such as nutrient retention, carbon processing, flood buffering, sediment exchange, and biodiversity support. The researchers emphasize that such interventions must be evaluated over time because ecological recovery depends on interactions among flow, organisms, sediment, climate, and human management.

The need for an integrated approach is particularly pronounced in China, where heavily engineered rivers, multiple pollution sources, rapid urbanization, water-resource demands, and climate extremes create difficult trade-offs. Large-scale restoration and digital-twin technologies—virtual representations of physical river systems that combine data, models, and real-time observations—are advancing quickly. Yet Chen and colleagues argue that assessment must move beyond single-objective engineering, in which success is defined by one parameter such as flood control, nutrient reduction, or water supply. “While China has advanced in digital twins and large-scale restoration, assessment must evolve from single-objective engineering to process-oriented governance that coordinates water resources, environments, and ecosystems across entire basins,” Chen explains. A digital model can support that goal only if it represents ecological interactions and social decisions as well as hydraulic conditions.

Ultimately, the review calls for a new definition of aquatic ecosystem health—one that links structure with process, scientific evidence with governance, and upstream protection with downstream well-being. Under this framework, a watershed is healthy when its ecological functions, biological communities, physical habitats, and human institutions can respond to disturbance without losing their essential organization and capacity for recovery. That condition cannot be captured by a single number or by monitoring one location at one point in time. It requires coordinated observations across scales, mechanistic models, molecular and remote-sensing tools, long-term biological records, and decisions that account for both ecological limits and public needs. The authors warn that the future of river management will depend on recognizing that aquatic health is not a biophysical scorecard. It emerges from the continuous interaction of ecology, land use, economics, institutions, and public values.

Subject of Research: Watershed aquatic ecosystem health

Article Title: Challenges and future perspectives on watershed aquatic ecosystem health study

Web References: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wateco.2026.100050

References: The U.S. Rapid Bioassessment Protocol, the European Union Water Framework Directive, and China’s river health assessment initiatives, as discussed in the reviewed article.

Image Credits: Qiuwen Chen, et al.

Keywords: aquatic ecosystems, watershed health, climate change, ecological assessment, social–ecological systems, biological integrity, habitat structure, environmental DNA, artificial intelligence, remote sensing, nature-based solutions, river restoration, water governance

From vast oceans brimming with biodiversity to the humble rivers flowing into them, this research emphasizes the vital role these water bodies play in maintaining ecological balance. Rivers are not mere conduits for freshwater but are crucial in transporting nutrients, sediment, and organisms that sustain marine life. The paper argues that effective management of river systems can significantly impact the health of surrounding oceans. This underlines the necessity for integrated approaches in the conservation of our water resources, urging stakeholders to view rivers and seas as a continuum rather than isolated entities.

Moreover, the research highlights the importance of community engagement in these conservation efforts. The voices of local populations, often the most affected by degradation of water bodies, are invaluable in crafting sustainable practices. This aspect becomes increasingly relevant in discussions surrounding environmental justice, as those living near water bodies often face severe consequences of pollution and mismanagement. Moolna posits that an inclusive approach may not only empower communities but also lead to more sustainable outcomes as diverse stakeholders contribute to the dialogue.

The proposed establishment of a UN Ocean Agency is another focal point of Moolna’s research. This new body would aim to harmonize international efforts to protect oceanic environments. The need for such an agency is underscored by the complex web of treaties and organizations that currently exist, often resulting in fragmented approaches to ocean governance. A centralized body could streamline efforts, enhancing collaboration across nations to tackle issues such as overfishing, habitat destruction, and climate change.

As the paper unfolds, Moolna provides a thorough analysis of the various policies and frameworks currently in place aimed at marine conservation. However, he notes that the effectiveness of these policies is often hindered by a lack of cohesive strategies. This fragmentation can lead to significant gaps in conservation efforts, wherein some areas receive ample protection while others are left vulnerable. By advocating for the creation of a UN Ocean Agency, this research emphasizes the potential for comprehensive policy-making that could address the myriad challenges facing our oceans more effectively.

In examining case studies from around the globe, Moolna illustrates the intricate relationships between river systems and ocean health. Observations reveal that increased pollutant runoff from rivers—stemming from agricultural and industrial activities—directly impacts the oceanic ecosystems these rivers feed into. This relationship highlights the urgency of addressing land-based activities that compromise the integrity of our waters. Moolna’s research presents compelling evidence supporting the notion that protecting rivers is equally crucial for safeguarding ocean health.

Furthermore, a significant portion of the paper discusses innovative technologies and practices that can enhance our understanding and management of water bodies. From satellite monitoring of ocean ecosystems to community-driven initiatives aimed at river clean-ups, the exploration of technological advancements provides a fresh perspective on conservation. Such innovations could bridge the gap between traditional conservation methods and modern technological applications, offering new pathways to tackle long-standing environmental challenges.

Moolna’s conclusions urge for a systemic change in how oceans and rivers are viewed and managed. The interdependency of these vital ecosystems calls for a shift toward more holistic management strategies that recognize their essential linkages. Advocating for integrated river-sea management, the research underscores the necessity for collaborative policy frameworks that embrace the complexity of these environments.

In the broader context of climate change, this research is particularly timely. The impending threats posed by rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and declining biodiversity amplify the need for urgent action. Moolna’s emphasis on establishing a UN Ocean Agency presents a hopeful pathway forward in addressing these pressing threats. By aligning global efforts, the agency could play a pivotal role in conservation, ensuring that the lessons learned through Moolna’s research translate into actionable policies.

As the latitudes of environmental science continue to evolve, Moolna’s findings contribute significantly to ongoing conversations about sustainable practices and effective governance. By spotlighting the interconnectedness of rivers and oceans, this research reinforces the critical role water bodies play in our ecosystems and economies. The potential for collaborative governance models presents a unique opportunity to address complex environmental challenges while providing a framework for sustainability.

In conclusion, Moolna’s research offers a clarion call for immediate action and collaboration among all stakeholders in the quest to protect our oceans. By fostering a dialogue that recognizes the critical interlinkages between rivers and seas, the path towards a more sustainable future may become clearer. The urgency of the topic, when combined with visionary proposals like a UN Ocean Agency, positions this investigation not just as a research paper but as a vital blueprint for the future of ocean conservation.

Subject of Research: Ocean conservation and sustainable practices through the interlinkage of rivers and marine environments.

Article Title: Ocean inspiration for a sustainable future: Rivers to Seas engagement and a UN Ocean Agency?

Article References:

Moolna, A. Ocean inspiration for a sustainable future: Rivers to Seas engagement and a UN Ocean Agency?.
Ambio (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02289-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 29 October 2025

Keywords: Ocean conservation, sustainable practices, rivers, UN Ocean Agency, ecological balance, community engagement, international collaboration, climate change, environmental governance.

The significance of this study lies in its innovative approach to groundwater mapping, which is not solely dependent on traditional hydrogeological methods but integrates advanced geospatial technology. The researchers, led by Parmar K. and Chothodi S., employ GIS for spatial analysis, enabling them to visualize potential groundwater zones with unrivaled accuracy. This method allows for the combination of multiple data layers, including geology, land use, slope, and rainfall, into a unified model that reveals the intricate relationships and influences these factors have on groundwater availability.

The Upper Ken Basin, a relatively under-researched area, presents unique hydrogeological characteristics, making it a suitable case study for this research. The basin’s geographical features, specifically its terrain and sedimentary structures, are crucial for understanding groundwater flow and storage capacities. By analyzing these characteristics through remote sensing techniques, researchers can discern patterns that the naked eye might overlook. As understanding groundwater systems becomes increasingly linked to sustainable development goals, the choice of study area emphasizes the need for innovative solutions tailored to local contexts.

Utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the authors demonstrate a systematic method of prioritizing various factors contributing to groundwater recharge. This multi-criteria decision-making approach considers subjective judgments while providing a structured framework for evaluating the influence of different variables on groundwater potential. By assigning weights to each criterion based on expert input, AHP facilitates a comprehensive analysis that results in a prioritized list of areas most favorable for groundwater exploitation. This not only aids in identification but also ensures that decision-makers can approach groundwater management with greater precision.

Climate variability, particularly changes in precipitation patterns, adds another layer of complexity to groundwater management. The Upper Ken Basin has experienced fluctuations in its hydrological regime, leading to periods of both drought and flooding. Through GIS mapping linked to precipitation data, the research provides insights into how these climatic events further impact groundwater recharge rates. It underscores the critical need for integrated water resource management strategies that take into account the effects of climate change on groundwater systems.

The findings have significant implications for policymakers and local governance structures in Madhya Pradesh. As agriculture remains a primary occupation in the region, the knowledge gained from this study can be instrumental in guiding farmers towards sustainable irrigation practices. By pinpointing areas with high groundwater potential, stakeholders can make informed decisions about where to allocate resources, which in turn can enhance crop yields while promoting water conservation.

In addition to agricultural benefits, this research also holds relevance for urban planning in nearby settlements. As cities expand, the demand for reliable water supplies grows. The ability to accurately map groundwater sources enables urban planners to design infrastructure that effectively incorporates groundwater use, ensuring that growing populations have access to this essential resource. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the importance of collaboration between various sectors, including agriculture, urban planning, and environmental conservation, to achieve holistic water management solutions.

Groundwater not only supports agriculture and drinking water supplies but also has ecological implications. The interconnectedness of surface water and groundwater systems means that any changes to groundwater quality can have cascading effects on local ecosystems. Protecting these vital resources through responsible management practices is essential to maintaining biodiversity and environmental health. The spatial analysis performed in this study serves as a foundational tool for safeguarding these ecological networks from over-extraction and contamination.

As with all research initiatives, the practical implementation of the findings is crucial. The study calls attention to the necessity for ongoing monitoring and data collection in groundwater management processes. Implementing a framework that allows continuous evaluation of groundwater resources can facilitate adaptive management strategies that are responsive to changing environmental conditions. This proactive approach is vital for maintaining sustainable groundwater levels in the face of ongoing climatic challenges.

Moreover, the rise of community engagement in water management discussions is becoming increasingly important. The researchers advocate for involving local populations in decision-making processes, particularly when it comes to identifying critical zones for groundwater use. Empowering communities through education and active participation can enhance the effectiveness of groundwater management strategies. By fostering a collective sense of stewardship, local stakeholders can facilitate sustainable practices that support both present and future generations.

In conclusion, Parmar and Chothodi’s exploration of groundwater potential in the Upper Ken Basin offers an enlightening perspective on the intersection of technology and resource management. Their use of GIS and AHP represents a significant advancement in understanding groundwater resources in complex and dynamic environments. The study not only addresses immediate local needs but also contributes broader insights applicable to global water resource management challenges. As our understanding of groundwater systems evolves, it becomes increasingly clear that innovative solutions, collaboration across sectors, and community involvement will be key to nurturing this precious resource for years to come.

In essence, this research reinforces the critical role of informed decision-making driven by scientific data in the sustainable management of groundwater resources. As the world grapples with the implications of water shortages and environmental change, studies like this serve as vital beacons guiding us towards effective, sustainable practices that ensure the longevity of our aquifers. By embracing technological advancements and fostering collaborative management approaches, societies can harness the full potential of groundwater as a cornerstone resource in our quest for sustainable development and ecological balance.

Subject of Research: Groundwater potential analysis using GIS and AHP in the Upper Ken Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Article Title: Spatial analysis of groundwater potential zone using GIS and AHP: a case study of the Upper Ken Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Article References:

Parmar, K., Chothodi, S. Spatial analysis of groundwater potential zone using GIS and AHP: a case study of the Upper Ken Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-025-36957-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI:

Keywords: Groundwater management, GIS, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Upper Ken Basin, sustainable agriculture, climate change, spatial analysis, water resource management.