Biological Systems: Theory and Innovation

GIS analysis of the boundaries of the Carpathian National Nature Park: Comparison of global and local geodata sources and their importance for environmental monitoring

Petro Nasadiuk, Zvenyslava Mamchur, Oksana Tymchuk
Download article
Abstract

The relevance of the study lies in the need to ensure high accuracy in determining the boundaries of the Carpathian National Nature Park (CNNP), which is important for the reliability of environmental monitoring using geographic information systems (GIS) and field studies. The conservation of natural ecosystems and effective management of the Carpathian National Nature Park territory are impossible without the integration and analysis of spatial data in geographic information systems, which ensure sound planning of nature conservation measures and control of the state of the environment. The aim of the article was to analyse geospatial datasets (boundary polygons) of the CNNP available in open sources and official materials, compare their accuracy and suitability for analysing environmental indicators, conduct spot field verification, and develop the author’s version of the park’s refined boundaries. The study analysed the possibilities of using open geospatial data, in particular satellite images, digital terrain models, and thematic layers of the Global Forest Watch platform in QGIS and ArcGIS environments. A comparison of different sources revealed significant errors in publicly available datasets, leading to distortions in statistical estimates of forest area, land use changes, and the identification of areas of anthropogenic impact. Based on geospatial analysis, field surveys, and comparison of official materials, the authors propose their own version of the refined boundaries of the CNNP. The paper provides an example of how inaccuracies in the boundaries of global monitoring systems, in particular on the Global Forest Watch platform, can significantly alter estimates of deforestation or forest degradation areas. This highlights the need for constant verification and updating of geospatial data for protected areas. The results of the study prove that the combination of open data, field research and modern GIS technologies is an effective tool for improving the accuracy of environmental data analysis. The proposed approach can be used as a model for improving the spatial boundaries of other protected areas in Ukraine, promoting sustainable nature use and transparent ecosystem management 

Keywords

open data; geospatial layer; satellite imagery; QGIS; ArcGIS

Suggested citation
Nasadiuk, P., Mamchur, Z., & Tymchuk, O. (2025). GIS analysis of the boundaries of the Carpathian National Nature Park: Comparison of global and local geodata sources and their importance for environmental monitoring. Biological Systems: Theory and Innovation, 16(4), 10-22. https://doi.org/10.31548/biologiya/4.2025.10
References
  1. Brusak, V., & Shtuglynets, V. (2021). Erosion processes of mountain tourist trails in the Chornohora massif (Ukrainian Carpathians). In International conference of young professionals “GeoTerrace-2021” (pp. 1-5). Lviv: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20215K3025.
  2. Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://kbz.in.ua/en/.
  3. Carpathian National Nature Park. (2024). Chronicle of Nature, Book XXXIX. Carpathian National Nature Park.
  4. Carpathian National Nature Park. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://karpatskyi-park.in.ua/en/.
  5. Chaskovskyy, O., Havryliuk, S., Sinkevych, O., Nechepurenko, A., Pelyukh, O., & Rozumovskyi, M. (2025). Leveraging satellite data to support decision‑making on forest disturbances in “Skole Beskids” National Nature Park. In Computational methods in systems engineering 2025: Proceedings of the international workshop on computational methods in systems engineering (CMSE 2025). Kyiv, Ukraine.
  6. Deputat, M., Terletska, K., Zhupnyk, V., Horishevskyi, P., & Kasiyanchuk, D. (2025). Study of the impact of climate change on tourism activities using remote sensing in the Carpathian region. Geographia Technica, 20(2), 15-30. doi: 10.21163/GT_2025.202.02.
  7. European Space Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-2.
  8. Gao, H., Xu, J., Zhang, Y., & Liu, X. (2022). An innovative framework on spatial boundary delineation of nature reserves. Sustainability, 14(2), article number 12587. doi: 10.3390/su14020587.
  9. Global Forest Watch. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.globalforestwatch.org.
  10. He, X., & Wei, H. (2023). Biodiversity conservation and ecological value of protected areas: A review of current situation and future prospects. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 11, article number 1261265. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1261265.
  11. Jurišić, M., Plaščak, I., Rendulić, Ž., & Radočaj, D. (2023). GIS‑based visitor count prediction and environmental susceptibility zoning in protected areas: A case study in Plitvice Lakes National Park, Croatia. Sustainability, 15(2), article number 1625. doi: 10.3390/su15021625.  
  12. Kang, X., Du, M., Zhao, L., Liu, Q., Liao, Z., Su, H., Xiang, T., Gou, C., & Liu, N. (2024). Integrity‑centered framework for determining protected areas boundary: An application in the China’s national park. Ecological Informatics, 84, article number 102885. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102885.
  13. Karabiniuk, M., Saliuk, M., Burianyk, O., Hostiuk, Z., & Lutso, V. (2025). Mapping degradation hotspots of high‑mountain geocomplexes in Chornohora under recreational pressure around Nesamovyte Lake (Ukrainian Carpathians). In 18th international conference monitoring of geological processes and ecological condition of the environment (pp. 1-5). Kyiv: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
  14. Kleinewillinghöfer, L., Olofsson, P., Pebesma, E., Meyer, H., Buck, O., Haub, C., & Eiselt, B. (2022). Unbiased area estimation using Copernicus High Resolution Layers and reference data. Remote Sensing, 14(19), article number 4903. doi: 10.3390/rs14194903.
  15. Kravchynskyi, R.L., Korchemliuk, M.V., Khilchevskyi, V.K., Tymchuk, J.J., & Stefurak, O.M. (2025). Study of the natural conditions of the Carpathian National Nature Park: the abiotic aspect. Ivano-Frankivsk: Foliant.
  16. Nature Conservation Bureau. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cbr.nature.org.ua/jpg/zapmap.jpg.
  17. Novikov, A. (2021). Developing the GIS‑based maps of the geomorphological and phytogeographical division of the Ukrainian Carpathians for routine use in biogeography. Biogeographia – The Journal of Integrative Biogeography, 36, article number a009. doi: 10.21426/B636052326.
  18. OpenStreetMap. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/48.54/31.17.
  19. Parvez, M.S., & Feng, X. (2024). Generic method for social – environmental system boundary delineation – an amalgamation of spatial data integration, optimization, and user control for resource management. ISPRS International Journal of Geo‑Information, 13(12), article number 447. doi: 10.3390/ijgi13120447.
  20. Potapov, P., et al. (2022). The Global 2000-2020 land cover and land use change dataset derived from the Landsat archive: First results. Frontiers in Remote Sensing, 3, article number 856903. doi: 10.3389/frsen.2022.856903.
  21. Randall, J., Inglis, N.C., Smart, L., & Vukomanovic, J. (2022). From meadow to map: Integrating field surveys and interactive visualizations for invasive species management in a national park. ISPRS International Journal of Geo‑Information, 11(10), article number 525. doi: 10.3390/ijgi11100525.
  22. Ruschak, V., & Chepurnyi, I. (2025). Assessment of forest cover dynamics in landslide‑prone areas of the Ukrainian Carpathians using remote sensing data. In 18th international conference monitoring of geological processes and ecological condition of the environment (pp. 1-5). Kyiv: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.2025510172.
  23. Shtohryn, L.V., & Kasiynchuk, D.V. (2024). Analysis of natural and man‑made factors of landslide development in the Carpathian region using GIS. Scientific Bulletin of the National Mining University, 5, 93-98. doi: 10.33271/nvngu/2024-5/093.
  24. Tezel, D., Buyukdemircioglu, M., & Kocaman, S. (2021). Accurate assessment of protected area boundaries for land use planning using 3D GIS. Geocarto International, 36(1), 96-109. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2019.1590466.
  25. The World Database on Protected Areas. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/wdpa?tab=WDPA.
  26. Tyukavina, A., et al. (2022). Global trends of forest loss due to fire, 2001-2019. Frontiers in Remote Sensing, 3, article number 825190. doi: 10.3389/frsen.2022.825190.
  27. Urbano, F., Viterbi, R., Pedrotti, L., Vettorazzo, E., Movalli, C., & Corlatti, L. (2024). Enhancing biodiversity conservation and monitoring in protected areas through efficient data management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196, article number 12. doi: 10.1007/s10661-023-11851-0.
  28. World Resources Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://surl.li/cijipc.