Bedok Reservoir Park: Objectives 2

Objectives Continued

In the last post, we discussed some potential goals the management of Bedok Reservoir might want to work towards to enhance their governance of the park. In this continuation we will look at the actual goals set by the management behind the park, NParks.

NParks aims to build green infrastructure in Singapore whilst engaging the community to integrate green spaces into communal lifestyles. At the same time, they seek to increase community engagement by offering opportunities to explore various facets of nature across the different parks they manage. Lastly, they also hope to ensure the biodiversity of Singapore is conserved by adopting an urban biodiversity conservation model.

Comparing their goals to our objectives in the previous post, we can see that NParks is definitely aiming to fulfill some of the objectives by maintaining the park environment, reaching out to the community and ensuring its continued use as a community space.

Goal	Sub Goal	Stakeholders
Environment
Ensure environment conditions and assets remain suitable for the usage of future generations	Improve water quality so as to be usable for water activities	Water Sports enthusiasts, Recreational Fishing
	Ensure park environment remains in good condition	Park goers in general
Social-Economic
Improve local well being	Ensure BRP remains a source of renewable water.	Bedok Residents
	Improve social cohesion by providing a place for different parts of society to interact.	Bedok Residents
Governance
Improve governance systems	Increase management support for park improvement initiatives	Stakeholders in general
	Ensure access to park facilities remain within reach	People looking to book park facilities
	Sustainable Financial Costs	Park Goers, Tax payers.

Interestingly enough, the parks water body is actually not managed by NParks but by PUB as can be seen in the picture below. 

PUB is definitely aiming to ensure the water remains clean and renewable as there are numerous signs across the park informing users to conserve water and keep the reservoir clean.

This approach is rather interesting to me because you would expect a single organization to be managing a park. But instead its two government agencies working in tandem. I couldn’t find any information on how the balance of managing the park is split between the two but so far, it seems that PUB covers only the water bodies whilst NParks handles the rest. However, it seems water facility booking is still through NParks.

Last of all, whilst this is my personal opinion, I feel that most of the objectives above have been met. In my visit there, I can safely say the park is still in rather good condition and seems to be developing further. The reservoir was being used for water activities which in the absence of other evidence implies that the water is still fit for human recreational activities. The facility booking system was up and running when I tried making a booking and it definitely was being used for events at the moment.

Thus I would say that the management behind Bedok Reservoir Park have set objectives that are in line with both sustainability development and stakeholder needs. 

Bedok Reservoir Park: Objectives

Objective Setting

I realized recently that I haven’t really laid out or looked into the goals or objectives of Fort Canning or Bedok Reservoir. Without such goals, all the methods discussed earlier seem aimless because they are not geared towards a specific outcome. One article I felt was rather enlightening was this study of the Australian Great Barrier Reef conducted in 2015 which focused mainly on the objectives for management to work towards in the Great Barrier Reef (Putten, et al., 2015).

The study derived the objectives based on local stakeholder views of the perceived gap between their expectations and the outcomes of management actions. This approach creates objectives which accurately cover stakeholder concerns and at the same time encourages stakeholder’s buy-in for plans to achieve these objectives.

The Great Barrier Reef goals were split in three main categories with smaller sub-goals for each.

a.       Environment: Protecting, maintaining and renewing local environments. Specific sub goals in include increasing biodiversity and improving the water quality.

b.      Social & Economic: Growing regional economic and social well-being with sub goals being encouraging equity and sustainable growth.

c.       Governance: Improving management ability to ensure sustainable use of the locale’s resources and environment; sub goals are increasing community involvement and support whilst at the same time enhancing the management plans for the area to greater effect.

Interestingly, the study also found that participants place more emphasis on environmental issues before governance and social-economic topics, that the environment protection must precede any achievement of governance or social-economic goals. The study attributed this to the fact that most of the participants directly earn their livelihood off the natural environment of the Great Barrier Reef. Thus, protecting the environment comes first to them as it it’s a pre-condition to social economic growth or governance. For Singapore however, most people do not directly live off the complex social ecological systems present thus there might be a different weightage of importance between the three major objective groups.

Another thing I felt was missing was the lack of descriptive measures in the study. Most of the study revolved around high level goals but lacked the measures by which to measure these goals. Such measures are next on the to look into list for improving on our general framework for governance of complex Social-Ecological Systems.

Bedok Reservoir Park Objectives

In the two earlier posts on Bedok Reservoir Park (BRP), we saw that it has a large amount of stakeholders due to the myriad uses the park has. Therefore we need to identify some of these objectives of stakeholder groups and determine what category they fall in to better understand the balancing of stakeholder needs. Below is a table of objectives.

Goal	Sub Goal	Stakeholders
Environment
Ensure environment conditions and assets remain suitable for the usage of future generations	Improve water quality so as to be usable for water activities	Water Sports enthusiasts, Recreational Fishing
	Ensure park environment remains in good condition	Park goers in general
Social-Economic
Improve local well being	Ensure BRP remains a source of renewable water.	Bedok Residents
	Improve social cohesion by providing a place for different parts of society to interact.	Bedok Residents
Governance
Improve governance systems	Increase management support for park improvement initiatives	Stakeholders in general
	Ensure access to park facilities remain within reach	People looking to book park facilities
	Sustainable Financial Costs	Park Goers, Tax payers.

Bibliography

Putten, I. E., Dichmont, C. M., Dutra, L. X., Thebaud, O., Deng, R. A., Jebreen, E., . . . Thompson, C. (2015). Objectives for management of socio-ecological systems in the Great Barrier Reef Region, Australia. Regional Environmental Change, 1417-1431.

Visiting Bedok Reservoir Park (Cont)

I originally planned to cover a different SES in Singapore weekly but have come to realize that such an approach has breadth but lacks particular depth in analysis as I cant fully appreciate the nuances that each SES governance system has. Therefore ill be scrapping the weekly SES plan and instead spending more time on SES which I feel need more coverage to ensure proper analysis.

Pumping Station

BRP serves as one of two reservoirs built as part of the PUB Bedok Water Scheme to collect stormwater from urban catchment areas in order to meet the demand for fresh water in the eastern parts of Singapore. The picture above shows the pumping station located at BRP which is in charge of pumping the water in the reservoir to the water treatment plant Bedok Waterworks located 400m away (National Library Board, 2009).

The pumping station is located at the opposite end of the main entrance, away from most of the facilities available in the park. Users of the park track will without a doubt pass by the station as the park track leads right to it. It’s a restricted zone with numerous “Keep Out” signs posted around its perimeter thus I couldn’t really go closer to snap more pictures.

Considering its importance as one of the major pumping stations in Singapore, I felt that security was rather lax around it as there was only one guard on station at the entrance. But I guess this is another issue that we can discuss later as it would be rather intimidating to park goers to be subjected to strict security as they pass the pumping station whilst moving along the park track. Which adds another governance issue where park authorities have to decide how much security should be in place to protect such zones without compromising on the enjoyment of park goers.

Park Hill & Event Stage

A little ways down from the pumping station is the small hill located right behind the park. It’s been converted into a giant piece of green space that is bare of trees along its surface.  The space is usually used for mass events such as runs and the like which require significant space for set up of infrastructure. The NParks facility booking website names this place the Activity lawn and supposedly can take up to 2000 pax.

This floating deck is the main event stage in BRP and is often used for various cultural performances. Its holding capacity is around 240 pax and is surprisingly free to use. I think it is currently being used for the Mid Autumn Festival celebration owing to the décor set up. Being free to book and use is quite the interesting decision on the part of the parks governing body. The deck needs significantly more maintenance than the other facilities such as the Activity lawn and yet there is no attached fee to it. Thus it makes me wonder how the park management actually came to this free to book decision whilst taking into account the maintenance costs and added demand that being free should bring.

Visiting Bedok Reservoir Park

So I biked to Bedok Reservoir Park (BRP) earlier this week to look into how the place is governed and its stakeholders managed. Interestingly enough the park seems to have been further developed since my last visit back in 2015. So let’s jump right into the park itself.

Main Entrance

Visitors to the park first see this rather quaint building that’s sort of a hut with a fish tank in the center. But when you turn the corner, it is not just a rest point but also an art display!

As can be seen in the photo above, the center of the hut is taken up by this mural locked in the glass tank. The mural isn’t fixed, it changes on occasion as determined by the park board. The hut is typically used for the regular skating sessions conducted in the park as well. So on weekends there are groups occupying the space around and within the hut.

Further down from the hut are multiple exercise areas and playgrounds. Despite their age and constant use, the facilities are still well maintained and seem popular enough amongst park goers.

Park Track

The park track is a 4.3km long gravel track ringing the reservoir in the center of the park. The initial portion of the track has a separate path leading down to a wooden platform. The platform is often used for fishing or general viewing because it gives a rather nice view of the reservoir and its surroudings.

The park is also home to this adventure park that’s filled with high element obstacle courses. Its usually booked by companies and schools for their team bonding activities which was rather surprising because I remember back when this course was launched, the initial reception to it was mixed. Most park goers I knew at the time saw it as a needless addition to the park. Which we will discuss the next post since it highlights a difference in opinion between the public and the park governors.

 The reservoir also has fishing spots littering its circumference. As can be seen in the picture, fishing is quite popular around the park. I thought this was quite important because with fishing, the park management also needs to manage the aquatic life present in the water body to ensure that fishing remains sustainable even if its just recreational fishing.

In addition to fishing, the reservoir is also heavily used for water sports which adds another layer to the whole management of the main water body. So not only do the management have to ensure the park remains a supply of water for Singapore; a sustainable fishing spot but also deal with tons of sports enthusiasts entering its waters daily.

Lastly, BRP is also home to a bird watching area. Its quite an uncommon sight in Singapore now as most of these bird keepers tend to be the older generation. They keep their pet birds in these little cages and hang them from these poles. These older folk tend to just spend the day in the park like that. Its not really an issue now but what happens when this bird keeping goes out of fashion? Will the park authorities remove this area or keep it as part of its heritage.

Bedok Reservoir Park: Whats that?

Bedok Reservoir Park

Bedok Reservoir Park (BRP) enjoys a certain notoriety amongst students from schools in the eastern parts of Singapore as it has become a yearly ritual for schools to host their annual running events at the park. Looking back, it is rather interesting to note how students both appreciate the half day off that comes with the event whilst bemoaning the need to run the 4.3km of the park. BRP has since come a long way from being a glorified running track to become one of the better locations in the east for Water-sports, Bird watching and Nature walks.

BRP is located north of Bedok New Town which despite its name is actually a matured estate dating back to the 1980s. It used to be a sand quarry which under the Bedok Water Scheme was converted to a water catchment zone to collect surface runoff from the surrounding urbanised area (Wikipedia, 2016). The sand from the quarry was used to in the reclamation of East Coast Park later.

Time Line of Events:

Date	Event
Nov 1981	Earthworks for the water treatment plant commenced.
Feb 1982	Camp, Dresser & McKee, the external consultant hired for the scheme, completed its feasibility study and began designing and preparing the contract drawings.
Jan 1983	First civil works contract for the scheme was awarded.
Aug 1986	Construction of the scheme was fully completed. Bedok Waterworks began distributing its treated water to consumers on 15 August.
Oct 2004	Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim announced plans to introduce more recreational activities at selected reservoirs, including Bedok Reservoir.
Aug 2005	Temasek Polytechnic adopted the reservoir as part of PUB's Our Waters programme to involve individuals and groups in caring for Singapore's water bodies.
Nov 2005	Finalised plan for the enhancement of Bedok Reservoir was unveiled.

*Cited from National Library Board Website (National Library Board, 2009).

Why Bedok Reservoir Park?

First off, Bedok reservoir to me is a perfect example of a complex socio ecological system. It has so many purposes as listed in the table below:

Water Catchment Area	Water-Sports	Exercise/Sports
Fishing	Events from schools and other places	Bird watching
Flora Gardens	Art Exhibitions	Forest Adventure

Assuming that each activity has one set of stakeholders, we are looking at around 9 groups of stakeholders that make use of this 88 Hectare space which is quite the achievement. Also, most of these uses implemented gradually over time. For example, the park was opened for water-sports in 2004 which incidentally was the first time water activities could take place in a local reservoir. The reservoir is now a well-known training area amongst dragon boaters and kayakers.

I feel that BRP could offer us more insights into the governance process of these systems in Singapore because of its gradual development process. We can see how the governing bodies actively managed the park; how they decided what uses the park could be put towards. At the same time, it would also be interesting to note how the balance of the park was maintained despite all these additional uses, how the authorities measured the impact on the park’s overall capacity when they added more uses.

Things to look out for

Basically the goal is to cover all the areas listed in the uses table above. More emphasis will be placed on maybe the sports side of things as that seems to be a key draw of the park. The Forest Adventure area is also worth keeping an eye out for because it’s relative uniqueness in Singapore. 

Bibliography

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

Wikipedia. (12 September, 2016). Wikipedia-Bedok Reservoir. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedok_Reservoir

Fort Canning Park: Sustainability

This post consists of two parts. First is a continuation of practices I noted that the governing body has put in place for Fort Canning Park (FCP) and the second part looking into whether the park is truly sustainable.

Park Practices

The park’s maintenance staff move around the park using electric buggies which to me are a good choice as they balance the need for mobility with being environmentally friendly. One can argue that the park can go one step further by using bicycles instead but that raises issues with logistics transportation that may over-encumber the staff.

Another point of note is the re-integration of various pieces of historical equipment into the park rather than just disposing of them. This serves the twofold purpose of both beautifying the park whilst reducing the amount of material being thrown away.

The first picture shows a cannon from the old Fort Canning that overlooks a corridor whilst the second picture is a little more unique. Its actually a lighthouse from another part of Singapore but was brought to FCP to be preserved as a nod to Singapore’s maritime history. I felt this was rather interesting because FCP’s culture has evolved beyond showing just the history of the park but also providing snapshots of the trends in Singapore. Thus we can see that the governing body of the park have made the conscious decision to further the heritage value of the park.

Lastly, I would like to highlight that the park authorities do make themselves available to park visitors by providing lines of communication. Some historical sites have phone numbers located besides them directing visitors to call if they have any queries regarding the sites. There are also numerous volunteer recruitment posters located around the park that encourage visitors to join the park volunteer force. From this, we can see that the governing body is not just organizing the park but also hopes to include the public in the care of FCP. I felt this was quite a good way of governing as this allows stakeholders the means to communicate with the authorities and contribute even more if they choose to do so. 

Sustainability

Overall, the park is rather well kept and has little to no damage to it. The question then is whether the practices of the park’s stakeholders can ensure the park remains sustainable. 

Sustainability as defined by the UN is “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In essence, Fort Canning Park (FCP) is sustainable only if future generations of Singaporeans can partake in the natural, cultural and historical aspects of the park that exist today. 

I felt that FCP is largely sustainable. From a cultural point of view, the exhibits and historical sites are well maintained and are even increasing. Thus future generations should still have access to these places. The natural environment of the park is also well kept by balancing the needs of stakeholders usage of the various natural areas of the park with the park’s capacity. However, I did wonder how the authorities are going to replace the older trees that die off naturally because it seems rather difficult to grow an entirely new tree from scratch when the old ones die off. This is concerning because when I think back to my previous visits to the park, there always seems to a tree being cut.  

Well, I guess the foliage at the moment seems strong but only time will tell if an issue occurs. Thus the governing body needs to be alert to any issues that crop up and react accordingly. Anyways, little bonus for reading all the way to the bottom. FCP has actual CHICKENS living there!

Fort Canning Park: Whats there?

Right, so in the previous post I mentioned that I would visit Fort Canning Park (FCP) to get some first-hand experience of how the park is like. So I paid it a visit after class on Friday and it was surprisingly more complex than I initially thought. In this post we shall try to apply the DPSIR framework and relate what I saw to it.

DPSIR

Driving Forces & Pressures

Lets start by identifying the driving forces which apply pressure onto the park. First off, the historical value of the park. As mentioned in the previous post, FCP holds significant historical value due to its existence as a former Malay palace site and WW2 bunker.

However, the historical sites of the park are located outdoors and naturally are subjected to the elements which over time could lead to them being reclaimed by the natural growth of greenery. Humans may no longer be able to enjoy the history attached to these sites if they are overgrown and covered with park flora. Thus there is pressure upon the natural environment when these sites are cleared of greenery.

Second, the park is often used to host various events for the public. Most of these events are rather large scale thus raising the possibility of damage to the flora and fauna of the park if the crowd is particularly rowdy. Thus these mass events apply pressure to the overall condition of the park.

Responses

Interestingly, the body in charge of Fort Canning has applied a hybrid approach to maintaining the balance between the natural environment and historical sights. Some locales such as the Fort Gate constructed in 1859 are left relatively untouched by nature. Some parts of it are covered in moss but it is clearly recognizable as a man-made construct.

Whereas some sights such as the Fort Walls are fully covered by roots and plants.

This implies a hybrid approach to site maintenance by allowing lesser landmarks to be fully integrated into the natural environment whilst keeping the major sights visible to visitors.

This hybrid approach is also seen in how the park authorities manage their event stages. Take the park greens for example:

The park greens consist mostly of natural grass as seen in the picture on the left. However certain spots do have a layer of artificial turf instead. I believe these spots are used for the placement of stages or heavy equipment when the greens are used for major events.

State of Environment and Impact

By adopting this hybrid approach to site maintenance, the park authorities strike a balance between keeping up the cultural aspects of the park whilst reducing the impact on the environment as a result of structure maintenance.

The laying of artificial turf however clearly detracts from the natural environment of the park. It might be worthwhile from an economical point of view but the laying of turf ensures that no additional green growth can occur here. I guess that in this case, the governing body had to make the conscious choice to create this event area to accommodate other stakeholders besides the environmentalists.

Other Thoughts

There are also a few more interesting points I learnt about FCP in my trip there.

First, FCP has a reservoir near its peak; this reservoir serves as a water catchment area that can provide for the surroundings. However, I wasn’t able to really get any closer to as the area is off limits. I felt this was interesting as it adds another dimension to FCP as not only is it a greenery park, it also has water bodies which changes the make-up of its ecological system.

Second, FCP routinely uses the branches and trunks of trees that have been trimmed off as part of the park décor. There are numerous little wood sculptures from the parks trees littering the park. This is a rather good use of the old material as the wood is not disposed of but instead reused to improve the aesthetics of the park.