Mapping the Mean Annual River Runoff in the Ukrainian Carpathian Region

22 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2

Mapping the Mean Annual River Runoff in the EREM 76/2 Ukrainian Carpathian Region Journal of Environmental Research, Engineering and Management Vol. 76 / No. 2 / 2020 Received 2018/06 Accepted after revision 2020/06 pp. 22–33 DOI 10.5755/j01.erem.76.2.20916 http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.76.2.20916

Oleksandr Obodovskyi, Olga Lukianets*, Oksana Konovalenko, Valeriy Mykhaylenko Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 2-A, Glushkov Prospekt, Kyiv, SMP680, Ukraine

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

The paper presents the spatial distribution of the mean annual river runoff in the Ukrainian Carpathians in the form of a map. The methodological approaches concerning the river runoff mapping and the technological stages of map creation by applying the geographic information system (GIS) analytical functions are considered. The accuracy assessment of the calculation of the mean annual river runoff water based on the data from the hydrometric stations for the whole observation period was performed. The mapping reliability of the mean annual runoff and their territorial variability over the main basins in the Ukrainian Carpathians are analysed. Keywords: rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians, analytical functions of GIS, spatial distribution, mean annual river runoff, water resources.

Introduction Maps of runoff give not only an idea about the space- map of the mean annual river runoff in the Ukrainian time variability of river runoff distribution over the Carpathians (the basins of Tisza, Prut and Dniester riv- studied area but also the quantitative information on ers), its generalisation for designing the stream power a spatial variability, seasonality and regularity of river hydro-energy potential of rivers, even those unstudied. runoff. Therefore, maps are widely used for hydrolog- Of particular interest are such maps when a river runoff ical studies on the regime of individual rivers or river locating is required from hydrologically unstudied riv- systems, in hydrological modelling and forecasting, as er basins. The obtained results can be used aiming at well as in construction and hydraulic calculations. The elaborating the usage of water resources for designing main purpose of this paper is to present the modern of hydroelectric power plant placement in Ukraine. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2 23

Certain regularities, including both latitudinal and al- The methodology of the mean titudinal zoning, cause a change in the runoff of the annual river runoff mapping territory. Therefore, besides climate, the size, characteristics and specifics of the river drainage basin Since the very beginning, the detailed mapping of all and depth of underground waters are important. For main basins located within the Ukrainian Carpathians example, with all other conditions being equal, two was encompassed based on observational data. basins located at different altitudes will differ in the The majority of maps cover either separate basins runoff volume. The runoff of the river basin at a higher or the ones with long series for mapping the runoff altitude and, normally, with higher precipitation and characteristics. Many scientists have been engaged in lower evaporation will be more abundant (Dogano- mapping the average annual river runoff. The most vskiy et al., 2011). With prolonged long-term obser- significant researches of the past were presented by vations, the value of the average mean annual river Zaykov, Kocherin and Sokolovsky who are recognised1 river runoffdrainage may basin, become the depth unstable of the groundwaterbecause the and considered atmospheric conditions are important to the GIS mapping as the founders of river flow mapping in the 2Soviet technique. period may coincide with the periods of only increased Union (Zaykov et al., 1937; Kocherin, 1932; Sokolovs3 - orCertain only lowerregularities, annual including river runoff. both latitudinal Therefore, and to altitudinalobtain zoning, cause a change in the runoff of the kiy, 1968). Ukrainian scientists applied such method4 territory.- a stable Therefore, value besidesof the climate,mean annual the size, river characteristics runoff, a se and- specifics of the river drainage basin and depth 5 of underground waters are important. For example, with all other conditions being equal, two basins located at ology for developing runoff maps for Ukraine and for ries of a certain length that includes periods of high rivers of the Carpathian region. The special attention6 different altitudes will differ in the runoff volume. The runoff of the river basin at a higher altitude and, 7 normally,and lowwith water higher content precipitation in the andrivers lower is necessary.evaporation will be more abundant (Doganovskiy et al., 2011). was demonstrated by the scientists of the Ukrainian 8 With Toprolonged compare long-term the estimates observations, of the the accuracy value of thedesign average of mean annual river runoff may become unstable Hydrometeorological Institute who created the map of 9 becausethe the mean considered annual period river mayrunoff coincide water with for thedifferent periods riv of- only increased or only lower annual river runoff. the mean annual river runoff as a part of the National10 Therefore, to obtain a stable value of the mean annual river runoff, a series of a certain length that includes ers, the concept of the relative value of the stand- Atlas of Ukraine in 2007 (Paton et al., 2007). This11 mapperiods of high and low water content in the rivers is necessary. ard deviation (SD) is introduced. This is expressed in covered the observation period from 1950 to12 2000. To compare the estimates of the accuracy design of the mean annual river runoff water for different rivers, 13 the conceptequation of the (1): relative value of the standard deviation (SD) is introduced. This is expressed in equation (1): Establishing of the Geographic Information System 14 (GIS) technique allows performing various types of 100Cv  Qn   (1) interpolations that made the issue of GIS mapping of n the river runoff actual. Ukrainian hydrologists 15put the (1) 16 river runoff maps on the GIS platform for the17 entire Where:Where: Cv – coefficientcoefficient of of variation variation of annualof annual mean mean runoff value series for n years. territory of Ukraine (Horbachova, 2010) as well18 as for runoff value series for n years. the individual river basins (Konovalenko et al.,19 2012). UnlikeUnlike thethe values ofof thethe averageaverage SD SD that that characterise characterise the fluctuations of the water runoff of individual 20 rivers, the coefficient of variation allows comparing the runoff of all rivers according to their variability GIS mapping of the runoff features is also the subject the fluctuations of the water runoff of individual riv- 21 (Doganovskiy et al., 2011; Luchsheva, 1976). of study by Russian scientists (Denisova et al., 2009; ers, the coefficient of variation allows comparing the Klimenko, 2009; Melnikova, 2004). As of now, 22the riv- For mapping of the mean annual river runoff, it is necessary to represent the river runoff in a value 23 associatedrunoff with of alla catchment rivers according area-specific to theirdischarge variability (dm 3 · (Dos -1 ·- km - 2) and the depth of runoff (Y, mm) (Ven Te ers runoff maps on a GIS platform have found wide 24 Chowganovskiy et al., 1988; et Klibyshev al., 2011; etLuchsheva al., 1970). , 1976). use in most countries (Mean annual Surface 25Runoff Mapping of hydrological characteristics that do not depend on the size of the catchment area is based on the 1950–2000; Global Data Explorer). 26 assumptionFor mapping of their ofsmooth the mean changes annual over riverthe territoryrunoff, itin isline with the distribution of climate (rainfall, necessary to represent the river runoff in a value as- The rivers runoff is the ultimate result of water27 balevaporation)- and other physical and geographical factors. The feature of mapping the hydrological characteristic 28 lies insociated the fact thatwith the a values catchment illustrated area-specific on the map are discharge attributed not to the point of measurement (as in mapping ance and the main component of the river hydrologi- 29 the climatic(dm 3 · scharacteristic), -1 · km - 2) and but the to depth the entire of runoff catchment (Y, mm) area (Ven as a whole. It depends upon the fact that the water cal regime. It determines their water-bearing and rate 30 river Terunoff Chow as measuredet al., 1988; at the Klibyshev hydrological et al., gauging 1970). section is the mean water runoff from the whole river basin. of water stream-flows (Klibyshev et al., 1970;31 Kom Values- of the depth of water runoff or specific discharge are attributed to conventional points, namely, to the lev, 2002). Changes in climatic (or weather) circum32 centre- Mapping of gravity of (centroid) hydrological of the characteristics river catchment that basin do (Ven not de Te- Chow et al., 1988). stances affect active factors, such as precipitation33 and pendThe mean on the annual size ofriver the runoff catchment maps arearea created is based usually on the for the closed river basins. When drawing a map, evaporation, and the latter, interacting with river34 bathe- riverassumption runoff data of fromtheir smallsmooth catchment changes areas over are the not territory plotted on the map, which means that the annual river 35 runoffin isline largely with determined the distribution by the ofazonal climate factors. (rainfall, What evapis more,- when mapping, the materials of hydrometric sins, largely form river runoff. Therefore, the size36 andobservations along the major rivers that usually flow along from the several geographic areas are neglected. The characteristics of the river drainage basin, the37 depth mean oration) annual river and runoffother forphysical both sm andall andgeographical large river factors.catchment areas may serve only for the control over the of the groundwater and atmospheric conditions38 aremapping The reliabilityfeature of (Doganovskiy mapping the et hydrological al., 2011). characteristic important to the GIS mapping technique. 39 liesThe inmaps the of fact the thatmean the annual values precipitation illustrated and on evaporation the map may also be used for determination of the water 40 balance of the catchment area and accuracy assessment of the mean annual river runoff. 41 Thus, when mapping, the values of the mean annual river runoff are attributed to the centre of gravity of a 42 basin, followed by interpolation between them. The interpolation in mountainous areas is performed taking into 43 account a relief of the terrain and a relationship between the mean annual river runoff and the mean elevation of 44 their catchment areas. At the same time, one can consider other morphometric and hydrographic characteristics. 45 46 Results and Discussion 47 Creating and correspondence with empirical data of the current (contemporary) map of the mean annual 48 river runoff of the Ukrainian Carpathian 49 50 Accuracy assessment determination of the mean annual river runoff 51 52 The map of the mean annual river runoff of the Ukrainian Carpathians was made taking into account the 53 above information. 54 The input data obtained for the mean annual river runoff from the hydrometric stations located on the rivers 55 (within borders of Ukraine) are given in Table 1. To compare the accuracy and reliability of the mean annual 56 river runoff design, the relative SD (%) was calculated using the equation (1) and is presented in Table 1. A 57 series of observations of the average annual flow will be representative if it does not exceed 5%. 58 In general, 89% of the involved hydrometric stations provided the monitoring data for observation periods 59 from 50 to 68, and the rest, from 28 to 35 years. 60 61 Table 1 Accuracy of the mean river runoff determination in the Ukrainian Carpathians 2

24 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2

are attributed not to the point of measurement (as in followed by interpolation between them. The interpola- mapping the climatic characteristic), but to the entire tion in mountainous areas is performed taking into ac- catchment area as a whole. It depends upon the fact count a relief of the terrain and a relationship between that the water river runoff as measured at the hydro- the mean annual river runoff and the mean elevation of logical gauging section is the mean water runoff from their catchment areas. At the same time, one can consid- the whole river basin. Values of the depth of water er other morphometric and hydrographic characteristics. runoff or specific discharge are attributed to conventional points, namely, to the centre of gravity (centroid) of the river catchment basin (Ven Te Chow et al., 1988). Results and Discussion The mean annual river runoff maps are created usually for the closed river basins. When drawing a map, the Creating and correspondence with empirical data river runoff data from small catchment areas are not of the current (contemporary) map of the mean plotted on the map, which means that the annual river annual river runoff of the Ukrainian Carpathian runoff is largely determined by the azonal factors. What is more, when mapping, the materials of hydrometric Accuracy assessment determination of the mean an- observations along the major rivers that usually flow nual river runoff along from the several geographic areas are neglected. The map of the mean annual river runoff of the The mean annual river runoff for both small and large Ukrainian Carpathians was made taking into account river catchment areas may serve only for the control the above information. over the mapping reliability (Doganovskiy et al., 2011). The input data obtained for the mean annual river The maps of the mean annual precipitation and evap- runoff from the hydrometric stations located on the oration may also be used for determination of the rivers (within borders of Ukraine) are given in Table 1. water balance of the catchment area and accuracy To compare the accuracy and reliability of the mean assessment of the mean annual river runoff. annual river runoff design, the relative SD (%) was Thus, when mapping, the values of the mean annual riv- calculated using the equation (1) and is presented er runoff are attributed to the centre of gravity of a basin, in Table 1. A series of observations of the average

Table 1. Accuracy of the mean river runoff determination in the Ukrainian Carpathians 1 -2 2 · km

1 a.s.l. – above sea level Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2 25 1 -2 2 · km

River Hydrological gauge -1 · s 3 Specific of mean standard area km area discharge, discharge, Number of Catchment years under years observation variation, Cν Coefficient of dm Relative valueRelative deviation, σ % of a catchment area, m (a.s.l.) area, Mean elevation Svalyava 680 700 21.7 0.29 51 4.1 Latorytsia Chop 2,870 760 12.5 0.51 55 6.9 Mukacheve 1,360 310 19.5 0.31 66 3.8 Vicha Nelipyno 241 570 27.7 0.27 56 3.6 Stara Znyatsevo 224 300 10.1 0.38 61 4.9 Zhornava 286 670 23.2 0.26 61 3.3 Uzh Zarichne 1,280 560 16.4 0.25 66 3.1 Uzhgorod 1,970 530 14.9 0.27 66 3.3 Turya Simer 464 540 20.0 0.31 56 4.1 The Prut and Siret basins Vorokhta 1,500 41.1 0.27 35 4.6 Tatariv 366 1,200 20.9 0.26 53 3.6 Prut Yaremche 597 990 21.0 0.28 63 3.5 Chernivtsi 6,890 450 10.6 0.29 68 3.5 Kamyanka Dora 19.5 0.38 66 4.7 Chornyava Lyubkivtsi 4.80 0.42 28 7.9 Cheremosh Usteriky 1,500 1,100 18.6 0.25 55 3.4 Bilyi Cheremosh Yablunytsia 552 1,200 17.1 0.38 55 5.1 Chorn. Cheremosh Verkhovyna 657 1,200 21.5 0.37 55 5.0 Iltsya Iltsi 19.4 0.29 53 4.0 Putyla Putyla 181 960 14.2 0.34 49 4.9 Siret Storozhynets 672 590 9.90 0.39 60 5,0 The Dniester basin Strilky 384 620 13.6 0.26 55 3,5 Dniester Sambir 850 570 13.1 0.4 67 4,9 Matkiv 106 860 26.8 0.26 58 3,4 Stryi Zavadivka 740 780 21.1 0.2 51 2,8 Slavska Slavske 76.3 860 24.4 0.24 59 3,1 Svyatoslav 204 860 17.9 0.4 68 4,9 Orava Yasenytsia 20.4 0.18 30 3,3 Stryi Verkh. Synevydne 2,400 760 17.6 0.27 62 3,4 Opir Skole 733 820 18.8 0.27 56 3,6 Myslivka 201 1,200 27.1 0.29 58 3,8 Svicha Zarichne 1,280 730 19.7 0.38 59 4,9 Sukel Tysiv 138 770 22.6 0.52 54 7,1 Luzhanka Goshiv 146 660 16.5 0.36 64 4,5 Osmoloda 203 1,200 33.9 0.2 56 2,7 Limnytsya Perevozets 1,490 760 15.2 0.43 59 5,6 Chechva Spas 269 820 18.7 0.32 57 4,2 Bystrytsia- Pasichna 482 1,000 22.2 0.52 56 6,9 Nadvirnyanska Cherniyiv 679 16.0 0.33 29 6,1 Vorona Tysmenytsia 657 7.40 0.41 51 5,7 Bystrytsia – Guta 112 1,100 28.0 0.3 64 3,8 Solotvynska Ivano-Frankivsk 777 13.6 0.39 29 7,2

Luzhanka Goshiv 146 660 16.5 0.36 64 4,5

LuzhankaLimnytsya GoshivOsmoloda 146203 1,200 660 33.916.5 0.20.36 5664 2,74,5 Perevozets 1,490 760 15.2 0.43 59 5,6 Luzhanka Goshiv Limnytsya 146 Osmoloda 660 16.5 2030.36 1,20064 4,533.9 0.2 56 2,7 Chechva Spas 269 820 18.7 0.32 57 4,2 Limnytsya Osmoloda 203 Perevozets 1,200 33.9 1,4900.2 56 760 2,715.2 0.43 59 5,6 Bystrytsia- Pasichna 482 1,000 22.2 0.52 56 6,9 Luzhanka GoshivPerevozets Chechva 146 1,490 Spas 660 760 16.515.2 2690.360.43 6459 820 5,64,518.7 0.32 57 4,2 Nadvirnyanska Cherniyiv 679 16.0 0.33 29 6,1 LimnytsyaChechva OsmolodaSpas Bystrytsia-203269 Pasichna 1,200 820 33.918.7 4820.320.2 1,0005657 4,22,722.2 0.52 56 6,9 Vorona Tysmenytsia 657 7.40 0.41 51 5,7 Luzhanka Goshiv Bystrytsia-146 PerevozetsPasichna 660 Nadvirnyanska16.5 1,4904820.36 Cherniyiv 76064 1,000 4,515.222.2 6790.430.52 5956 6,95,616.0 0.33 29 6,1 Bystrytsia – Guta 112 1,100 28.0 0.3 64 3,8 Limnytsya Osmoloda ChechvaNadvirnyanska 203 Spas 1,200Cherniyiv 33.9 2696790.2 82056 2,718.716.0 0.320.33 5729 6,14,2 VoronaSolotvynska TysmenytsiaIvano-Frankivsk 657 777 13.67.40 0.390.41 2951 7,25,7 Perevozets Bystrytsia-Vorona 1,490 PasichnaTysmenytsia 760 Bystrytsia 15.2 482 – 6570.43 Guta 1,00059 5,622.27.40 1120.520.41 1,1005651 5,76,928.0 0.3 64 3,8 Nadvirnyanska 1 LuzhankaChechva GoshivSpas Bystrytsia146269 – CherniyivGuta 660 820 Solotvynska16.518.7 6790.36112 0.32 Ivano-Frankivsk6457 1,100 4,54,216.0 28.0 7770.330.3 2964 3,86,113.6 0.39 29 7,2 Bystrytsia- Pasichna VoronaSolotvynska 482 Tysmenytsia 1,000Ivano-Frankivsk 2 22.2 Analysis 657 7770.52 of relative56 values (σ6,97.40)13.6 of the mean0.410.39 river runoff5129 demonstrated7,25,7 their variation mostly from 2.6 to 5% Limnytsya Osmoloda 203 1,200 1 3 33.9(Table 1). 0.2Their greatest56 values (up2,7 to ± 7.9%) are inherent to hydrometric stations on those rivers that have a Nadvirnyanska Cherniyiv 1Bystrytsia –679 Guta 16.0 1120.33 1,10029 6,128.0 0.3 64 3,8 Perevozets 1,490 760 2 4 15.2relativelyAnalysis 0.43short of relativeseries59 of valueswater runoff(σ5,6) of observations.the mean river The runoff average demonstrated relative values their of variation SD for the mostly mean fromannual 2.6 river to 5% 2Solotvynska Analysis of relative values (σ) of the mean river runoff demonstrated their variation mostly from 2.6 to 5% ChechvaVorona SpasTysmenytsia 269 657 Ivano-Frankivsk 820 3 5 (Table 18.77.40 runoff 1). over 777 Their0.320.41 the greatest entire5751 territory values (upof4,25,713.6 theto ±Ukrainian 7.9%)0.39 are Carpathians inherent29 to is hydrometric equal7,2 to 4.2%, stations corresponding on those torivers the thatabsolute have a 26 3 (Table 1).Environmental Their greatest Research, values Engineering (up to and ± Management7.9%) are inherent to hydrometric2020/76/2 stations on those rivers that have a Bystrytsia – Guta 1 112 1,100 4 6 relatively28.0deviation short of0.3 specific series ofdischarge64 water runoff ± 0.853,8 observations. dm 3 · s -1 · km The - 2 average relative values of SD for the mean annual river Bystrytsia- Pasichna 4 relatively482 short series 1,000 of water runoff22.2 observations.0.52 The56 average relative6,9 values of SD for the mean annual river Solotvynska Ivano-Frankivsk2 Analysis 777 of relative values5 7 ( σrunoff) of13.6 the overThus, mean 0.39the the river entireaccuracy runoff 29territory ofdemonstrated the ofcalculation 7,2the Ukrainian their of variationthe meanCarpathians mostlyannual riverfromis equal runoff2.6 toto of5%4.2%, the Ukrainian corresponding Carpathians to the is absolute high Nadvirnyanska Cherniyiv 5 runoff 679over the entire territory of16.0 the Ukrainian0.33 Carpathians29 is equal6,1 to 4.2%, corresponding to the absolute 1 3 (Table 1). Their greatest values6 8 (updeviation toand ± the 7.9%) ofdata specific areobtained inherent discharge are reliableto hydrometric ± 0.85 for practical dm 3stations · s use.-1 · km on - those2 rivers that have a Vorona Tysmenytsiaannual flow 6 willdeviation be representative 657 of specific ifdischarge it does not ±7.40 0.85ex- dmThus, 3 ·0.41 s the-1 · kmaccuracy - 251 of the calculation5,7 of the mean an- 2 Analysis of relative values4 (relativelyσ) of the meanshort seriesriver runoff of water demonstrated7 runoff9 observations.Thus, Thetheir the coefficientvariation accuracy The mostlyaverage variation of the from relative calculationCv 2.6of tovaluesthe 5% meanof ofthe SD annualmean for annualtheriver mean runoff river annual runoffthroughout river of the the Ukrainian Ukrainian Carpathians Carpathians is ishigh Bystrytsia – Gutaceed 5%. 7 Thus,112 the accuracy 1,100 of the calculation28.0 nual of0.3 riverthe mean runoff64 annual of the riverUkrainian3,8 runoff Carpathians of the Ukrainian is high Carpathians is high 3 (Table 1). Their greatest values5 (uprunoff to ±over 7.9%) the are entire inherent territory to8 10 hydrometric of and thevarying theUkrainian data stations from obtained 0.18Carpathians on tothose are 0.52. reliable rivers Theis equal lowest forthat practical tohave variability 4.2%, a use. corresponding ( Cv = 0.18 ÷ 0.30)to the is absoluteinherent to the rivers with a high specific Solotvynska Ivano-Frankivsk8 and the 777 data obtained are reliable 13.6for practical 3and 0.39 -1the use. data - 2obtained29 are reliable7,2 for practical use. 4 relatively short series ofIn water general,6 runoffdeviation 89% observations. of the of involvedspecific The hydrometricdischarge average11 ± relativestations 0.85discharge dm values · s fromof· kmSD 20 for to the38 meandm 3 · annuals -1 · km river - 2, and the largest (Cv = 0.30 ÷ 0.52) is inherent to the rivers with the 9 The coefficient variation9 Cv ofThe the coefficientmean annual variation river runoffCv of throughout the mean theannual Ukrainian river runoffCarpathians throughout is the Ukrainian Carpathians is 1 provided the monitoring data for observation periods The coefficient variation C of the3 mean-1 annual- 2 river 5 runoff over the entire territory7 of theThus, Ukrainian the accuracy Carpathians of 10the is12 calculation equalvaryingmean to 4.2%, annualfromof the 0.18corresponding runoffmean to from0.52.annual 5The to riverto 20 lowestthev dmrunoff absolute ·variability s of· thekm Ukrainian .( Cv = 0.18 Carpathians ÷ 0.30) is inherentis high to the rivers with a high specific 2 Analysis of relative values10 (σ ) ofvarying the mean3 from-1 river 0.18 -runoff 2 to 0.52. demonstrated The lowest theirvariability variation (Cv =mostly 0.18 ÷ from 0.30) 2.6 is inherent to 5% to the rivers with a high specific 6 deviation of specific dischargefrom8 50 to±and 68,0.85 andthe dm datathe · rest, sobtained · from km 28 are to reliable 35 years.13 for practicalSuchrunoff use. spatial throughout changes the in 3Ukrainian the-1 mean Carpathians- 2annual river is varrunoff- and their coefficient variation are caused by the 3 (Table 1). Their greatest values11 (up todischarge ± 7.9%) fromare inherent 20 to 38 11to dm hydrometric 3 ·discharge s -1 · km -stations 2from, and 20the on tolargest those 38 dm rivers(Cv ·= s 0.30 that· km ÷have 0.52) , aand is inherentthe largest to the(Cv rivers= 0.30 with ÷ 0.52) the is inherent to the rivers with the 7 Thus, the accuracy of 9the calculationThe ofcoefficient the mean variation annual 14riverCv ofrunoffaltitude the ofmeanying position the from Ukrainianannual of0.18 catchment river to Carpathians 0.52. runoff basins The throughoutlowest3 and is high -1slopes variability -theof 2 their Ukrainian (C surfacev = (Fig.1–2).Carpathians is 4 relatively short series ofAnalysis water runoff12 of relative meanobservations. values annual (σ) runoff Theof the averagefrom mean12 5 to riverrelative 20mean dmrun -3values annual· s -1 · kmof runoff SD - 2. for from the 5 mean to 20 annualdm · sriver · km . 8 and the data obtained are reliable10 varyingfor practical from use.0.18 to 0.52. The15 lowest variability 0.18 ÷ 0.30)( = is 0.18 inherent ÷ 0.30) to the is inherentrivers with to a the high rivers spe- with a high specific off demonstrated13 theirSuch variation spatial mostlychanges from13 in 2.6 the to mean5%Such annual spatial Cvriver changes runoff in and the their mean coefficient annual rivervariation runoff are and caused their by coefficient the variation are caused by the 5 runoff over the entire territory of the Ukrainian Carpathians 3is equal-1 to- 24.2%,cific discharge corresponding from 20 to to the38 dm absolute 3 · s -1 · km- 2, and the 9 The coefficient variation(Table11 1).14Cv Theirdischarge of greatest altitudethe 3 meanfrom valuesposition-1 20annual (up to -of 2 to38 catchment ±river 7.9%)dm14 runoff ·are s basins inheraltitude· kmthroughout- and ,position slopesand thethe of of largesttheir Ukrainiancatchment surface (Cv = Carpathians basins(Fig.1–2). 0.30 ÷and 0.52) slopes is is inherent of their surfaceto the rivers(Fig.1–2). with the 6 deviation of specific discharge ± 0.85 dm · s · km 3 -1 largest- 2 (C = 0.30 0.52) is inherent to the rivers with 10 varying from 0.18 to 0.52.ent12 toThe hydrometric15 lowestmean annualvariability stations runoff on (Cv those from= 0.18 rivers 5 to15÷ 0.30)that20 dm have is ·inherent as · km to the. v rivers ÷with a high specific 7 Thus, the accuracy of the3 calculation-1 - 2 of the mean annual river runoff ofthe the mean Ukrainian annual runoffCarpathians from 5 tois 20high dm 3 · s -1 · km- 2. 118 anddischarge the data from obtained 20 to are 38relatively reliable dm13 · shorts for · practical kmseriesSuch , ofandspatial wateruse. the runoff changeslargest observations. ( Cvin =the 0.30 mean The÷ 0.52) annual is inherentriver runoff to the and rivers their with coefficient the variation are caused by the 12 mean annual runoff fromaverage 514 to 20 relative altitudedm 3 ·values s position-1 · km of SD- 2 of. for catchment the mean annualbasins rivand- slopesSuch ofspatial their changes surface in(Fig.1–2). the mean annual river runoff 9 The coefficient variationCv of the mean annual river runoff throughout the Ukrainian Carpathians is 13 Such spatial changeser runoff15 in the over mean the entireannual territory river runoffof the Ukrainian and their Car -coefficientand their variation coefficient are variation caused are by caused the by the alti- 10 varying from 0.18 to 0.52. The lowest variability (Cv = 0.18 ÷ 0.30) is inherent to the rivers with a high specific 14 altitude position of catchmentpathians basins is equal and to 4.2%,slopes corresponding of their surface to the (Fig.1–2). absolute tude position of catchment basins and slopes of their 11 discharge from 20 to 38 dm 3 · s -1 · km - 2, and the largest (Cv = 0.30 ÷ 0.52) is inherent to the rivers with the 15 deviation of specific discharge ± 0.85dm 3 · s -1 · km - 2. surface (Fig.1–2). 12 mean annual runoff from 5 to 20 dm 3 · s -1 · km - 2. 13 Such spatial changes in the mean annual river runoff and their coefficient variation are caused by the 14 altitude position of catchmentFig. 1. basinsRelationship and of slopesthe specific of discharge their surface water in the(Fig.1–2). rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians with the mean altitude of catchment basins 15

16 17 18 16 19 Fig. 1 Relationship of the specific discharge water in the rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians with the mean 17 16 20 altitude of catchment basins 18 17 21 19 Fig. 1 Relationship of18 the specific discharge water in the rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians with the mean 16 20 altitude of catchment19 Fig. basins 1 Relationship of the specific discharge water in the rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians with the mean 17 21 20 altitude of catchment basins 16 18 21 17 19 Fig. 1 Relationship of the specific discharge water in the rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians with the mean 18 20 altitude of catchment basins 19 Fig. 1 Relationship of 21the specific discharge water in the rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians with the mean 1620 altitude of catchmentFig. 2. Relationship basins between the mean altitude of the river catchment areas in the Carpathian region and their mean slopes 1721 18 19 Fig. 1 Relationship of the specific discharge water in the rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathians with the mean 20 altitude of catchment basins 21

22 23 24 22 25 Fig. 2 Relationship between the mean altitude of the river catchment areas in the Carpathian region and 23 26 their mean slopes 24 22 25 Fig. 2 Relationship between23 the mean altitude of the river catchment areas in the Carpathian4 region and 26 their mean slopes24 22 25 Fig. 2 Relationship between4 the mean altitude of the river catchment areas in the Carpathian region and 23 26 their mean slopes 22 24 23 25 Fig. 2 Relationship between the mean altitude of the river catchment areas in the Carpathian4 region and 24 26 their mean slopes 25 Fig. 2 Relationship between the mean altitude of the river catchment areas in the Carpathian region and 4 2226 their mean slopes 23 4 24

25 Fig. 2 Relationship between the mean altitude of the river catchment areas in the Carpathian region and 26 their mean slopes 4

Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2 27

Relationship between the mean annual river runoff and The orientation of river runoff contour lines should the mean altitude of their catchment basins, as well as conform to the general geographic trends in changes the mean altitude and their mean inclination, are de- of hydrological characteristics, topography, climate tailed for the Tisza river basin, the mountain part of and other physical and geographical features of the the rivers Prut and Siret within the Ukrainian territory territory (Klimenko, 2009). and the right-bank mountain tributaries of the Dniester Considering all above-mentioned approaches allowed (Fig.1–2). The value of interdependence between the two us to provide the river runoff mapping of the Carpathi- variates is high. The correlation coefficients are within an region with the resulting provision that foresees r = 0.78 ÷ 0.92. Overall, a clear increase of the specific several following stages: discharge water is observed with a rising catchment ba- _ Basic/preparatory. At this stage, one should as- sin mean altitude (Fig. 1), and the higher the catchment sess the completeness of hydrological data, erform basins, the greater their mean slopes (Fig. 2). calculations of mean annual runoff characteristics, Each river basin has its characteristics of the river create the necessary preparatory shape-files that runoff power and intensity. The largest mean annual would contain basic information about hydrogra- river runoff of the Tisza basin and the lowest of the phy, hydrological gauges, relief, precipitation, and Prut and Siret river basins have the same average al- the steepness of slopes. titude of the catchment area. The Dniester catchment _ Modelling of river basins. At this stage, it is ex- basins occupy a middle position (Fig. 1). The differ- pected to outline the catchment contours along the ences between the river runoff at a certain altitude for rivers, as well as by hydrological gauges. Based the river basins are approximately 5.0 dm3·s-1·km-2. on such modelling, the new shape-files are creat- As to the relationship between the mean altitude of ed: contours of catchment basins, and centroids of catchment basins of the Carpathian rivers and their catchment basins. mean slope, at all altitudes in the Tisza basin, there _ Selecting the methods of interpolation and design- are the largest mean slopes of catchment basins, as ing the contours lines. compared with the Prut and Siret river basins and also It is necessary to evaluate the results of interpolation with the right-bank tributaries of the Dniester river. methods and to choose the one among them in order All the identified regularities are taken into account to describe correctly the runoff distribution over the for the spatial generalisation of the mean annual river territory. As a result, the new shape-file is created: runoff. contour lines of the mean annual rivers runoff. At the basic preparatory stage of the mean annual riv- Algorithm for mapping of the mean annual river er runoff mapping in the Ukrainian Carpathians, some runoff and its reliability assessment significant difficulties, associated with a lack of con- Analysis of comprehensive hydrological and car- trol points, came into existence. To execute the relia- tographic information is necessary for the runoff ble map, it is essential to get data from all the basin mapping by the means of GIS since the density and parts, and even from those outside Ukraine. So, the uniformity of point distribution, as well as an ade- evidence from 94 gauging stations in Ukraine (22 in quate preliminary data, are essential to compile the the Tisza basin, 61 in the Dniester basin, 11 in the Prut basis of an electronic map. The need for GIS involve- and Siret basins) and outside of Ukraine (5 in Slovakia, ment (Andrianov, 2003; Kashchavtseva et al., 2011) 6 in Hungary, and 4 in Romania in the Tisza basin; 4 in is explained by the validity of all received results and Romania in the Prut and Siret basins; and 8 in Poland efficiency when settling many hydrological problems. in the river San basin) were used for mapping of the The software application ArcGIS10, the most common mean annual river runoff. software product for GIS mapping, was used in the A necessary condition for runoff mapping is the de- work for implementing such tasks (Spatial Analyst termination of the catchment area for each gauging Tutorial ESRI, 2010). station. The definition of catchment basin contours is 28 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2

executed by the algorithm, which provides process- method is based on the weighted averaged values and ing of digital relief models (SRTM HydroSHEDS; 83 m, was used in our studies. Based on the interpolation 1:50000–1:100000) by hydrological modelling func- method, the contours lines of the mean annual river tions that are built into the Spatial Analyst-Hydrology runoff are created by the contour function. This func- modulus (Glotka, 2014). tion allows drawing the contour lines for the mean an- To create a map of hydrological characteristics, the nual runoff for the whole set of data, and the interval centre of gravity or centroids of catchment basins of runoff values between them prescribes the distance should be determined (Shevchuk et al., 2014). The between the contour lines. The resulting map is rele- software application ArcGIS and its interpolation vant and the most comprehensive and contemporary method “Natural neighbour” were used at mapping the for the rivers in the Carpathian region (Fig. 3). spatial distribution of the mean annual river runoff for As a result of analysis of the created map of the mean the Carpathians (Polovko et al., 2004; Tikunov, 2004). annual river runoff of the Carpathian region, the reliabil- Boundaries between the classes are established in ity assessment was made by the following approaches. such points where the best grouping of the closest First, it was done according to the relationship between values in each of class and the maximum difference the actual values in the hydrological observing sta- in values between the classes are achieved. The user tion, and those values are plotted on the map (Fig. 4). assigns the number of classes. This interpolation It should be pointed out that the mean annual river

Fig. 3. Map of the specific discharge in the Ukrainian Carpathian region

1 2 3 Fig. 3 Map of the specific discharge in the Ukrainian Carpathian region 4

5 As a result of analysis of the created mapEnvironmental of the Research, mean Engineeringannual riverand Management runoff of the Carpathian 2020/76/2region, the 29 6 reliability assessment was made by the following approaches. First, it was done according to the relationship 7 between the actual values in the hydrological observing station, and those values are plotted on the map (Fig. 4). 8 It should be pointed out that the mean annual river runoff was verified not only by the data obtained from the Fig. 4. Relationship between the calculated and the mapped values ranges arrangement and by the protection of certain 9 hydrological observing station involvedof the mean for annualmapping river runoff but of thealso Ukrainian by those Carpathian data region that wereareas not from taken the moist for airflows.mapping Maximum annual pre- 10 (short series of observation, little catchment basins). cipitation happens in the central mountains and on the mountain range tops. On the north-eastern part of the Tisza river basin, the Carpathian Mountains form the curve, which changes the south-east direction in the area of the greatest altitude for the south direction towards Romania. Due to such a location of the mountain ranges, favourable conditions for the in- tensification of atmospheric precipitation are created here more frequently than in other areas (Lukianets et al., 2015; Susidko et al., 2010). The areas of the per- manent orographic maxima and minima of precipitation are typical for the Ukrainian Carpathians. The maximums of precipitation were outlined as follows: 11 in the Tisza Basin - the upper catchment basins of the 12 Kosovska, Teresva, Tereblya rivers (1200-1600 mm); 13 the upper catchment basins of the Borzhava and par- runoff was verified not only by the data obtained from tially the Rica (1000-1200 mm); the upper catchment 14 Fig. 4 Relationship between the thecalculated hydrological and observing the mapped station involved values for of mapping the mean annual river runoff of the basins of rivers Latorytsia and Uzh (1000-1200 mm). 15 Ukrainian Carpathian regionbut also by those data that were not taken for mapping The mountain peaks of the Tisza Basin above 1,000 m 16 (short series of observation, little catchment basins). a.bs.l. receive 1,400–1,700 mm. 17 In this case, there is a close relationshipIn this case, between there is athe close given relationship values, betweenand the thecorrelation coefficient appears as Areas with maximum precipitation are uneven by siz- 18 r = 0.993. Moreover, the relationshipgiven line values, coincides and the with correlation the line coefficient of equal appears values (regression equation, Fig. 4). es and coverage areas (Balabukh et al., 2011; Sosed- 19 The deviation of the calculated and theas r mapped= 0.993. Moreover, values of the the relationship mean annual line coincides river runoff is within the limits of the ko, 1980; Susidko, 2002). The orographic minimum 20 SD for the calculated values. with the line of equal values (regression equation, Fig. is in the upper Tisza (900–1,000 mm) since this area 21 . 4). The deviation of the calculated and the mapped is partly protected by mountains from the humid air- 22 Second, the reliability assessmentvalues of theof the created mean mapannual was river performed runoff is within by correlating the analysis of the specific flows from the southwest (Lukianets et al., 2014). 23 discharge and spatial precipitation distributionlimits of the SDaimed for the at calculated controlling values. the water-balance relationship preservation Instead, in the mountainous part of the right bank of 24 throughout the river basins. Spatial distributionSecond, the reliability of the meanassessment annual of riverthe created runoff map in general should to some extent the Dniester, the orographic peaks are of the catch- 25 repeat precipitation distribution overwas its territory.performed by correlating analysis of the specific ment of the Stryi and Opor, the upper reach of the discharge and spatial precipitation6 distribution aimed at Svicha, the mean part of the catchment basins of the controlling the water-balance relationship preservation throughout the river basins. Spatial distribution of the Limnytsya and Bystrica rivers (950–1,100 mm). mean annual river runoff in general should to some ex- In the mountainous part of the Prut basin, the largest tent repeat precipitation distribution over its territory. annual precipitation is observed in the upper reaches In conditions of the Ukrainian Carpathian Mountains of the Prut, partially of the Cheremosh rivers (900– relief, the spatial distribution of precipitation has a 1,100 mm), and the smallest precipitation is observed multidimensional nature, is explained by the features in the upper reach of the Chornyy and the Bilyyi Cher- of mesoscale circulation and depends on the spatial emosh, Putila (750–850 mm). At this point, the moun- arrangement of mountain ranges. Herein, the hori- tain peaks are over 1,000 m, and the precipitation zontal and vertical components dominate (Balabukh amounts to 1,100–1,300 mm (Lukianets et al., 2014). et al., 2011). The lowest precipitation occurs in low- Analysis of the compiled maps of the mean annual riv- lands and foothills (650–900 mm). With altitude, pre- er runoff of the Ukrainian Carpathians demonstrated cipitation mainly grows to 1,800 mm. However, such that it meets the aforementioned spatial distribution regularity is broken by the feature of the mountain of precipitation. All the above points to a fairly high 30 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2

reliability of the spatial generalisation of the mean an- Table 2. River runoff (specific discharge) over the main river basins nual river runoff of the Ukrainian Carpathians and the in the Ukrainian Carpathians applicability of the developed maps for practical and Area of identified scientific purposes. High-altitude zones and Specific territories river basins with a high discharge, runoff dm3·s-1· km-2 Analysis of territorial variability of the mean km2 % annual runoff in of the main river basins of the Ukrainian Carpathians Tisza basin Analysis of the spatial distribution of the mean an- Flatland 10–15 2,400 19 nual runoff in the main river basins of the Ukrainian Foot-hills 15–25 3,800 30 Carpathians showed that the rivers under study are with the most water resources in Ukraine. Its values Low-mountain terrain 25–30 2,700 21 are summarised in Table 2, which presents the mean Low-mountain – upper annual river runoff by altitude zones (lowland, foot- reaches of Kosovska, 30–38 2,900 22 hills, low-mountain terrain, mid-mountain terrain) Teresva, Tereblya, Rika, identifying the areas with the highest river runoff. Ar- Borzhava, Latorytsya eas of certain altitude zones and river basins with a Middle-mountain – upper 25–28 1,000 8 high river runoff are shown in km2 and % concerning reach of Tisza river the whole area of the river basins (separately for the Dniester basin Tisza river basin, right bank of the Dniester, the Prut and Siret rivers). Flatland 8–12 3,500 28

The average long-term water runoff in the Tisza basin Foot-hills 12–16 2,500 20 varies in the range from 10 to 38 dm 3 · s- 1 · km- 2; in the basin of the right bank of the Dniester - from 8 to Low-mountain terrain 16–25 5,100 40 3 - 1 - 2 32 dm · s · km ; and in the Prut and Siret basins - Low-mountain – upper from 6 to 26 dm3 · s- 1 · km- 2. reaches of Opor, Svicha, 25–32 1,500 12 The largest values of specific discharge in the Tisza Limnytsya and Bystrica basin are observed in the upstream of the Kosovska, Prut and Siret basins Teresva, Tereblya rivers, i.e., 32–38 dm3 · s- 1 · km- 2. Flatland 6–10 3,200 42 Two more locations of increased runoff in the Tisza basin are situated in the upper reaches of the Rika, Foot-hills 10–15 1,900 26 Borzhava, Latorytsya, and partly Uzh rivers. They 3 - 1 - 2 Low-mountain and compose correspondingly 30–32 dm · s · km and middle-mountain – the - 1 - 2 15–26 2,400 32 28–30 dm 3 · s · km . At this point, the mean annu- upper reach of Prut, al river runoff is lowered due to lowering wetting on Cheremosh this area. For the same reason, the river runoff in the far east of the Tisza River basin (in its upper reaches) Note. Areas of certain altitude zones and river basins with a high is also slightly lowered – 25–28 dm3 · s- 1 · km- 2. It is runoff are given in % to the entire area of river basins caused by the fact that such an area is partly protected by mountains from the south-western humid airflows. by lower river runoff with maximum values of 15– As for the Dniester river basin, the most abundant 25 dm3 · s- 1 · km- 2 in the upstream of the Prut and catchment basins of the upstream of the Opor, Svicha, Cheremosh basins. Limnytsya and Bystrica rivers have the mean annu- The river runoff on the southwest slope of the Ukrain- al runoff within 25–32 dm3 · s- 1 · km- 2. The Siret and ian Carpathians (the Tisza Basin) is greater than on Prut river basins, where precipitation is lower than the north-eastern slope (the Dniester, Prut and Siret in the Tisza and Dniester basins, are characterised basins). At this point, the catchment basins with an

Prut, Cheremosh 1 Note. Areas of certain altitude zones and river basins with a high runoff are given in % to the entire area of river 2 basins 3 4 5 The average long-term water runoff in the Tisza basin varies in the range from 10 to 38 dm 3 · s - 1 · km - 2; 3 - 1 - 2 6 in the basin of the right bank of the DniesterEnvironmental - from Research,8 to 32 Engineering dm · s and· Management km ; and in the Prut and Siret2020/76/2 basins - 31 7 from 6 to 26 dm 3 · s - 1 · km - 2. 8 The largest values of specific discharge in the Tisza basin are observed in the upstream of the Kosovska, 3 - 1 - 2 9 Teresva, Tereblya rivers, i.e., 32–38increased dm ·river s runoff· km also. Two occupy more most locations of the of are increased- variation runoff gradually in the Tisza increases basin to ±40-50% if compare 10 are situated in the upper reachesas. So,of theif you Rika, take Borzhava,the value of Latorytsya, specific discharge and partly of withUzh the rivers. normal. They The composeriver runoff with a 1% probability 3 - 1 - 2 3 - 1 - 2 11 correspondingly 30–32 dm · s15 dm· km3 · s- 1 ·and km - 228–30 and more, dm then· s it could· km be. observed At this point,of exceeding the mean is mainlyannual 2.0-2.5river times higher of the 12 runoff is lowered due to loweringnot wetting only in theon mid-mountainsthis area. For the and same low-mountains reason, the but river average runoff annualin the farvalues. east of the 3 - 1 - 2 13 Tisza River basin (in its upper reaches)also in the is foothills.also slightly The areaslowered with – such 25–28 a river dm runoff· s · km . It is caused by the fact 14 that such an area is partly protectedcover by almost mountains 80% of from the Tiszathe south-western river basin (Table humid 2). In airflows. 15 As for the Dniester river basin,the basin the ofmost the Dniesterabundant right catchment bank, the basins areas ofwith the a upstream of the Opor, Svicha, 3 - Conclusions1 - 2 16 Limnytsya and Bystrica rivers riverhave runoffthe mean of 15 annual dm3 · srunoff- 1 · km within- 2 and more25–32 come dm to· s · km . The Siret and Prut 17 river basins, where precipitation52%, is lower and in than the inbasins the Tiszaof the andPrut Dniesterand Siret basins,rivers to are Thecharacterised map of the by meanlower riverannual river runoff of the 3 - 1 - 2 18 runoff with maximum values of 32%15–25 (Table dm 2).· s · km in the upstream of the Prut andUkrainian Cheremosh Carpathian basins. region is based on the runoff 19 The river runoff on the southwest slope of the Ukrainian Carpathians (the Tisza Basin) is greater than on The relationship between the specific discharge of observational data at the hydrometric network of the 20 the north-eastern slope (the Dniester, Prut and Siret basins). At this point, the catchment basins with an increased the Carpathian rivers within Ukraine and coefficients rivers of the Ukrainian Carpathian and adjacent basins 21 river runoff also occupy most of the areas. So, if you take the value of specific discharge of 15 dm 3 · s - 1 · km - 2 of their variation for a long-standing period (Table 1, bordering the studied area for the period from the be- 22 and more, then it could be observed not only in the mid-mountains and low-mountains but also in the foothills. Fig. 5) with correlation ratio r = 0.64 demonstrates the ginning of observations to 2012. About 90% of hydro- 23 The areas with such a river runoff cover almost 80% of the Tisza river basin (Tablemetric 2). stations In the have basin the of observation the period from 50 territorial variability of the runoff.3 - 1 - 2 24 Dniester right bank, the areas with a river runoff of 15 dm · s · km and moreto 68come years, to so52%, the inputand indata the of the mean annual river 25 basins of the Prut and Siret rivers to 32% (Table 2). runoff for mapping are stable with the relative value 26 The relationship between theFig. specific 5. The relationship discharge between of the the specificCarpathian discharge rivers from the within ofUkraine the standard and coefficients deviation on ofthe average ± 4.2%. basins and their coefficients of variation 27 their variation for a long-standing period (Table 1, Fig. 5) with correlation ratioThe r =ArcGIS 0.64 demonstratessoftware may bethe applicable for the mean 28 territorial variability of the runoff. annual river runoff mapping with the aim to provide high accuracy results. The analysis of the constructed map showed that the obtained features of territorial variability of runoff values in the main river basins of the Ukrainian Carpathi- ans (Tisza, Right Bank of the Dniester, Prut and Siret) well corresponding to their formating conditions such as water-balance ratio and the water content degree. This indicates the reliability of spatial generalisation of the mean annual river runoff of the Ukrainian Carpathian region. Therefore, the created detailed map of the mean 29 annual river runoff can be used for scientific and applied 30 31 purposes for water resources assessment of individual The river basins with average annual water runoff basins or entire regions of the Ukrainian Carpathians, 32 Fig. 5 The relationship between the specific discharge3 - 1 from- 2the basins and their coefficients of variation 33 modules of 20-40 dm · s · km have a long-term even unstudied before from the hydrological standpoint. variation on average ±20-30% of the normal , and It can also be used for calculating the hydropower 34 3 - 1 - 2 35 The river basins with averagewith theannual modules, water less runoff than modules20 dm · ofs 20-40· km dmthe 3 · spotential - 1 · km of- 2 certainhave a Carpathian long-term rivers. 36 variation on average ±20-30% of the normal , and with the modules, less than 20 dm 3 · s - 1 · km - 2 the variation 37 gradually increases to ±40-50% if compare with the normal. The river runoff with a 1% probability of exceeding 38 is mainly 2.0-2.5 times higher ofReferences the average annual values. 39 GIS by ESRI 2010. «Spatial Analyst Tutorial» ESRI. http://help. its of Ukraine). Proceedings XXVIth Conference of the Danube 40 Conclusions arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/pdf/spatial-analyst-tutori- Countries on Hydrological Forecasting and Hydrological Bases of 41 al.pdf. Water Management. Deggendorf, Germany, 109-112. 42 The map of the mean annualGlobal riverData Explorerrunoff /of U.S. the Geological Ukrainian Survey. Carpathian http://gdex. regionLukianets is based O. and onObodovskyi, the runoff I. (2015) Spatial, Temporal and 43 observational data at the hydrometriccr.usgs.gov/gdex/. network of the rivers of the Ukrainian CarpathianForecast Evaluationand adjacent of Rivers’ basins Streamflow of the Drainage Ba- 44 bordering the studied area for theLukianets period O. from and Balabukh the beginning V. (2014) Water of observations flow of rivers in to mod 2012.- sin About of the 90%Upper ofTisa hydrometric under the Conditions of Climate Change. 45 stations have the observation periodern and from expected 50 climateto 68 changesyears, inso Basin the Tiszainput (within data the of lim the- meanScientific annual Journal: river ENVIRONMENTAL runoff for Research, Engineering and 46 mapping are stable with the relative value of the standard deviation on the average ± 4.2%. 47 The ArcGIS software may be applicable for the mean annual river runoff mapping with the aim to provide 48 high accuracy results. 49 . The analysis of the constructed map showed that the obtained features of territorial variability of runoff 50 values in the main river basins of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Tisza, Right Bank of the Dniester, Prut and Siret) 51 well corresponding to their formating conditions such as water-balance ratio and the water content degree.

32 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2

Management. Kaunas: KTU, Lithuania No. 71(1): 36-46. https:// Серия «География» Том 24(63). №3. Симферополь: ТНУ. С.85- doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.71.1.10286. https://doi.org/10.5755/ 93. https://www.twirpx.com/file/1377004/. j01.erem.71.1.10286 Klibyshev K. P. and Goroshkov I. F. (1970) Гидрологические Mean Annual Surface Runoff 1950-2000. http://atlas.gwsp. расчеты (Hydrological calculations). Л.: Гидрометеоиздат. 460 c. org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96. Klimenko D. E. (2008) Методика расчета максимального Ven Te Chow, Maidment D. R. and Mays L. W. (Ed.) (1988) Ap- весеннего стока малых рек Среднего Приобья и северного plied hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill, USA: 572. http:// склона Сибирских Увалов (Methods of calculating the max- ponce.sdsu.edu/Applied_Hydrology_Chow_1988.pdf. imum spring runoff of small rivers of the Middle Priob and Andrianov V. (2003) Чрезвычайные ГИС (Extraordinary GIS). the northern slope of the Siberian Uvalov). Географический ArcView - Современные геоинформационные технологии. вестник Пермского государственного университета. https:// Чрезвычайные Ситуации. №3. C.79-85. https://www.esri-cis. cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodika-rascheta-maksimalno- ru/news/arcreview/detail.php?ID=2114&SECTION_ID=55. go-vesennego-stoka-malyh-rek-srednego-priobya-i-sever- nogo-sklona-sibirskih-uvalov. Balabukh V. A. and Lukianets O. I. (2011) Характер багаторічних змін атмосферних процесів та стоку в басейнах річок Пруту Kocherin D. N. (1932) Вопросы инженерной гидрологии (Task та Сірету (в межах України) у теплий період року (Character of engineering hydrology). НКТП СССР, М. 136 с. of long-term changes of atmospheric processes and flow in riv- Komlev A. M. (2002) Закономерности формирования и ers Basins of Prut and Siret (within Ukraine) in the warm sea- методы расчётов речного стока (Laws of formation and meth- son) Науковий вісник Чернівецького університету: збірник ods of river runoff calculations). Пермь: Изд-во Пермского наукових праць. Чернівці. Вип. 587-588: Географія. С. 70-81. государственного университета. 163 с. https://www.rfbr.ru/ https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/326318867. rffi/portal/books/o_27136. Denisova Yu. I. and Perevoshchikov A. A. (2009) Построение Konovalenko O. S., Dutko V. O. and Vasilenko E. V. (2012) прогнозной модели зоны затопления средствами ГИС- Просторовий розподіл максимального стоку води весняного технологий (Creation of the forecast model of flood zone водопілля річок басейну Стир (Spatial distribution of maximal by GIS technologies). Вестник Удмуртского университета. spring runoff of the Styr Basin Rivers). Гідрологія, гідрохімія Вып. 1. С.171-178. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/postroe- і гідроекологія. Т. 1(26). С.69-75. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/ nie-prognoznoy-modeli-zony-zatopleniya-pos-kizner-sredst- glghge_2012_1_10. vami-gis-tehnologiy. Luchsheva A. A. (1976) Практическая гидрология (Practical Doganovskiy A. M. and Orlov V. G. (2011) Сборник задач по hydrology) Л.: Гидрометеоиздат. 440 с. определению основных характеристик водных объектов Melnikova T. N. (2004) Норма годового стока рек северо- суши (практикум по гидрологии) (Casebook for definition of западного Кавказа и особенности ее территориального the basic characteristics of water objects located on land (work- распределения (The normal of annual runoff of rivers of the shop on hydrology)). Изд-во РГГМУ, Санкт-Петербург. 315 с. Northwest Caucasus and features of its territorial distribution). https://www.twirpx.com/file/1151351/ Материалы шестой Международной конференции. Том Glotka D. (2014) Удосконалення карти гідрографічного первый. СевероКавказский государственный технический розмежування території України на основі SRTM Hydro- университет, Ставрополь, 2004. С. 177-179. SHEDS (Improvement of the map of hydrographic delineation Paton B. E., Shpak A. P., Rudenko L. G. et al. (2007) Національний of territory of Ukraine based on SRTM HydroSHEDS). Фізична атлас України (National Atlas of Ukraine). Київ: Державне географія та геоморфологія Вип. 3 (75). с. 114-117. науково-виробниче підприємство «Картографія», 440 с. Horbachova L. O. (2010) Просторове узагальнення норм http://www.ukrmap.com.ua. річного стоку води (The space generalization of the normal Polovko A. M. and Butusov P. N. (2004) Интерполяция. Методы annual runoff). Гідрологія, гідрохімія і гідроекологія. Т. 18. и компьютерные технологии их реализации (Interpolation. С. 107-112. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/glghge_2010_18_15. Methods and computer technology of their implementation) https://doi.org/10.3846/coactivity.2010.41 Санкт-Петербург: БХВ-Петербург. 320 с. Kashchavtseva A.Yu. and Shipulin V. D. (2011) Моделирование Shevchuk S. A., Vyshnevskyy V. I. and Babiy P. O. (2014) речных бассейнов средствами Arc GIS 9.3 (Modeling river basins Уточнення гідрографічних характеристик річок з вико- using Arc GIS 9.3). Ученые записки ТНУ им. В. И. Вернадского ристанням методів ДЗЗ (Clarification of the hydrographic Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2020/76/2 33

characteristics of rivers using remote sensing techniques). Susidko M. M. and Lukianets O. I. (2010) Карпати - павод- Вісник геодезії та картографії, № 5 (92). С. 29-32. http:// конебезпечний регіон України. Комплексна басейнова nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/vgtk_2014_5_12. система прогнозування паводків у Закарпатті: методична Sokolovskiy D. D. (1968) Речной сток. Л.: Гидрометеоиздат. та технологічна база її складових (The Carpathians - flood 540 с. danger region of Ukraine. Basin runoff forecasting systen in Sosedko M. N. (1980) Особенности пространственной Zakarpattya: methodical and technological basis of its com- структуры полей осадков на территории Украинских Карпат ponents). Київ. 63 с. (Features of the spatial structure of precipitation fields on the Tikunov V. S. (2004) Основы геоинформатики (Fundamentals territory of the Ukrainian Carpathians). Тр.УкрНИГМИ. Вып. of Geoinformatics). М.: Изд. Центр «Академия». 352 с. http:// 180. С. 81-85. www.geokniga.org/bookfiles/geokniga-tikunov-vs-osnovy- Susidko M. M. (2002) Карпати - найбільш паводконебезпечний geoinformatiki-v-2-h-kn-kn-1-m-ic-akademiya-2004.pdf. регіон України (The Carpathians are the most flood danger- Zaykov B. D. and Belinkov S. Yu. (1937) Средний многолетний ous region of Ukraine). Материали міжнародної конференції сток СССР (Average long-term runoff of the USSR). Труды ГГИ, «Гори та люди». Том 2. С.158-161. вып. 2. 78 с.