Setting Boundaries

The last strategy involves identifying and setting clear boundaries for important thresholds in socio-ecological systems (SES). Many SESs can exist in several “self organising states” (Biggs, et al., 2015) that shift from one to another when critical thresholds are passed that collapse the structure behind the system. Such drastic shifts could have substantial impacts for both society and the environment. Robustness plays a role here. How robust a SES is ultimately affects the degree which its structure can endure shocks to its systems (Carlson & Doyle, 2002).  

The difficulty lies in identifying the critical point where a regime shift occurs. Biggs, et al (2015) describe the underlying variables behind such drastic shifts as “almost always unknown, varying between systems and change over time”. Thus creating the problem of ontological complexity which adds uncertainty to one’s understanding of when regime shifts might occur.

Yet, we can estimate such critical thresholds by extrapolating them from observations of similar regime shifts in similar SES. To even further reduce this uncertainty, it is also possible to add an additional boundary from the threshold point to reduce the likelihood of hitting that boundary. The length on the additional boundary from the threshold point can be varied depending on the unique factors tied to the SES and adjusted accordingly if circumstances change.

I couldn’t find specific examples of boundaries used in the governance of SES in Singapore but I would imagine they are there based on what I have read thus far. For example, I came across this presentation[1] made by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) that made mention of a 42 month study to establish a baseline for ecosystem biodiversity in all reservoirs. The study took random samples across both disturbed and undisturbed zones of reservoirs by using traps and nets to capture species in the area. By doing so, the researchers hoped to identify the current biodiversity levels in the reservoirs and seek to maintain them.

I thought this was a really good indication of a threshold as it showed that the authorities were looking into the normal levels of biodiversity in the reservoir. By constantly monitoring this marker, authorities can act when the biodiversity levels fall below the norm to prevent drastic regime shifts.

Another interesting aspect of the study was that of alien species; those non-native to the reservoirs. It found that Bedok Reservoir had a significant “alien” presence which whilst strengthening its biodiversity also could cause a shift in the structure holding the reservoir together. Thus, I feel that a single marker isn’t enough in the employment of boundaries. Instead, a variety of markers need to be used to ensure sufficient coverage of the issues facing the SES.

Another place where boundaries could be heavily used is that of water quality in the reservoirs. With 2/3 of Singapore being water catchment areas, it is imperative that the water quality of these areas be monitored to ensure they are safe for human consumption. The PUB constantly monitors the water quality of the reservoirs according to legislation and these standards are released to the public (Public Utilities Board, 2016). There is a range given in the water quality which seems to be the boundary we discussed earlier. Thus there clearly are boundaries set in place to ensure the quality of the water.

---

[1] https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/nbsap/nbsapcbw-seasi-01/other/nbsapcbw-seasi-01-sg-water-en.pdf

Facilitate Self Organisation

14b

Facilitate Self Organisation

SES are self-organising systems that constantly adjust and reorganise in response to changes; both external and internal (Biggs, et al., 2015). Self-organisation implies a structure in a system without a central authority or external forces deciding (Biggs, et al., 2015). The mechanism that allows for this are the feedback loops between parts of the system that reinforce or dampen system effects. Over time, some of these feedbacks become dominant and lead to a structure in the SES. Resilience also matters here because shocks which are large enough can cause a structure to change drastically (Biggs, et al., 2015).

The key according to Biggs, et al (2015) is to understand the nature of these feedback loops and “working with” systems to develop self-organisation by identifying leverage points which promote self-reinforcing change.

I came across several of these examples in my previous posts. For example, the Waterways Watch Society which is a volunteer group set up to protect the environment of the water bodies of Singapore. Originally the protection of such water bodies were largely limited to the authorities such as the Public Utilities Board and Nparks. However, with the focus on public education; we can see a rise in public interest in keeping the waterways clean. Thus resulting in the creation of volunteer groups such as the Waterways Watch Society (WWS).

The creation of these groups represent an element of Self Organisation because of their independent nature. They can to some extent implement plans to improve the area they are concerned with depending of course on their mandate. For example, the bio diversity park set up by the WWS seeks to better educate park goers on the importance of taking care of the park. Thus supporting the environmental conservation message that the authorities have.

The Nature Society’s involvement in the Cross Island Line mentioned in an earlier post is also an example of self-organisation. Where the central planners of the area have plans to change the structure of the natural environment, there exists a counter force to dissuade the planners from doing so in order to protect the pre-existing structures of the nature reserves.

 However, I thought this example is also most apt in showing the limits of self-organisation in the face of external force. This is because the ultimate decision still lies with the government of Singapore and volunteer groups are unlikely to be able to override the final decision. Thus, whilst self-organisation may help to keep a system running in the face of small external shocks, shocks of sufficient magnitude may disrupt the structures maintained through self-organising feedback loops. The plans for the line are still under discussion as the parties involved have not come to an agreement regarding the overall alignment of the line so it still remains to be seen where the decision will go.

In conclusion, self-organisation relies heavily upon feedback loops to ensure processes and structures of the ecosystem are kept sound. However, self-organisation I feel is largely useless in the force of sufficient external force as existing structures may not be able to adapt to significant changes. Thus whilst self-organisation may be a valid strategy in managing SES, it should be used in tandem with the other four strategies.

Engage and Integrate different perspectives

The second strategy used in managing socio-ecological systems (SES) is to engage and integrate the various perspectives of stakeholders involved in the SES. Biggs, et al. (2015) mention that SES can be “better understood, uncertainty gauged and problem solving enhanced” by including a variety of views on a problem. Furthermore, engaging stakeholders builds trust which helps to “increase the probability of reaching and implementing management decisions in the face of uncertainty” (Biggs, et al., 2015). However, I think it also needs to be considered that the influx of views is also a chance for conflict. Which is why the second part, the “integration of different perspectives maybe more important.

One method proposed by Biggs, et al. (2015) is the use of scenario planning in getting stakeholders to agree. The example used by Biggs is the Mont Fleur scenarios in South Africa where black and white community leaders of South Africa were brought together to consider possible scenarios which they could agree upon.

I thought one good example of this in Singapore’s SES is the Cross Island Line that may cross over multiple green areas such as the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and Central Catchment Area (The Straits Times, 2016). The plans involve two alignments; one that goes through the underground of the nature reserve and a second which skirts around the nature reserve but adds more overall traveling time and may require land reacquisition (Channel NewsAsia, 2016).

This is an issue because such huge underground works could disrupt the natural ecosystems in those location. Especially for the Central Catchment Area which is amongst the biggest water bodies in Singapore. Such a disruption could potentially affect the water supply of Singapore negatively.

Also, the line passes through built up areas which has led to some clamour by residents worried about how the line would affect their lives (Lim, 2016). But at the same time, the line is supposed to drastically reduce the traveling time of passengers using the rail system in Singapore. (Channel NewsAsia, 2016).

Whilst this issue isn’t strictly limited to lakes and rivers, I thought it is a really prominent problem due to it cutting across both social and environmental grounds. We can see various stakeholders involved in this problem with the environmentalists pushing for the longer route but the residents whom may be affected pushing back against such plans. And on another side we can see the commuters who may prefer a shorter traveling time. Thus it’s not just a purely environmental vs developmental problem but also a decision between the needs of two groups in Singapore; the commuters vs the residents.

What the authorities have done so far seems to revolve around gathering more inputs from various stakeholders concerned with Cross Island Line. Not only have they taken into account route suggestions by the Nature Society (Chua, 2013), a global environmental consultancy was hired to assess the environmental impact of the line (Chew, 2016). Thus not only are the voices on the ground heard but also the opinions of experts.

However, there has been little discussion on the social aspect of the line. Which goes to show more could be done to integrate the opinions of the residents affected by the proposed alignments. But more difficult are the commuters because they are a large and diverse group. Thus integrating their opinions might be more costly than the other stakeholders.

In conclusion, integrating stakeholder perspectives is useful for developing strategies in managing complex SES.

Bibliography

Biggs, R. O., Rhode, C., Archibald, S., Kuene, L. M., Mutanaga, S. S., Nkuha, N., . . . Phadima, L. J. (2015). Strategies for managing complex social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty: examples from South Africa and beyond. Ecology and Society.

Channel NewsAsia. (07 Mar, 2016). Cross Island Line could save commuters 40 minutes: LTA chief. Retrieved from Channel News Asia: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/cross-island-line-could/2577450.html

Chew, H. M. (22 Feb, 2016). Controversy over Cross Island Line: 12 questions about the MRT line answered. Retrieved from The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/controversy-over-cross-island-line-12-questions-about-the-mrt-line-answered

Chua, G. (19 Jul, 2013). Nature Society suggests different route for Cross Island MRT line. Retrieved from The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/nature-society-suggests-different-route-for-cross-island-mrt-line

Lim, A. (21 Feb, 2016). Cross Island Line sparks residents' fears. Retrieved from The Straits Times: From The Straits Times Archives: All you need to know about the Cross Island Line

The Straits Times. (22 Feb, 2016). From The Straits Times Archives: All you need to know about the Cross Island Line. Retrieved from The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/from-the-straits-times-archives-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-cross-island-line

Adaptive management

In the previous post, we discussed the strategies put forward by Biggs, et al. (2015) that are targeted at managing complex socio-ecological systems (SES) in spite of the inherent uncertainties associated with them. In this post, we cover adaptive management; one of the strategies discussed in the framework.

First off, Biggs et al. (2015) puts forward the idea of adaptive management which is to “treat ongoing management actions as deliberate, large-scale experiments”. The approach focuses less on scale experimentation due to their infeasibility and more on constantly experimenting with various approaches to managing the SES. The approach begins with the definition of explicit hypotheses and testing the hypotheses through the implementation of different strategies to enable comparison between them. The data from these “experiments” are then used to identify certain outcomes that are preferable before they are considered for implementation on a larger scale. Lastly, the process is a cycle of “data collection, reflection, planning and action” (McKay & Marshall, 2001) thus showing us how the key to adaptive management is truly in the word “adapt”.

This approach also helps tackle the issue of analytical complexity which is the inability to fully understand SES (Biggs, et al., 2015). By testing a single hypothesis at a time, we can isolate and attribute the changes to a single strategy rather than having to deal with multiple complexities in the SES.

I thought one really good example of Adaptive Management in the governance of SES in Singapore is the Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters (ABC Waters) programme launched by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore (Public Utilities Board, 2016).

The strategic initiative is focused on improving the quality of water and life of water bodies around Singapore. The program also focuses on “integrating the drains, canals and reservoirs with the surrounding environment in a holistic way”. Which is shown in the building of numerous waterways and beautification of the reservoirs in Singapore. Examples include the Family Bay at Lower Seletar Reservoir and Kallang River@ Ang Mo Kio Park. (PUB, 2016).

 The program was first established in 2006 and started with Bedok Reservoir as it was upgraded to allow for more recreational activities. The plan was to attract more visitors to the reservoirs and raise awareness about protecting Singapore’s water resources at the same time. (National Library Board, 2009). It has since expanded across the country with many more sites since then and planned in the future. (Othman, 2016).

From this we can see how the PUB first experimented with the idea of recreational activities in a single reservoir first before trying it elsewhere. Which I feel really works out well especially in Singapore where resources are limited. Extra prudence has to be given to usage of resources because of how scarce they are. The PUB could hardly afford to launch the program across multiple reservoirs as any complications could ultimately damage the supply of water.

In conclusion, adaptive management focuses on experimenting with the different strategies involved in the management/governance of SES. By doing so, the overall complexity of SES is somewhat reduced as changes can be isolated to a single strategy.  

Bibliography

Biggs, R. O., Rhode, C., Archibald, S., Kuene, L. M., Mutanaga, S. S., Nkuha, N., . . . Phadima, L. J. (2015). Strategies for managing complex social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty: examples from South Africa and beyond. Ecology and Society.

McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 46-59.

National Library Board. (2009). Bedok Reservoir. Retrieved from National Library Board -Singapore Infopedia: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1482_2009-03-06.html

Othman, L. (20 Mar, 2016). 20 more ABC Waters projects to be completed in next 5 years. Retrieved from Channel NewsAsia: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/20-more-abc-waters/2619600.html

PUB. (2016). ABC Waters. Retrieved from PUB The National Water Agency: https://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters

Public Utilities Board. (9 May, 2016). ABC Waters Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters Programmes. Retrieved from PUB: https://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/about

Strategies for managing complex social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty

Link to DPSIR framework

In the earlier posts, we focused on the various frameworks that can used to identify the various linkages in complex socio-ecological systems (SES). The DPSIR framework for example allowed us to categorise and identify the driving forces of society that exert pressure on the ecosystem. This pressure has the potential to change the state of the environment of the SES. Which brings us to the concept of adaptive change and robustness. Ecosystems change naturally albeit slowly over time. They can adapt to changes to some extent. However, societal pressures often exceed the adaptive limits of SES. This is the robustness concept which is the ability of a SES to maintain its structures in the face of change.

Oftentimes, a change in state provokes a response from society. For example, the haze in Singapore led to public outcry against the burning of forests in Indonesia which in turn caused businesses to pay more attention to fighting pollution (World Wildlife Fund, 2016). These responses are often varied in scope and often times may not be effective. Thus it is important that we examine the various strategies that can be used to manage SES.

General Framework

First off, general strategies would allow us to apply it to ecosystems in Singapore. Thus it is important to identify general strategies first. Biggs, et al (2015) listed out 4 major strategies to manage complex social ecological systems with. 

Source 1: Bigg

s, et al (2015)

What is interesting about this framework is the basis on which these strategies are formed. All four strategies incorporate the element of uncertainty in SES. Uncertainty is important because of the nature of SES. Brigs et al (2015) provides three main reasons for this. First, SES continuously evolve to adapt to internal and external changes. This implies a continuously changing system in which management strategies must change constantly to match. Second, the amount of linkages in an SES complicates the predictive capability of models. Third, societal values vary according to time and place. Thus the strategies used in responding to changes in SES may need to constantly change to meet the requirements of society.

These three sources of uncertainty in turn lead to three types of complexity. Analytical complexity which stems from difficulties in deconstructing complex systems. Ontological complexity which comes from the unpredictability of SES and Societal complexity which arises from “the different meanings…..that different societal groups attach to SES” (Biggs, et al., 2015).

The presence of complexity changes the overall approach management should take to managing SES. Wicked problems which are problems that are ill-defined; with no “true” solution; have constantly changing variables;  and can be considered a symptom of another problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973) oftentimes stem from this complexity. Thus management must address uncertainty in their decision making process and consistently adapt their strategies to change. For example, the return of the otters we discussed earlier created problems for fish owners in Singapore. Thus the National Environment Agency needs to find means to protect the interests of fish owners whilst balancing public interest in the otters.

12b

Understanding Robustness of Socio-Ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective

In this post we focus our attention on the interrelationship between SES robustness and governance.

Robustness

In our previous post we left off discussing the shortfalls of resilience in its application to socio-ecological systems. In essence, resilience focuses on the concept of adaptive capacity which is measured by the ability of ecosystems to adapt to changes, both gradual and sudden without having a drastic change in its processes and structures. It doesn’t really fit in well for socio-ecological systems because of how some elements in the system maybe consciously designed. Thus researchers have developed robustness instead to better fit into socio-ecological systems.

Robustness stems from engineering and refers to the “maintenance of systems performance when subjected to external unpredictable pertubations, or when there is uncertainty about the values of internal design parameters.” (Carlson & Doyle, 2002) Robustness is also traded off against performance. Systems which maximise performance are likely to be less robust than its more “robust” counterpart. However, robust systems do overtake their less-robust counterparts when the counterpart is subject to internal & external stressors.

In this, robustness provides a more cost and benefit perspective to socio-ecological systems as we can compare the cost of having more adaptive capacity (resilience) against making the system run more efficiently (eg: drawing more resources out of the system). (Anderies, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2004)

Framework

In Anderies et al (2004) framework, they hope to address three main issues of socio-ecological systems; that is the resource, its governance system and the infrastructure supporting the system as one coupled system. Also present in the framework are the resource users that ultimately influence all three elements.

Figure 1: Source: A Framework to Analyse the Robustness of Social-Ecological Systems

The framework focuses on the linkages between the 4 objects in the framework and how they could potentially create problems.

Figure 2:Source: A Framework to Analyse the Robustness of Social Ecological Systems

Now that we have the linkages and entities involved in the ecosystem, we can start to analyse how robust the ecosystem is. First, we must identify what the relevant system we are worried about is. For example, we could choose to focus on the water provisioning services that some place like Bedok Reservoir Park provides. Second, we must identify the desired characteristics of the system. In the case of Bedok Reservoir, one characteristic we would want is for there to be a reservoir of water that does not diminish under normal use. Third, we must identify the anchoring points of the ecosystem that if were to collapse would reduce the robustness of the entire ecosystem. For Bedok Reservoir it would be the source of water; that of the grey water collection capability of the surrounding area. If the surrounding area were to lose this collection capacity, then the reservoir of water is bound to run dry.

The difficulty lies in the scale of analysis of socio-ecological systems. For example, a small scale resource might collapse in order to maintain desired functions at a larger scale. Bedok Reservoir park may have to trade its aquatic biodiversity for water provisioning in times of water shortages. The reservoir may have to be drained to supply water for human needs thus leaving the aquatic life without a habitat.

Bibliography

Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecology and Society.

Carlson, J. M., & Doyle, J. (2002). Complexity and Robustness. Proceeedings of the National Academy of Science, 2538-2545.

Resilience of Socio-Ecological Systems

12a

Resilience of Socio-Ecological Systems

The previous posts about Kallang Riverside and Bukit Timah reserve left me thinking about the degree of pressure our society exerts on ecosystems. Ecosystems are supposed to be self-maintaining structures that in the absence of outside influences should be able to retain its original structure. Structures such as the existing biosphere and ecosystem services that stem directly from the ecosystem.

Over the last century we have seen a marked change in these ecosystems. Growing human influence on many of these complex ecological systems is the proverbial “wrench” in the work that has the capacity to greatly modify the structure/purpose and capacity of these ecosystems. Take the redirection of rivers to build dams for example. Hydroelectric works in Tibet’s Brahmaputra river effectively change the existing structure of the river. The flow of water along the tributaries downstream of the river could decrease leading to changes in the overall composition of the ecosystems supported by the river (Einhorn, 2016). For example, a loss of habitat for aquatic animals and plants because of the shortfall in water. Thus human intervention in many of the Earth’s ecosystems changes their structure.

Thus it is vital that we understand the concept of ecosystem resilience. Resilience is the processes by which ecosystems maintain themselves in the face of change (Holling, 1973).  Resilience measures the quantum of change or disruption a system can undergo without having to change the controls on its function/structure or state or risk undergoing a fundamental change in its characteristics (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2002). It is also associated with the degree to which a system is able to self-organise. Applying this to our earlier example of the Brahmaputra tributaries, the ultimate change in the ecosystems along the river depends on how resilient they are to the change in water levels as a result of human intervention.

Adaptive Capacity

Rather than seeing ecosystems as stable state environments, Berkes et al also proposes the concept of adaptive capacity, where we view ecosystems as evolving structures that have slowly changing variables such as the composition of species. Thus, the term adaptive capacity was coined to encompass the fact that ecosystems are slowly changing and adapting to these changes whilst maintaining a relatively stable state. Crisis only occurs when the degree of external influence overwhelms the adaptive capacity of the ecosystem, when changes are beyond its natural ability to adapt to these changes.

Limitations

Resilience however is largely focused on the ecological aspect of socio-ecological systems. The problem with extending resilience to socio-Ecological Systems is the difficulty in reconciling consciously designed elements in the ecosystem with the original ecosystem structure. Resilience focuses on the natural adaptive capacity of the ecosystem but it is often the case that human intervention seeks to boost the adaptive capacity or resilience of the structures in the ecosystem. Take the Salmon Cannon for example used in Norway; the cannon is meant to provide salmon a means to swim upstream as the river was blocked off by a 350 ft dam (Overland, 2013). By building the cannon, salmon are supposed to have another route to travel upstream with thus minimising the impact that the dam has on the salmon population. Resilience isn’t very useful here such a change hasn’t drastically impacted the process of salmon migration but is a marked change in the flow of the river. Which is why some researcher’s have come up with the term robustness to account for these consciously designed elements.

Bibliography

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2002). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexit and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Einhorn, B. (1 Nov, 2016). A water fight like no other maybe brewing on Asia's rivers. Retrieved from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-11-01/a-waterfight-like-no-other-may-be-brewing-over-asia-s-rivers

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1-23.

Overland, M. A. (31 August, 2013). The Salmon Cannon, easier than shooting fish out of a barrel. Retrieved from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/08/29/344360634/the-salmon-cannon-easier-than-shooting-fish-out-of-a-barrel