Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Groundwater for Sustainable Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsd

Research paper

Assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation of green spaces in the T

Rourkela city of Odisha, India
Rabindranath Barik (Assistant Professor)a,∗, Sanjaya Kumar Pattanayak (Associate Professor)b
a
Padmanava College of Engineering, Rourkela, 769002, Odisha, India
b
P.G. Department of Environmental Science, Sambalpur University, Jyoti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768019, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: For the health of the city dwellers the development of green spaces is imperative. Sustenance of such green
Steel city Rourkela spaces is directly controlled by the water quality. Steel City Rourkela in Odisha State of India, lying between
Groundwater 84.54°E longitude and 22.12°N latitude, has green spaces whose existence depends on the groundwater quality.
Green space in city The quality of 25 groundwater samples in the Rourkela city was evaluated for examining their suitability for
Irrigation water quality
irrigation purpose in order to sustain green spaces in the city. The assessment was completed using pH, Electrical
Conductivity, Total Hardness, Sodium Absorption Ratio, Na %, Residual Soluble Carbonate, Residual Sodium
Bicarbonate, Permeability index, Potential Salinity, Magnesium hazard, Magnesium/Calcium ratio, Kelley's ratio
and indices of base exchange. Data plot dispositions on Gibb's diagram indicated that the chemistry of
groundwater of the area is controlled by rock composition. Most of the samples with negative chloro-alkaline
indices values suggested the predominance of chloro-alkaline disequilibrium process in the groundwater system.
Data plot disposition on U.S. Salinity hazard diagram indicates that 11 and 14 samples belong to C2S1 and C1S1,
illustrating medium salinity/low sodium type and low salinity/low sodium type, respectively. There was dif-
ference in the groundwater samples from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup of the region with respect to some
parameters/indices. The spatial variability of the physico-chemical parameters suggests that the groundwater of
Chhend colony, Civil Township, Sector 21, Uditnagar and Bandamunda are most suitable for irrigation, in
contrast to that of Koel Nagar, Shaktinagar, Basanti Colony and northwest part of Jagda-Jhirpani area. With the
surface water scarcity in the region the groundwater at some sites of the city can be used for maintenance of
green spaces.

1. Introduction MacDonald et al., 2010). In cities of arid regions, near-surface

Many cities of the Earth are subjected to gradual congestion and
environmental pollution (Blanco et al., 2009). In some of such cities the
provision of green spaces acts as sink to control the pollution effects on
the region and on the health of the city dwellers. Such green spaces are
of diverse nature, varying in size, vegetal cover, species richness, en-
vironmental quality, closeness to public transport facilities and services
(Fuller and Gaston, 2009; Dahmann et al., 2010; Sister et al., 2010;
Wolch et al., 2014). According to Roy et al. (2012) conserved natural
areas, riparian areas, street trees, parks, sporting fields, greenways and
trails, community gardens, green walls, green alleyways, and ceme-
teries are considered as green spaces.
Green spaces, which are green year-round, play a significant role in
maintaining the environmental quality in arid as well as semi-arid cli-
matic regions (Sengupta and Osgood, 2003; Bark et al., 2009, 2011;
groundwater is frequently depleted, thereby affecting the area covered
with green spaces in such cities (Zektser et al., 2004). Urban vegetation
covers in such climatic zones thrive on precipitation and intermittent
storm water or irrigation. Thus, in cities of arid regions, maintenance of
green space is based on the assessment of the water reserves.
The quality of water affects the quality of soil and thereby impacts
the vegetal cover on it. The chemistry of the groundwater system of a
particular area is supposed to be unique and is believed to be the result
of chemical alterations in the meteoric water while recharging the
system (Back, 1966; Ravikumar and Somashekar, 2011). Salinity is the
most commonly observed problem which is responsible for the loss of
about 10 million hectares of land every year worldwide (Tanji, 1990;
Suresh and Nagesh, 2015). Therefore it is essential to have an effective
management plan for use of both the green space and the irrigation
water. The quality of irrigation water is also important as with the bad

∗
Corresponding author. Padmanava College of Engineering, Rourkela, 769002, Odisha, India.
E-mail addresses: rabindranathbarik@gmail.com (R. Barik), skp.envsu@gmail.com (S.K. Pattanayak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.01.005
Received 9 June 2018; Received in revised form 31 December 2018; Accepted 21 January 2019
Available online 28 January 2019
2352-801X/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak
quality of water supplied for irrigation the soil deteriorates and ulti-
mately the vegetation on it is affected. The irrigation water quality
criteria depend on pH, salinity and permeability as well as specific ion
toxicity like sodium, chloride, boron and miscellaneous effects of ni-
trates and bicarbonates (Ayers and Westcot, 1985).
The rate of indiscriminate exploitation of groundwater has grown in
the Asian countries in the past decade (Ravikumar and Somashekar,
2011). In India, the quantity as well as quality of water available for
irrigation is depending on the geology and climatology of the site, and
at the same time the demands on water use in agriculture, industry and
urbanization processes have increased. The exploitation of groundwater
has led to the lowering of water table and deterioration in water quality
(Prasad et al., 2008). The aberration in the monsoon pattern and in-
crease in impervious urban covers leading to decrease in percolation
rate of surface water have also led to the degradation of groundwater
quality. Therefore, for the development and sustainability of green
spaces in a city, the groundwater quality evaluation is essential.
Rourkela in the state of Odisha, popularly known as steel city of
India, has several green spaces in the form of parks viz. Indira Gandhi
park sector-4, Deer park sector-8, Nehru park in front of Ispat General
Hospital, Sanjivani park at Civil Township, Uditnagar park, Chotha
park near Railway colony, Children park at Chhend, Lugun park at
sector-9, Fitness park at sector-14 and Sona Udyan Fertilizer. The sus-
tainability of these green spaces is dependent on groundwater. Rourkela
city is expanding in different directions with the decadal population
growth rate of 20% (HUDP, 2011). The growth of the city demands for
the development of new green spaces in the Urban, Rurban and Rural
setup of the region and maintenance of existing green spaces for the
wellbeing of the inhabitants. However, in this context no such study has
been conducted and therefore, the present investigation is aimed at
assessing the suitability of groundwater of Rourkela city to be used in
maintaining the green spaces by carrying out groundwater quality as-
sessment for agricultural irrigation in accordance with FAO Irrigation
and drainage protocols.
2. The study area
Rourkela is a city of Sundargarh district of Odisha in India, which
lies at an elevation of 219 m above sea level and is placed around
84.54°E longitude and 22.12°N latitude (Fig. 1). Rourkela is an im-
portant industrial city. The Rourkela city has a geographical spread
over 264.7 km2 and it harbours a human population of more than 4
lakhs. There are iron ore, dolomite and coal belts surrounding the re-
gion. Durgapur hill range bifurcates the city into two parts – Northern
and Southern Clusters. Koel River flows towards west in the north of
Rourkela and confluences with east flowing Sankh River near Vedavyas.
In the downstream of this confluence, the river is named as Brahmani
which has a southward flow in the region. Brahmani river system is one
of the large river systems of the country. With a mega steel plant in the
area and many medium and large scale industries the Rourkela city is
an Industrial Complex. With the monsoon period accounting for greater
than 70% of the total annual rainfall, the average annual rainfall
amounts to 137 cm. The air temperature in the region goes down to 6 °C
during winter (December–January) and rises up to 47 °C during
summer (May). The range for average relative humidity is 35–85%; the
humidity is highest during July. The population density of Rourkela
urban area is about 6696 persons per km2 approximately. There is
variation in land use/land cover pattern within the region. At the ex-
tremes, there are areas in rural sectors and areas that are considered
urban. Between these two extremes there exists a vast geographical
area. For this area, the discrete definitions of “rural and urban” settings
are often blurred and such areas are considered “rurban settings”.
However, Urban, Rurban and Rural setup are unified systems where
people, ideas and materials circulate. The congestion in all these areas
demands for the green spaces for control of environmental pollution.
429
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438
3. Methodology
This study was conducted during March to May, i.e. during Indian
pre-monsoon seasons. Twenty five groundwater samples were collected
from the study area from 25 locations lying in Urban, Rurban and Rural
settings (Fig. 1 and Table 2). The samples were collected from three
types of wells viz. bore wells, tube wells and dug wells. The ground-
water samples were collected after 10 min of flow in case of tube wells
and bore wells. The samples were directly collected in pre-cleaned
polyethylene bottles of 2 L capacity and stored. Electrical conductivity,
pH, temperature and total dissolved solids for the collected samples
were measured in the field immediately after sampling using water
analysis kit. The concentrations of major ions in the water samples were
determined at the laboratory using the standard analytical procedures
described in APHA (2005). The Ion charge Balance Equation and Ion
Balance Error Computation methods (Mathhess, 1982; Domenico and
Schwartz, 1990) were used to check the accuracy of all chemical ana-
lyses. These methods considered the relationship between the total
cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) and the total anions (PO43−, NO3−,
SO42−, CO32−, HCO3− and Cl−) for each groundwater analysis and
calculated the error percent/reaction error/cationic and anionic bal-
ance (E) of samples as
cations anions
E= × 100
cations + anions
where the sum of major cations and anions are expressed in meq/L. The
reaction error of all groundwater samples was less than the accepted
limit of ± 10% (Mathhess, 1982), thus supporting the precision of the
data.
To evaluate the suitability of groundwater for irrigation purpose
different parameters and indices were calculated using the formulae
given by different workers (Table 1). The analysis on the suitability of
the groundwater of the region for irrigation was made by plotting the
sodium-absorption ratio and electrical conductivity data on US Salinity
Laboratory diagram (USSL, 1954) (Fig. 2). To understand the control-
ling mechanism for groundwater chemistry the functional sources of
dissolved chemical constituents viz. precipitation-dominance, rock-
dominance and evaporation dominance were assessed from two distinct
diagrams proposed by Gibbs (1970), where Ratio-I for cations
[(Na + K)/(Na + K + Ca)] and ratio-II for anions [Cl/(Cl + HCO3)]
were plotted against the TDS values (Fig. 4a and b).
4. Results and discussion
Different analysed parameters and calculated indices values are
given in Table 2 and discussed in the following sections.
4.1. pH
The pH value in groundwater is dependent on the carbon dioxi-
de–carbonate–bicarbonate equilibria (Masters and Ela, 2008). The
groundwater contains carbonates of calcium and magnesium at a pH
range of 7.5–8, whilst the water with pH of 8.5 or higher carries ap-
preciable exchangeable sodium. The pH values of the groundwater
samples of the region vary from 6.5 to 7.8 and at five localities the pH
values exceed the threshold limit of 7.5 (Table 2). The ranges of pH
values of water samples from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the
region were 6.5–7.8, 6.7–7.6 and 6.6–7.4, respectively. At this pH levels
the groundwater is suitable for irrigation.
4.2. Electrical conductivity (EC)
The EC value of groundwater samples of the area ranges from 228 to
303 μS/cm (Table 1) suggesting that the water is excellent to good for
irrigation in accordance with the scheme proposed by Wilcox (1955).
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438

Fig. 1. Location map of Rourkela city with sample locations (S1 to S25). Sectors (Sec.) refers to Human Settlements. Sampling Locations: S1: Bore well, Utkalmarg,
Jagda (84° 54′ 32.62’’E, 22°15′37.30’’N), S2: Dug well, Near Nilashaila college, Jagda (84° 54′ 23.31’’E, 22°15′40.78’’N), S3: Dug well, Near Khadan, Jagda (84° 54′
25.89’’E, 22°15′44.85’’N), S4:Dug well, Tunguripalli Basti, Jagda (84° 54′ 35.27’’E, 22°15′36.07’’N), S5:Tube well, Near Jhirpani Market (84° 54′ 03.90’’E,
22°16′06.78’’N), S6:Dug well, Jhirpani (84° 54′ 06.13’’E, 22°16′10.12’’N), S7:Tube well, Jhirpani Basti (84° 54′ 09.25’’E, 22°16′11.25’’N), S8:Dug well, Near Sarna
Chowk, Jagda (84° 54′ 06.28’’E, 22°15′40.97’’N), S9:Dug well, Near DAMITS College, Jagda (84° 54′ 05.10’’E, 22°15′31.34’’N), S10:Dug well, Near MGM School,
Jagda (84° 53′ 58.16’’E, 22°15′28.64’’N), S11:Dug well, Near Pragati School, Jagda (84° 53′ 48.82’’E, 22°15′37.32’’N), S12:Tube well, Koelnagar C-Block (84° 53′
36.89’’E, 22°15′44.10’’N), S13:Bore well, Koelnagar D-Block (84° 53′ 05.15’’E, 22°15′41.47’’N), S14:Bore well, Koelnagar D-Block Basti (84° 53′ 14.60’’E,
22°15′46.47’’N), S15:Dug well, Shaktinagar (84° 53′ 39.62’’E, 22°15′18.97’’N), S16:Dug well, NIT Campus (84° 53′ 49.00’’E, 22°15′02.81’’N), S17:Dug well, Basanti
Colony (84° 50′ 24.43’’E, 22°13′58.25’’N), S18:Tub well, Civil township (84° 49′ 22.31’’E, 22°13′28.92’’N), S19:Dug well, Chhend (84° 49′ 04.21’’E, 22°14′29.33’’N),
S20:Tub well, Uditnagar (84° 50′ 23.17’’E, 22°13′24.53’’N), S21:Dug well, Hamirpur (84° 52′ 19.03’’E, 22°16′04.94’’N), S22:Tub well, Sector-6 (84° 51′ 29.61’’E,
22°14′39.19’’N), S23:Dug well, Sector-2 (84° 53′ 07.43’’E, 22°14′59.55’’N), S24:Tub well, Sector-21 (84° 52′ 49.37’’E, 22°13′57.31’’N), S25:Bore well, RS Colony,
Bandamunda (84° 55′ 21.35’’E, 22°14′36.48’’N).

The ranges of EC values of water samples from Urban, Rurban and
Rural setup in the region were 228–280, 230–277 and 230–303 μS/cm,
respectively. Following UCCC (1974) scheme on degree of restriction
on use based on EC values, the groundwater of the study area belongs to
‘none’ category and therefore suitable for irrigation purpose.
4.3. Salinity index (SI)
Following Handa (1969) the groundwater samples of the region
were grouped into two categories – low (excellent quality) and medium
(good quality) (Table 3I). Most of the samples (60%) belonged to low
salinity category suggesting that the groundwater is of excellent
quality. Since the EC values of water samples from Urban, Rurban and
Rural setup in the region were 228–280, 230–277 and 230–303 μS/cm,
respectively, each set up contained good to excellent quality waters in
terms of salinity level (Table 3I).
4.4. Chlorinity index (CI)
Low salt tolerance crops are generally very sensitive to chloride. All
the groundwater samples of the region were found to be suitable (class
I) for irrigation (Table 3II).The ranges of CI values of water samples
from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region were 0.56–4.65,
0.63–4.65 and 0.63–6.85 meq/L, respectively.
4.5. Total hardness (TH)
The bicarbonate component of the soil indirectly affects the plant
growth. Using this parameter, the groundwater samples of the region
were classified into three different categories viz. soft, moderately hard

430
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438

Table 1
Methodology for determination of different parameters/indices.
Parameters/Index Formula/Range Analyses/parameters used in Authors
the calculation and their
units

Salinity Index Low (0–250 μS/cm), Medium (251–750 μS/cm), High (751–2250 μS/cm), Very Electrical Conductivity (EC) Handa (1969)
High (2151–6000 μS/cm), Extensively High (6001–10,000 μS/cm), Brines weakly (μS/cm)
concentrated (10001–20000 μS/cm), Brines moderately concentrated
(10001–20000 μS/cm), Brines highly concentrated (20001–50000 μS/cm), Brines
extremely highly concentrated (> 100000 μS/cm)
Chlorinity Index(CI) Clsssified into I: Low Saline (< 375 meq/L), II: Moderate Saline (375–700 meq/ Cl− concentration meq/L Handa (1969)
L),III: High saline (700–925 meq/L), IV: Very High Saline (925–1325 meq/L),V:
Unsuitable for irrigation (> 1325 meq/L)
Total Hardness (TH) TH = 2.497 Ca2+ + 4.115 Mg2+ Ca2+, Mg2+ are in meq/L Sawyer and
McCarthy (1967)
Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) Na+ Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ are in Todd (1980)
SAR =
(Ca2 + + Mg2 + ) / 2 meq/L
Percent Sodium (%Na) (Na+) Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+ Richards (1954) and
% Na = × 100
Ca2 + + Mg2 + + Na+ + K + are in meq/L Wilcox (1955)
Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) Na+ Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ are in Todd (1980)
SSP = × 100
Na+ + Ca2 + + Mg2 + meq/L
Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) RSC = (CO32 + HCO3 ) (Ca2 + + Mg2 +) CO32−,HCO3−, Ca2+, Mg2+ US Department of
(epm) Agriculture
Residual Sodium Bicarbonate (RSBC) RSBC = (HCO3 Ca2 +) HCO3−, Ca2+ are in meq/L Gupta and Gupta
(1987)
Permeability Index (PI) (Na+ + HCO3 ) HCO3−,Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ Doneen (1964) and
PI = × 100
(Ca2 + + Mg2 + + Na+ + K +) and K+ are in meq/L Raghunath (1987)
Potential salinity (PS) PS = Cl + SO24
1 Cl− and SO42− are in meq/L Doneen (1962, 1964)
2
Chloro-alkaline index 1 (CAI-1) & CAI-1 = [Cl– (Na + K)]/Cl All concentrations are in Schoeller (1965,
Chloro-alkaline index 2 (CAI-2) to meq/L 1967, 1977)
assess Ion-exchange processes CAI-2 = [Cl– (Na + K)]/(SO4+HCO3+CO3+NO3) All concentrations are in
meq/L
Kelley's index (KI) Na+ Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ are in Kelley (1940, 1951)
KI =
Ca2 + + Mg2 + meq/L and Paliwal (1967)
Magnesium Hazard (MH) (Mg2 +) Ca2+, Mg2+ are in meq/L Paliwal (1972)
MH = × 100
(Ca2 + + Mg2 +)
Mg/Ca ratio (MR) Safe (< 1.5), Moderate (1.5–3) and Unsafe (> 3.0) Mg2+, Ca2+ are in meq/L Michael (1997)

and hard following the scheme of Sawyer and McCarthy (1967)
(Table 3III). The ranges of TH values of water samples from Urban,
Rurban and Rural setup in the region were 63–230, 98–141 and
84–106 mg/L, respectively. Out of 25 groundwater samples, the num-
bers of hard, moderately hard and soft categories were, 3, 19 and 3,
respectively. It appears that major portions of the groundwater of the
region are only moderately hard and therefore suitable for irrigation
purpose.
4.6. Sodium absorption ratio (SAR)
The waters in which sodium deposition is high are not considered
suitable for irrigating the soils because sodium when occurring in
higher concentrations negatively affects the soil characters.
Particularly, the soil permeability is reduced by sodium, which in turn,
inhibits the supply of water to crops. High SAR values indicate the
dominance of sodium over calcium and magnesium considered together
and is effectively used to understand the sodium hazard of high car-
bonate waters. It is a suitable index to estimate the alkali hazard in
irrigation water and effectively suggests whether a particular water
source can be used for irrigation. The groundwater samples of the re-
gion were classified based on SAR values using the scheme proposed by
Todd (1980) and Richards (1954) (Table 3IV). All the groundwater
samples collected in this study have SAR values less than 10 suggesting
that they are grouped into S1 sodium hazard class and are excellent for
irrigation purpose. The ranges of SAR values of water samples from
Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region were 0.44–2.75, 1.19–3.44
and 1.88–5.65, respectively. Thus, SAR values were generally high for
rural samples.
4.7. Salinity hazard
The salinity hazard in irrigation water is determined in terms of
electrical conductivity. Classification of the groundwater samples of the
study area based on salinity hazard presented in Table 3V indicates that
samples are good to excellent. On USSL (1954) diagram 11 data plots
fall on C2S1 field suggesting that this groundwater are medium salinity/
low sodium type. On the contrary, 14 data plots fall on C1S1 indicating
that the groundwater of these locations is low salinity ∼ low sodium
type and is suitable for irrigation of majority of crops and soils where
leaching predominates. Where there is moderate amount of leaching
the medium salinity hazard type (C2) groundwater can be used for ir-
rigation. High conductivity and high SAR values for most of the Rurban
and Rural samples place them in C2eS1 (medium salinity ∼ low so-
dium) field (Fig. 2).
4.8. Percent sodium (%Na)
Methods proposed by Richards (1954) and Wilcox (1955) were used
to classify and understand the basic chemical characteristics of
groundwater since its suitability for irrigation depends on the miner-
alization of water as well as its effects on plants and soil.
In case of sodium rich irrigation water, the clay particles in soil
absorb Na+, displacing the Mg2+ and Ca2+ ions from the lattice. This
replacement of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in soil by Na+ from water affects the
permeability and reduces the internal drainage within the soil.
Therefore, air and water circulations are restricted under wet condi-
tions and when dried such soils become hard (Saleh et al., 1999). Based
on percent Sodium levels the groundwater samples of the region are
classified into excellent, good and permissible categories (Table 3VI).
While only two samples are of excellent category, 8 samples are good

431
 R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak

Table 2
Values of different physicochemical properties and calculated indices/parameters of groundwater samples from Rural- Rurban-Urban set up of Rourkela.
Sample ID Setup pH EC (μS/cm) TH as CaCO3 (mg/L) Cl−(meq/L) SAR Na (%) SSP (%) RSC (epm) RSBC (meq/L) PI (%) PS (meq/L) Index of Base Exchange MH (%) MR KI

CAI-1 CAI-2

S1 Rurban 6.7 277 103 0.71 3.44 56.69 P 69.79 5.10 U 5.90 U 38.37 1.90 −5.14 −0.35 58.74 U 1.42 S 1.49 U
S2 Rural 6.8 264 100 0.71 2.86 46.61 P 61.49 5.95 U 6.71 U 38.52 1.89 −5.41 −0.34 52.80 U 1.11 S 1.17 U
S3 Rural 6.6 278 100 0.82 5.65 57.99 P 95.77 7.40 U 6.86 U 34.84 2.00 −7.40 −0.53 11.25 S 0.12 S 3.31 U
S4 Rural 6.6 303 104 0.96 2.28 46.86 P 55.76 5.61 U 6.85 U 46.84 2.31 −2.10 −0.17 63.24 U 1.72 M 0.92 S
S5 Rurban 6.9 266 104 1.69 2.80 52.62 P 62.13 3.84 U 5.04 U 38.93 3.12 −1.08 −0.19 61.19 U 1.57 M 1.15 U
S6 Rural 7.3 301 104 1.55 2.37 45.81 P 53.57 2.64 U 4.10 S 35.01 3.28 −1.17 −0.19 61.32 U 1.58 M 0.92 S
S7 Rural 7.4 278 106 1.83 2.19 43.47 P 48.10 3.43 U 5.00 U 37.28 3.60 −0.72 −0.12 62.24 U 1.64 M 0.81 S
S8 Rurban 6.9 230 98 0.63 1.19 28.60 G 33.62 2.86 U 4.60 S 43.23 2.13 −2.15 −0.14 62.24 U 1.64 M 0.44 S
S9 Rural 6.8 230 100 0.63 1.88 42.27 P 52.56 3.00 U 4.57 S 42.58 1.88 −2.87 −0.21 68.18 U 2.14 M 0.75 S
S10 Rural 6.8 248 92 0.85 2.14 46.31 P 56.52 3.49 U 4.90 S 44.36 2.09 −2.15 −0.20 62.24 U 1.64 M 0.88 S
S11 Rural 6.7 240 84 0.85 2.46 47.71 P 62.51 3.04 U 4.68 S 38.58 2.35 −2.93 −0.27 68.73 U 2.19 M 1.03 U
S12 Urban 6.6 240 84 0.79 0.48 19.99 E 38.03 0.30 G 1.20 S 63.93 2.14 0.34 0.06 53.13 U 1.13 S 0.26 S

432
S13 Urban 6.7 232 86 0.75 0.44 18.38 E 34.22 0.21 G 1.25 S 61.28 2.10 0.32 0.05 56.49 U 1.29 S 0.23 S
S14 Urban 6.6 244 84 0.56 0.49 20.93 G 41.38 0.43 G 1.25 S 68.25 2.17 0.10 0.01 52.36 U 1.09 S 0.27 S
S15 Urban 6.5 232 128 1.18 0.78 23.06 G 37.92 2.49 D 4.70 S 56.79 2.68 −0.005 0.00 76.07 U 3.18 U 0.32 S
S16 Urban 7.4 228 63 1.78 2.75 55.09 P 74.81 3.42 U 4.32 S 47.93 3.70 −0.67 −0.13 47.55 S 0.90 S 1.41 U
S17 Urban 7.8 280 74 6.85 2.46 49.93 P 67.43 4.28 U 5.06 U 47.83 7.29 0.56 0.49 51.20 U 1.04 S 1.16 U
S18 Urban 7.8 230 155 3.89 1.68 33.82 G 32.32 0.62 G 2.42 S 30.41 5.74 0.24 0.10 37.29 S 0.59 S 0.54 S
S19 Urban 7.5 250 230 0.85 1.87 41.64 P 51.48 1.37 D 2.26 S 36.88 2.35 −1.96 −0.22 41.40 S 0.70 S 0.76 S
S20 Urban 7.8 244 72 3.61 1.15 23.52 G 23.27 −1.94 G 3.07 S 23.61 3.97 0.36 0.21 80.47 U 4.12 U 0.32 S
S21 Rural 7.2 232 98 1.33 1.79 45.26 P 65.87 3.04 U 3.93 S 55.39 2.78 −0.47 −0.08 62.24 U 1.64 M 0.89 S
S22 Urban 7.6 248 125 1.35 1.83 44.73 P 72.76 2.64 U 4.45 S 51.46 3.07 −0.55 −0.09 81.93 U 4.53 U 0.87 S
S23 Urban 6.9 248 115 1.24 1.26 30.62 G 37.15 2.25 D 3.97 S 44.62 1.50 −0.61 −0.12 51.97 U 1.08 S 0.49 S
S24 Urban 7.4 262 173 0.71 1.39 30.73 G 29.25 0.93 G 3.47 S 34.45 1.55 −2.26 −0.22 56.10 U 1.27 S 0.46 S
S25 Rurban 7.6 255 141 4.65 1.69 37.25 G 39.03 2.67 U 3.75 S 38.93 4.84 0.47 −0.35 42.29 S 0.73 S 0.61 S

Electrical conductivity (EC): < 700 μS/cm Category ‘None’; Total Hardness (TH): Soft (< 75 mg/L), Moderately Hard (75–150 mg/L), Hard (150–300 mg/L); Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR): Excellent (< 10); Residual
Sodium Carbonate (RSC) (< 1.25), Doubtful (1.25–2.50): Unsuitable (> 2.50); Na%: Doubtful (60–80%); Permissible (40–60%), Good(20–40%), Excellent (< 20%); Residual Sodium Bicarbonate (RSBC): Unsatisfactory
(> 5 mg/L), Satisfactory (< 5 mg/L); Chloro Alkaline Index (CAI-1): ve value\(indirect base exchange reaction); Magnesium Hazard (MH): Unsuitable (> 50%), Suitable (< 50%); Magnesium/Calcium ratio (MR): Safe
(< 1.5), Moderate (1.5–3), Unsafe (> 3); Kelley's Index (KI): Suitable (< 1), Unsuitable (> 1).
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak
Fig. 2. Data plot disposition for 25 samples from Rourkela on US salinity hazard diagram of Richards (1954). C1 to C4: Conductivity Classes; S1 to S4: Sodium
absorption classes. Filled Circles: Samples from Urban area, Open Squares: Samples from Rurban area, Open Triangles: Samples from Rural area.
and 15 samples are of permissible category. The ranges of %Na values
of water samples from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region
were 18.38–55.09, 28.60–56.69 and 42.27–57.99%, respectively. Thus,
%Na is generally high for groundwater of Rural setup. Moreover, the
data plots disposition on Percent sodium vs. EC diagram of Wilcox
(1955) (Fig. 3a) suggests that the groundwater samples are excellent to
good in nature and therefore suitable for irrigation.
4.9. Soluble sodium percentage (SSP)
The soluble sodium percentage (SSP) values for the groundwater
samples of the region range from 23.27 to 95.77 (Table 2) suggesting
that the water quality is excellent to good categories for the purpose of
agricultural use. The ranges of SSP values of water samples from Urban,
Rurban and Rural setup in the region were 23.27–74.81, 33.62–69.79
and 48.10–95.75, respectively. Thus the Rural waters have high SSP
values.
4.10. Residual sodium carbonate (RSC)
The excess concentration of CO3−2 and HCO3− in groundwater
433
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438
considered together over the sum of Ca+2 and Mg+2 also determines
the usability of groundwater for irrigation purpose. In groundwater
with high concentrations of HCO3−, the Ca+2 and Mg+2 ions tend to
precipitate. Sodium bicarbonate and carbonate, when present in excess,
affect the physical properties of soils. These ions together cause dis-
solution of organic matter in the soil and result in black stain when the
soil surface is dried. US Department of Agriculture has proposed that
water with more than 2.50epm of Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) is
unsuitable for irrigation. In the study region, 16 groundwater samples
showed RSC values greater than 2.50epm. These high RSC values sug-
gest that the concentration of dissolved Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions were less
compared to CO32− and HCO3− ions, thus making the water unsuitable
for irrigation. The ranges of RSC values of water samples from Urban,
Rurban and Rural setup in the region were −1.94 to 4.28, 2.67–5.10
and 2.64–7.40 epm, respectively. The study indicates that 64% of the
groundwater samples of the regions are unsuitable, while 6 samples
(24%) have good and 3 samples (12%) have doubtful status with regard
to RSC (Table 3VII). In particular, the Rurban and Rural samples are
unsuitable with regard to RSC.
 Table 3
Classification and Quality of groundwater samples using different schemes.
I. Classification of collected groundwater samples using electrical conductivity (EC) (Handa, 1969)

EC (μS/cm) Salinity level EC Range (No. of samples) % of total samples

0–250 Low (Excellent quality) 228–250(15 samples) 60

251–750 Medium (Good quality) 255–303 (10 samples) 40
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak

No sample fall in classes for which EC values are > 751

II. Classification of collected groundwater samples based on Chlorinity index (CI)

Chlorinity Index(mg/L) Water Class Category CI Range (No. of samples) % of total samples

< 375 I Low Saline 22.5–243(25) 100

No sample fall in classes II, III, IV and V for which EC values are > 375

III. Classification of collected groundwater samples based on total hardness (TH) as CaCO3 (Sawyer and McCarthy, 1967)

TH (mg/L) Category TH Range (No. of samples) % of total samples

< 75 Soft 63–74 (3 samples) 12

75–150 moderately hard 84–141 (19 samples) 76
150–300 Hard 155–230 (3 samples) 12
No sample fall in very hard category for which TH > 300 mg/L

IV. Quality of collected groundwater samples based on SAR values using the scheme of Todd (1980) and Richards (1954) and its comparison with the USSL classification based sodium hazard classes

Class of SAR value Category SAR Range (Number of samples) Sodium hazard class

434
< 10 Excellent 0.44–5.65(all samples) S1
No Sample falls in S2, S3, S4 and S5 categories for which SAR value is > 10

V. Classification of collected groundwater samples into different salinity hazard classes

Hazard Class Quality EC in (μS/cm) Range (Number of samples) % of total samples

C1 Excellent 100–250 228–248(14 samples) 56

C2 Good 250–750 250–303(11 samples) 44
No Sample falls in C3, C4 and C5 for which EC value is > 750 μS/cm

VI. Classification of collected groundwater samples based on Sodium percent (Wilcox, 1955)

Category with Sodium (%) Na % (Number of samples) % of total samples

Excellent: < 20 18.38–19.99 (2 Samples) 8

Good: 20–40 20.93–30.73 (8 samples) 32
Permissible: 40–60 41.64–57.99 (15 samples) 60
No sample falls in doubtful and unsuitable category for which Na% is > 60

VII. Quality of the collected groundwater samples based on Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) (Richards, 1954).

Category with RSC (epm) Range (Number of samples) % of total samples

Good: < 1.25 (−1.94) to (0.93) (6 samples) 24

Doubtful: 1.25–2.50 1.37–2.25 (3samples) 12
Unsuitable: > 2.50 2.64 to 7.40 (16 samples) 64

(continued on next page)

Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438

4.11. Residual sodium bicarbonate (RSBC)

Residual Sodium Bicarbonate (RSBC) values for the groundwater

samples varied from 1.20 to 6.86 meq/L (Table 2). The ranges of RSBC
% of total samples

values of water samples from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the
region were 1.20–5.06, 3.75–5.90 and 3.93–6.86 meq/L, respectively.
The groundwater samples from 7 locations (28%) were unsuitable with
RSBC values ≥ 5 meq/L. However, in 72% of the studied region (18
52
36
12

locations) the groundwater was suitable in regard to RSBC.

4.12. Permeability index (PI)

Long-term irrigation affects the permeability of the soil due to

presence of Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and HCO3− ions in water. Therefore, the
Permeability Index (PI) values can be effectively used to determine the
suitability of groundwater to be used for irrigation purpose. Because of
low level of permeability of the soil the supply of water to crops is
reduced and this affects the cropping process through crusting of
seedbeds, water logging of surface soil and accompanying disease,
salinity, weed, oxygen and nutritional problems (Michael, 1997). The
PI is used to classify waters into three classes – I, II and III (Fig. 3b). The
permeability index values of the groundwater samples of the region
ranged from 23.61% to 68.25%. The ranges of PI values of water
samples from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region were
23.61–68.25, 38.37–43.23 and 35.01–55.39%, respectively. The data
plots fall in classes I and II of Doneen's chart suggesting that the
groundwater of the region is good (Fig. 3b).

4.13. Potential salinity (PS)

0.12–1.42 (13 samples)
1.57–2.19 (09 samples)
3.18–4.53 (03 samples)
Range (No. of samples)

The suitability of water for irrigation is independent of the level of

soluble salts in it (Doneen, 1962, 1964). In successive stages of irriga-
tion, the low soluble salts are accumulated in the soil, and the presence
of highly soluble salts increase the salinity of the soil. The Potential
Salinity (PS) of the groundwater samples of the study region varied
from 1.50 to 7.29 (Table 2). The ranges of PS values of water samples
from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region were 1.50–7.29,
VIII. Classification of collected groundwater samples into different category based on residual Mg/Ca ratio

1.90–4.84 and 1.88–3.60 meq/L, respectively.

4.14. Ion-exchange processes

It is crucial to understand the changes taking place in the chemical

composition of groundwater during flow (Johnson, 1979; Sastri, 1994).
The chloro-alkaline indices CAI-1 and CAI-2, suggested by Schoeller
(1965, 1967 and 1977) have established that these indices indicate ion-
exchange between the groundwater and its host environment during
residence or travel in the subsurface. In case of exchange of Na+ and
K+ ions of water by Mg2+and Ca2+ ions, the indices become positive
indicating direct base-exchange reaction or chloro-alkaline equilibrium.
On the other hand, in the reverse exchange reaction the index value
becomes negative attesting to chloro-alkaline disequilibrium process.
The calculated chloro-alkaline indices values for 72% of the
groundwater samples of the region were negative suggesting indirect
Base Exchange reaction (Table 2). On the contrary, 28% of the samples
showed positive chloro-alkaline indices values suggesting that they had
direct Base Exchange reaction. The ranges of EC values of water sam-
Category with residual Mg/Ca ratio

ples from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region were CAI-1:
2.63–0.56, −5.14 to 0.47 and −5.41 to 7.40, and CAI-2: 0.35–0.49,
−0.35-(−0.14),−0.53-(−0.08), respectively. During base-exchange
reaction the host rocks act as the primary sources of dissolved solids.
Table 3 (continued)

Schoeller's indices (CAI-1 and CAI-2) of the groundwater samples

Moderate: 1.5–3.0

revealed that cation–anion exchange (i.e. chloro-alkaline equilibrium)

Unsafe: > 3.0

present only at 7 sites and at 18 sites the values were negative. In terms
Safe: < 1.5

of the base exchange reaction groundwater is classified into two types

(Handa, 1979) viz. i) base-exchange-softened water where the alkaline
earths have been exchanged for Na+ ions (HCO3− > Ca2++Mg2+)

435
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438

Fig. 3. Data plot disposition for 25 samples from Rourkela on (a) Percent sodium vs. EC plot of Wilcox (1955), (b) Doneen (1964) chart of permeability index. Filled
Circles: Samples from Urban area, Open Squares: Samples from Rurban area, Open Triangles: Samples from Rural area.

Fig. 4. Data plot disposition for 25 samples from Rourkela on (a) Gibbs (1970) variation diagram TDS vs. (Na + K)/(Na + K + Ca), (b) Gibbs (1970) variation
diagram TDS vs. [Cl/(Cl + HCO3)]. Filled Circles: Samples from Urban area, Open Squares: Samples from Rurban area, Open Triangles: Samples from Rural area.

and ii) base-exchange hardened water where the Na+ ions have been
exchanged for the alkaline earths (Ca2++Mg2+ > HCO3−). In the
study region, the HCO3− ions concentration in the groundwater is re-
latively higher than that of alkaline earths. This indicates the base ex-
change-softened the nature of the groundwater of the area.
4.15. Kelley's index (KI)
The KI index is same as Exchangeable sodium ratio (ESR) proposed
by U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954). The Kelley's index (KI) value of
groundwater greater than one suggests that the water has Na in excess
of Ca and Mg. Therefore, the water to be suitable for irrigation should
have KI value < 1. The KI values in the study region varied from 0.23

436
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak
to 3.31 and eighteen (72%) groundwater samples are considered sui-
table for irrigation (Table 2). The ranges of KI values of water samples
from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region were 0.26–1.41,
0.44–1.49 and 0.81–3.31, respectively.
4.16. Magnesium hazard (MH)
Calcium and magnesium remain in an equilibrium state in water;
however, these ions do not exhibit similar behavior in soil. Sodium-
dominated, highly saline water, if rich in magnesium, affects the soil
structure. The exchangeable Na+ in irrigated soils controls the level of
Mg2+ in it. High level of Mg2+ concentration in water makes the soil
alkaline, which adversely affects the crop yields. When the Magnesium
Hazard (MH) value of water is > 50%, the crop yield is affected ad-
versely because the soils become more alkaline. The MH values of
groundwater samples of the region varied from 11.25% to 81.93%. Out
of the 25 groundwater samples, 5 samples had MH index values below
50%, suggesting their suitability, while 20 samples fall in the unsuitable
category with MH more than 50% suggesting that this water will have
adverse effect on crop yield (Table 2). The ranges of MH values of water
samples from Urban, Rurban and Rural setup in the region were
37.29–81.93, 42.29–62.24 and 11.25–68.73%, respectively.
4.17. Magnesium/calcium ratio (MR)
Irrigation water having higher magnesium concentration than cal-
cium is likely to decrease soil productivity. The Mg/Ca ratio classifies
water it into three categories for the purpose of irrigation – safe,
moderate and unsafe. In the study region, 13, 9 and 3 groundwater
samples belong to the safe, moderate and unsafe category, respectively
(Table 3VIII). The ranges of MR values of water samples from Urban,
Rurban and Rural setup in the region were 0.59–4.53, 0.73–1.64 and
0.12–2.14, respectively.
4.18. Controlling mechanisms for groundwater chemistry
The data plots disposition on the Gibbs diagram (Fig. 4a and b)
suggests that the chemical composition of the groundwater in the re-
gion is affected by dissolution of minerals in rocks by circulating
groundwater. The groundwater of the region is suitable for irrigation in
terms of their pH, EC, SI, CI, TH, SAR, SH, %Na, SSP, PI and PS
(Table 4). Majority of the samples are suitable in terms of RSBC and KI
Table 4
Suitability of the groundwater samples for irrigation purpose in terms of different parameters.
Parameters
pH
Electrical Conductivity (EC)
Salinity Index (SI)
Chlorinity Index (CI)
Total Hardness (TH)
Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR)
Salinity Hazard (SH)
Percent Sodium (%Na)
Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP)
Residual sodium carbonate (RSC)
Residual Sodium Bicarbonate (RSBC)
Permeability index (PI)
Potential Salinity (PS)
Kelley's Ratio (KI)
Magnesium Hazard (MH)
Magnesium/Calcium ratio
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438
values but unsuitable in terms of RSC values for irrigation. While most
of the samples are unsuitable for irrigation in terms of MH values, the
Magnesium/Calcium ratio values suggest that only 50% of the samples
are unsuitable.
The spatial variability in the values of physico-chemical parameters
of groundwater samples indicates that the groundwater of i) Chhend
colony, Civil township, Sector 21, Uditnagar and Bandamunda are most
suitable for irrigation, ii) Koel Nagar and Shaktinagar area are moder-
ately suitable and iii) Basanti Colony and northwest of Jagda-Jhirpani
area are least suitable. Thus, there is ample scope for the use of
groundwater for the development of green spaces of Rourkela city.
5. Conclusions
Green space development is imperative for the maintenance of the
microclimatic set up in cities. With the decline in quantity and quality
of surface water in city areas it is essential to tap the groundwater for
the sustenance of green spaces in cities. However, suitability assessment
of the groundwater available at different locales of the city for irriga-
tion purpose is essential. Single water quality index value is not gen-
erally useful for this purpose. It is essential to examine different para-
meters/indices values such as pH, electrical conductivity, total
hardness, sodium absorption ratio, sodium percentage, residual soluble
carbonate, residual sodium bicarbonate, permeability index, potential
salinity, magnesium hazard, Mg/Ca ratio, Kelly's ratio, indices of base-
exchange as well as US salinity, Wilcox (1955), Doneen (1964) and
Gibbs (1970) diagrams to meaningfully conclude that the ground water
of a particular region can be suitably used for irrigation of green spaces.
Since the city development takes place with the fringe growth, such
investigations must be carried out in the urban and its associated
Rurban and Rural setup. This approach tested in the Rourkela city in
India, can be used as a model for sustainable urban planning in the
context of green development in developing countries.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Head, Department of Environmental
Sciences, Sambalpur University and NIT, Rourkela for providing la-
boratory facility for analysis of the groundwater samples. RB is thankful
to the Director, Padmanava College of Engineering, Rourkela for pro-
viding him official permission to carry out this research work. The
authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their critical
Suitability of groundwater for Irrigation purpose
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
Suitable: samples viz. S12, S13, S14, S18, S19, S24
Unsuitable: 19 samples viz. S1 to S11, S15,S16,S17,S20,S21,S22,S23,S25
Suitable: 18 samples viz. S6,S8 to S16, S18 to S25
Unsuitable: 7 samples viz. S1, S2, S3, S4,S5, S7,S17
All samples Suitable
All samples Suitable
Suitable 18 samples viz. S4,S6,S7 to S10, S12 to S15, S18 to S25
Unsuitable 7 samples viz. S1, S2, S3, S5, S11, S16, S17
Suitable 5 samples viz. S3, S16, S18, S19, S25
Unsuitable 20 samples viz. S1, S2, S4 to S15, S17, S20 to S24
Suitable 13 samples viz. S4 to S11,S15, S20 to S22
Unsuitable 12 samples viz.S1,S2,S3,S12,S13,S14,S16,S17,S18,S19,S23,S24,S25
437
R. Barik and S.K. Pattanayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 8 (2019) 428–438

comments on early version of the manuscript which helped improve its Mathhess, G., 1982. The Properties of Ground Water, first ed. John Wiley and Sons, New
presentation and clarity. This paper also immensely benefited from York, pp. 406.
Masters, G.M., Ela, W.P., 2008. Environmental Engineering and Science. PHI Learning
review by Professor Prosun Bhattacharya. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, pp. 708.
Michael, A.M., 1997. Irrigation Theory and Practice. Vikash Publishing house, New Delhi,
Appendix A. Supplementary data pp. 801.
Paliwal, K.V., 1967. Effect of gypsum application on the quality of irrigation waters.
Madras Agric. J. 59, 646–647.
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https:// Paliwal, K.V., 1972. Irrigation with saline water. In: Monogram No. 2 (New Series). IARI,
doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.01.005. New Delhi, pp. 198.
Prasad, R.K., Mondal, N.C., Banerjee, P., Nandakumar, M.V., Singh, V.S., 2008.
Deciphering potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the application of GIS.
References J.Environ. Geol. 55, 467–475.
Raghunath, H.M., 1987. Groundwater. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi, pp. 563.
Ravikumar, P., Somashekar, R., 2011. Geochemistry of groundwater, markandeya river
APHA, 2005. Standard Method for Examination of Water and Wastewater, twenty-first
basin, belgaum district, Karnataka state, India, Chin. J. Geochem. 30, 051–074.
ed.. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C, pp. 541.
Richards, L.A., 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils. In: U.S.
Ayers, R.S., Westcot, D.W., 1985. Water quality for agriculture. In: FAO Irrigation and
Department of Agriculture Hand Book. U.S. Salinity Laboratory, pp. 60.
Drainage 1. U. N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, pp. 97 Paper No. 29.
Roy, S., Byrne, J., Pickering, C., 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree
Back, W., 1966. Hydrochemical facies and groundwater flow pattern in northern part of
benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones.
Atlantic Coastal Plain. US Geol, pp. 42 Survey Professional Paper no. 498A.
Urban For. Urban Green. 4 (11), 351–363.
Bark, R.H., Osgood, D.E., Colby, B.G., Halper, E.B., 2011. How do home buyers value
Saleh, A., Al-Ruwaih, F., Shehata, M., 1999. Hydrogeochemical processes operating
different types of green space? J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 36 (2), 395–415.
within the main aquifers of Kuwait. J. Arid Environ. 42, 195–209.
Bark, R.H., Osgood, D.E., Colby, B.G., Katz, G., Stromberg, J., 2009. Habitat preservation
Sastri, J.C.V., 1994. Groundwater chemical quality in river basins, hydrogeochemical
and restoration: do home buyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecol. Econ. 68
modeling. In: Lecture Notes-Refresher Course. School of Earth Sciences,
(5), 1465–1475.
Bharathidasan Univ., Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, India.
Blanco, H., Alberti, M., Forsyth, A., Krizek, K.J., Rodriguez, D.A., Talen, E., Ellis, C., 2009.
Sawyer, G.N., McCarthy, D.I., 1967. Chemistry of Sanitary Engineers, second ed. McGraw
Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: emerging research agendas in planning. Prog.
Hill, New York, pp. 518.
Plann. 71 (4), 153–205.
Schoeller, H., 1965. Qualitative evaluation of groundwater resources. In: Schoeller, H.
Dahmann, N., Wolch, J., Joassart-Marcelli, P., Reynolds, K., Jerrett, M., 2010. The active
(Ed.), Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigations and Development. The
city? disparities in provision of urban public recreation resources. Health Place 16
UNESCO, Paris, pp. 54–83.
(3), 431–445.
Schoeller, H., 1967. Qualitative evaluation of ground water resources. In: Schoeller, H.
Domenico, P.A., Schwartz, F.W., 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. Wiley, New
(Ed.), Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigation and Development,
York, pp. 410.
Water Resource Series No. 33. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 44–52.
Doneen, L.D., 1962. The influence of crop and soil on percolating water. In: Proceedings
Schoeller, H., 1977. Geochemistry of groundwater. In: In: Brown, R.H., Konoplyantsev,
of the Biennial Conference on Ground Water Recharge, pp. 156–163.
A.A., Ineson, J., Kovalevsky, V.S. (Eds.), Groundwater Studies: An International
Doneen, L.D., 1964. Notes on water quality in agriculture. In: Water Science and
Guide for Research and Practice 15. UNESCO, Paris, Chap, pp. 1–18.
Engineering, Paper 4001. Dept. of Water, Science and Engineering, Univ. of
Sengupta, S., Osgood, D.E., 2003. The value of remoteness: a hedonic estimation of
California, Davis, USA.
ranchette prices. Ecol. Econ. 44 (1), 91–103.
Fuller, R.A., Gaston, K.J., 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities.
Sister, C., Wolch, J., Wilson, J., 2010. Got green? Addressing environmental justice in
Biol. Lett. 5 (3), 352–355.
park provision. GeoJournal 75 (3), 229–248.
Gibbs, R.J., 1970. Mechanism controlling world water chemistry. Science 170,
Suresh, K.R., Nagesh, M.A., 2015. Experimental studies on effect of water and soil quality
1088–1090.
on crop yield. International conference on water resources, coastal and ocean en-
Gupta, S.K., Gupta, I.C., 1987. Management of Saline Soils and Water. Oxford and IBM
gineering (ICWRCOE 2015). Aquat. Procedia 4, 1235–1242.
Publ. Co., New Delhi, India, pp. 399.
Tanji, K.K., 1990. Agricultural salinity assessment and management. In: American Society
Handa, B.K., 1969. Description and classification of media for hydro-geochemical in-
of Civil Engineers. 71. pp. 19 Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice.
vestigations. In: Symp. On Ground Water Studies in Arid and Semiarid Regions,
Todd, D.K., 1980. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, pp. 535.
Roorkee, India.
UCCC, 1974. University of California Committee of Consultants Guidelines for
Handa, B.K., 1979. Groundwater pollution in India. In: Proceedings of National
Interpretations of water Quality for Irrigation. Technical Bulletin, University of
Symposium on Hydrology. IAHS, Publ. Univ, Roorkee, India, pp. 34–49.
California Committee of Consultants, California, USA, pp. 20–28.
HUDP, 2011. Rourkela Municipality: City Sanitation Plan. Housing and Urban
USSL, 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In: USDA, Handbook
Development Department, Government of India, pp. 108.
60. pp. 147.
Johnson, C.C., 1979. Land application of water – an accident waiting to happen.
Wilcox, L.V., 1955. In: Classification and Use of Irrigation Waters 969. US Department of
Groundwater 17, 69–72.
Agriculture, Washington DC, pp. 19 Circular.
Kelley, W.P., 1940. Permissible composition and concentration of irrigation waters. Proc.
Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and en-
ASCE 66, 607.
vironmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban
Kelley, W.P., 1951. Alkali Soils – Their Formation, Properties and Reclamation. Reinhold,
Plann. 125, 234–244.
New York, pp. 176.
Zektser, S., Loaiciga, H.A., Wolf, J.T., 2004. Environmental impacts of groundwater
MacDonald, D.H., Crossman, N.D., Mahmoudi, P., Taylor, L.O., Summers, D.M., Boxall,
overdraft: selected case studies in the southwestern United States. Environ. Geol. 47
P.C., 2010. The value of public and private green spaces under water restrictions.
(3), 396–404.
Landsc. Urban Plann. 95 (4), 192–200.

438