DPSIR: Driving Forces

In the DPSIR framework, driving forces are changes in society that exert pressure upon ecosystems that could possibly change the state of the ecosystem. For example, an increase in the demand for wood furniture would exert increased pressure upon the tree population in a forest. If demand were to be large enough then its entirely possible for widespread deforestation to occur.

Most of Singapore’s complex ecosystems are not usually exploited for their resources besides water. The focus is instead on the cultural, regulating and supporting services. Singapore society naturally relies upon these services and oftentimes, trends and events affecting society do have spill over effects on these services.

Take cultural services for example, cultural services focus mainly on the non-material benefits that society derives from the ecosystem. One example of a cultural service being affected by trends is the increasing popularity of water sports. The increasing affluence of Singaporeans coupled with wider exposure to sports has popularised several water sports such as Dragon Boating in Singapore. As a result, more water bodies are being designated for recreational use and many facilities tied to recreational water sports are often incorporated into development plans for areas with large bodies of water.

But not all trends develop slowly over time. Technology has increased the pace of development and oftentimes creates events that lead to shocks on the ecosystem. Take the recent release of Pokemon Go in Singapore for example. Players turned out in huge numbers at previously unpopulated locations with many of them staying for long periods of time. And with this crowd came the usual issues with litter left behind and noise pollution. Many of the Pokemon Go locations were tied to nature reserves and you can see why that could have caused NParks, governing body of these reserves to be in quite a pickle.

They eventually appealed to the game developer Niantic to have these locations removed from the game to “avoid situations of Pokemon Go players….causing damage to the environment”. This event highlights how simply focusing on environmental conservation is insufficient due to the increased possibility of outside events having a direct impact on ecosystems. Thus traditional governance of ecosystems must evolve to be able to react to these events rapidly and at the same time be aware that control of such ecosystems is no longer as iron-clad as they used to be.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/remove-pokestops-from-nature-reserves-nparks

Supporting services include the provision of habitats that wildlife require in order to survive. In recent years, NParks has tried to increase the overall biodiversity of Singapore. The return of the otters in Marina Bay and the sighting of the Slow Loris in Bukit Timah all serve as signs that efforts in increasing biodiversity are yielding some results.

There has also been increased public interest in the nature reserve due to increased biodiversity. As a result, more Singaporeans have been embarking upon eco-tours; tours meant to provide participants an immersive experience into nature. The increased interest is a driving force behind the increased visitorship of nature reserves. Such increased visitorship no doubt creates pressure upon the ecosystem as they may not be able to adapt to the increased human presence. Again, there is a need for governance to ensure the ecosystems are kept in balance.

http://www.straitstimes.com/uncategorized/nature-beckons

Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Reopening

It was reported in the news recently that The Bukit Timah Nature Reserve (BTNR) reopened after two years of restoration work and upgrades. The reserve was closed due to some of its trails being deemed unsafe due to increasing usage of them by the public. The result? Most of these trails ended up being widened and even led to landslides.

In here we can clearly see a situation where proper governance of such a complex eco-system is required due to an increased human presence. Based on the DPSIR framework, we can see that the pressure that the increased amount of visitors have naturally led to a change in the state of the environment with associated negative effects such as landslides and overly large trails. A change in state that is likely to be detrimental would no doubt provoke a response from the governing body.

NParks basically closed the reserve in 2014 to restore the original trails and at the same time building new facilities to minimise the impact of the increasing visitor count. For example, a raised boardwalk was built in several sections to mitigate trampling. Railings were also built along the trails to encourage visitors to stick to them instead of going off into the surrounding forest.

We can see that the authorities have responded by closing the reserve in an effort to restore it to its original condition. However, simply restoring the park to its original condition is insufficient as the park’s visitor count in 2014 was already unsustainable. Thus there is a need to either limit the visitors to the reserve or to change the reserve to better withstand the increased visitor numbers. NParks has clearly taken the second approach by installing facilities meant to cushion the impact of increased visitors. Whilst this does allow more visitors to come in, there is a trade-off as the new facilities such as the board walk and railings take away from the original flavour of the reserve; that of nature in its raw state. But these changes seem largely accepted by visitors thus they may not detract that much from the overall experience.

There are also plans to create a “Friends of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve” community which hopes to include the nature community, residents and recreational users of the park. The purpose of the group seems to be focused on balancing the education, research and recreational needs of users with the need to conserve the nature reserve.

I felt that this approach was notable because it’s a new response to the issue of visitorship. Previously, the focus was on NParks when it came to conserving the reserve. But it seems that the responsibility of preserving the park is to be shared with the users more than before with Minister Lawrence Wong encouraging Singaporeans to visit and at the same time acting as “custodians and stewards….for future generations to enjoy.” This approach seems to be the norm across NParks governed ecosystems as we saw in my previous posts. There has been an increasing trend of stakeholder integration into the overall governance of ecosystems which has been noted to aid in the overall conservation effort as discussed in an earlier post.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bukit-timah-nature-reserve-reopens-after-2-years-of-restoration/3226578.html

Kallang Riverside: Demographic Changes

In the previous few posts we looked at mainly both the present and future facilities of the Kallang river. In this post we will focus on the demographic changes of park users as a result of these facilities and the changing social structures in Singapore.

First off, Kallang River used to be heavily polluted as a result of various industry relying on the river to support their operations. The river inevitably became a dump for waste from industry and communities living along its length.

Today the river has moved away from industrial use towards a mixture of recreational activities and water-supply. The increasing proliferation of sports & water sports facilities near its mouth has cemented its place as a prime area for recreation. The addition of the Marina Barrage further down south joins the river with the Marina Catchment area to increase Singapore’s water supply. As a result, more people have been moving towards the river for recreation.

Wider Population Strata

I was quite surprised by this signage along Marina Promenade. On the surface it doesn’t look anything out of the norm because it’s just promoting park cleanliness. But it’s the second line below that’s really striking because it’s in Thai. Thai isn’t one of the major languages in Singapore yet it’s readily written here. One, this means that the park is frequented by Thais to the point where it’s worthwhile to keep a sign up in Thai. Second, it goes to show that there is some degree of stakeholder interaction and management by the governing bodies of the park. I would imagine that litter from the initial Thai users could have been a problem and such signage was set up to help alleviate this problem. It’s interesting because it’s no longer a pure environmental problem but also a societal one. The customs and practices of the Thai users could be really different thus there is a need to integrate them into the greater societal fabric in Singapore. Without this integration, ensuring the sustainability of the park would be much more difficult due to the litter from the new parties. Thus it’s really an addition layer in the socio-ecological system when new groups join communities and there is a need to integrate these groups.

Motorised Vehicles

There are also other signs focusing on changing users behaviours in the park. One that I saw concerned the usage of motorised vehicles in the park. Amusingly enough, I was just snapping a picture of the sign when a man on an electric scooter zipped right by me.

Personal Mobility Devices or PEDs in Singapore have increased dramatically over the past couple of years. What used to be only uncles scooting by on their electronic bicycles have expanded into a dizzying array of scooters, single wheelers and hoverboards. As these devices become increasingly commonplace in Singapore, I was wondering why parks still adhere to the practice of banning these devices. There is some discussion that parks should ban these devices due to their speed being high enough to injure pedestrians in the event of a collision. But the legal versions of these devices are not any faster than a bicycle; and bicycles are readily accepted in parks. What I am getting towards is that changes in society such as the rise of PEDs do have overflow effects on our ecosystems. The park authorities might have to restructure the park to accommodate the increasing trend of PEDs. An outright ban at the moment seems hard to enforce because honestly, how are authorities supposed to monitor all areas of the park for offenders? Thus the governing of such complex socio-ecological systems need to account for technological changes in society as well.

Kallang River: Kallang Riverside & the Sports Hub

Kallang Riverside Park or KLP is a riverside park located on the opposite bank of Marina Promenade that’s really popular with the water sport crowd. It extends across the river, covering both sides of it with a supposed beach, exercise corners and other sports facilities. Just a little down from the park is the Sports Hub with the National Stadium and the OCBC Aquatic Centre. There’s plenty of facilities here so I will just touch on the major ones.

KLP: Beach

If you look at the map above, you can see that there are supposed to be three beaches located in the area. But well, these beaches aren’t really the type beaches one typically pictures in their mind.

Well, it is not really a beach per say but more of a launching platform for boats as can be seen in the picture on the left

. So Kallang Riverside won’t really be our first choice for getting out for a beach day. But the good news is that the area is being earmarked to be developed into a sort of pseudo resort in the years to come.

Just look at the URA master plan. I don’t think anyone there today can truly imagine the place being developed into a waterside resort.

On the sustainability front this will really be a big game changer. Just imagine, we are literally going to change the natural ecosystem from an inland river to that of a manmade beach. It boggles the mind! It’s the very antithesis of sustainability which is about the endurance of systems. This raises several pertinent questions. First off, is a man-made beach like this sustainable? The creation of the beach would mean shaking up the biodiversity of the existing park to include more species native to beaches. At the same time, what are the potential effects of a beach on other communities further down the river? Typically a beach is exposed to the wider ocean but in this case, the beach is sited beside mouth of the river. So how does this affect the Marina Reservoir area that’s further downstream?

Kallang Riverside: Sports Hub

The Singapore Sports Hub is the newest development in the area now. It’s facilities occupy an entire bank of the Kallang Basin and has a dock along its side. The Sports Hub caters to a wide variety of water sports through this dock. I saw dragon boats, kayaks, canoes and sailing boats at its docks. There’s even those peddle boats you usually see in cheesy romance movies.

I think the Sports Hub is the surest indicator of the direction in which development in the area is going. The focus is surely to transform the Kallang River/Basin area into a recreational river park that caters to a wide variety of water-related activities. Most of the activities in the area now are low in pollution so we do not really see an impact on the river quality. But as the amount of activities in the area increases, then naturally the pressure on the ecosystem changes. Throw in a manmade beach and the dynamics change even further. 

References:

https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master-plan/View-Master-Plan/master-plan-2008/Growth-Area/Kallang-Riverside/Life-a-beach.aspx

Kallang River: Marina Promenade

So the first part of Kallang River I visited was Marina Promenade. It is located right after the Merdaka Bridge along Nicoll Highway and leads all the way up to the Singapore Flyer and the Helix Bridge.

Marina Promenade is home to several features of the area such as the biodiversity garden and the office of the Waterways Watch Society. It’s quite popular on Sundays as a picnic spot for various groups as well.

Marina Promenade also overlooks Kallang Riverside Park on the other side of the river. Kallang Riverside Park is one of the key locations of the area and thus we will go into further detail when I get around to visiting it.

Biodiversity Pond

One of the more interesting features of Marina Promenade is the Biodiversity Pond & Park. It is a little area built near the pier of the nearby that consists of various educational exhibits about biodiversity and sustainability. Most of the exhibits in the area are made of recycled material. The signboards are made of wooden pallets, structures are made of granite slabs and seats area made of old repainted pieces of lumber.

There are little games around such as this “interactive granite slab” where players play tic tac toe on the slab by wetting their finger using the tap nearby and drawing on the slab. It’s quite the means of reusing a slab of concrete if you ask me.

 Further on we see a brief history of this corner which was quite enlightening. This corner came about as a result of flotsam having the tendency to gather in the dead spot of the pier. So the Waterways Watch Society decided to build a barrier to prevent flotsam from collecting and it slowly evolved to become the biodiversity garden today. This is really interesting because it highlights how governance of such an ecosystem need not be top down but can be bottom up where volunteers make improvements to the ecosystem to enhance its sustainability.

Here’s a picture of the park pond which used to be the dead spot of the pier. It is now however an actual pond that is somewhat separated from the river through a floating barrier. Which interestingly has allowed water surface plants to grow there!

Waterways Watch Society

The office of the Waterways Watch Society is also located a few metres away from the biodiversity park right under the Merdeka Bridge.

The group seems to be really active as the facilities seem well tended and there are additional exhibits located outside their premises.

For example there is this garden beside their office that seems to be a mix of plants and fruits. It is definitely tended to going by the amount of wooden structures in it. Amusingly enough there’s also a sign at the corner of the garden that says “VIP Entrance for Otters” implying that otters visit this garden on occasion.

 Duck Tours Embarkation Point

Last of all, there’s also a spot further down the river that’s the embarkation point for Duck Tours. Duck Tours is a sort of a mix land and river tour rolled into one where tourists can sit on their amphibious vehicles to visit various places around the Marina Bay area. This is one area which diverges drastically from Bedok Reservoir Park as tourism is an additional draw to the area.

Marina Promenade is home to several features of the area such as the biodiversity garden and the office of the Waterways Watch Society. It’s quite popular on Sundays as a picnic spot for various groups as well.

Kallang River: Ecosystem Services

Kallang River: Overview

Looking back, it was a good thing that we had a short break last week from conducting more visits as it allowed me to collect my thoughts. I usually looked at these complex ecosystems from a stakeholder perspective; that I focused on the needs of the stakeholders and how these needs are balanced through the governing process.

It was possible before because of the limited amount of stakeholders involved in the previous complex socio-ecological systems. In the case of Kallang River though, there is a need to approach the analysis from a services perspective because of the sheer scale of Kallang River and its stakeholders involved.

Ecosystem Services

The Millennium Assessment(MA) published in 2005 identified four main categories of services that an ecosystem provides. The four services are supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural. We went into depth in an earlier post but in essence, the four are ways that humankind benefits from ecosystems.

The more obvious service that Kallang River provides is Provisioning. The river is part of the Marina Catchment Area and thus forms an integral part of Singapore’s water supply. Fishing is allowed along the river but it is usually recreational instead of fishing as a source of food. Therefore the river’s food provisioning service isn’t a main draw.

Cultural services are perhaps the main provision of the river in modern times. It plays host to a variety of human activities ranging from recreation to education. There are numerous recreational facilities located along the river from the Water Sports Centre at the Singapore Sports Hub to the park connector tracks that run along most of the river.

The river also help improve the quality of life for residences near the river as parks are often built along the river. Families living near the river have easier access to nature as a result of these parks. The view of the river is also aesthetically pleasing and many developers seek to leverage upon this by marketing new residences that include a river view.

Celebrations and events are also often held along the river. The annual National Day fireworks are usually set off from boats on the river and boat races usually take place near the mouth of the river.

Regulatory and Supporting services are much less obvious as they are usually not immediately perceivable by us. The Millennium Assessment writes that regulatory services that rivers provide are the maintenance of water quality via natural filtration and serve as flood control.  Supporting services that rivers provide is the creation of an ecosystem that allows for predator/prey relationships.

Governance of Services

Now that we have identified these key services the river provides, the next step would be to look into how the river is governed to ensure these services remain sustainable. The main authorities managing the river are the same as those behind Bedok Reservoir Park namely, the National Environment Agency, National Parks for the facilities along the river and the Public Utilities Board for the water-related facilities.

However, there is an increased amount of non-government actors involved in the governance of the park compared to Bedok Reservoir Park. For example, the Waterways Watch Society an independent volunteer group seems to be far more active when it comes to the river as they have an office in the area.

Thus at first glance, governance in this case could be more decentralised than previous examples.

Waterways Watch Society. Retrieved from Waterways Watch Society: http://www.wws.org.sg/

Kallang River: A History

Kallang River: History

Kallang River (Source: Otterman.wordpress.com)

The Kallang River is the longest river in Singapore at 10km long flowing from the Lower Peirce Reservoir to Nicoll Highway. The river’s place in Singapore’s history is well varied as a source of fresh water for early settlers in Singapore; means of transportation for traders and recreation.

Today, the river is largely reserved for recreation and as a source of water. Numerous recreational facilities can be found along the river with many concentrated at its mouth near Kallang Basin.

1977- 1987: Cleaning Up

Kallang River Bank (Source: PICAS)

Unlike its modern day iteration, the Kallang River was said to have been filled with debris and waste in the early 1970s.

The river banks were overcrowded with squatters and industry then with the vast majority releasing various forms of discharge into the river. Amongst the industries were pig farms, duck farms and hawkers all releasing a mix of waste into the river. As you can imagine, the river was hardly fit for human activities then due to its severe pollution.

It wasn’t until 1977 that the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew launched a clarion call for the clean-up of Singapore’s rivers (Choo, 2014). As a result, the Ministry of Environment placed a target; that the river be fit for fishing within 10 years.

There were a few issues that had to be tackled before the clean-up could actually really shift in to high gear. First, the human population around the river bank was significant. Housing had to be found for these persons before they could be moved away from the river before clean up could commence. Second, the river was still a transportation route then with hundreds of boats such as bumboats plying the river. The cleaning up of the river meant that all of this commerce had to be shifted elsewhere.

Kallang River Clean Up (Source: The Straits Times)

The clean-up team led by then Environment Ministry Permanent Secretary Lee Ek Tieng resolved the two problems by shifting all of the riverside population to public housing further inland and building a new anchorage point at Pasir Panjang to deal with all the commerce that would have come to the river. The industries were either relocated to industrial estates or totally phased out in the case of farms.As such, the crew could focus their efforts on the clean up on the river which eventually took 10 years and cost S$170 million.

1987: Clean Rivers Education Programme

But just cleaning up the river isn’t enough. Improper dumping of waste can still cause the river to revert back to its pre-clean up days. To prevent the river from regressing, the Singapore government launched the Clean Rivers Education Programme in 1987 to raise awareness of the negative effects of releasing waste into Singapore’s waterways and to encourage people to keep the waterways pollution-free (National Libary Board, 2004).

The programme released videos on keeping the rivers clean to the public with large emphasis on students to call upon them to participate in keeping the rivers clean.

Beyond 1987: Reshaping the River

The Kallang River has changed significantly since then with the return of aquatic life and increase in recreational activities in the River. The river has also become an attraction with river cruise boats offering tourists a chance to travel along its length. It’s also become an integral part of the Marina Reservoir water catchment area with the addition of the Marina Barrage Dam in 2008.

Bibliography

Choo, F. (5 Jul, 2014). 5 Interesting Facts about the Singapore River Clean Up. Retrieved from The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/5-interesting-facts-about-the-singapore-river-clean-up

National Libary Board. (2004). Clean Rivers Education Programme and Clean River Commemoration. Retrieved from Singapore Infopedia: http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_398__2008-12-02.html

On Otters & Singaporeans

We talked about the “Bishan 10” otters in Singapore in an earlier post where they have been adopted as a symbol of an island wide conservation movement supported by the Singapore government (Bailey, 2016). The smooth coated otters are actually native to Singapore but were thought to have disappeared in the 1970s. It wasn’t until recently that they were once again sighted in Singapore’s waterways with some believing their return demonstrates the cleanliness of Singapore’s waterways.

It is quite heartening to hear that a previously thought vanished species has returned to Singapore; that there are visible results of the efforts of the various environmental groups that embrace the conservation movement. Singaporeans in general seem to receive the return of the otters with great cheer going by the amount of fan pages and groups dedicated to the watching of these otters. However, the return of the otters have also led to headaches for some members of Singaporean society.

Otters choice meals

Reports have come up since 2015 about otters going after ornamental fish at various ponds around the Sentosa, Bishan-Ang Mo Kio and Pasir Ris Park area. Koi went missing from the Rasa Sentosa Resort and Spa in July 2015 shortly after otters were spotted on the island (Boh, 2015). The same happened to a Sentosa Cove resident who has been purported to have lost about $64,000 worth of ornamental fish over-night in April 2015 (Lee, 2016). But it is not just ornamental fish the otters go after but also commercial businesses like fishing ponds. Otters have reportedly been raiding a fishing pond in Pasir Ris since early 2016 and costs the owner hundreds of dollars per raid (Azman, 2016). Coupled with the high frequency of raids, these raids are making a severe dent in the owner’s profits. Thus the return of otters do levy a financial cost on certain members of our society.  

To protect their fish, owners have attempted to shore up their defenses against otters by installing electric fences with motion sensor lights in an attempt to ward off these unwanted visitors. But the effectiveness of these measures is still contested as otters are intelligent enough to find ways around such systems.

Governance

I thought this otter case was really interesting because the general approach to conservation tends to be to protect species, especially so for species with smaller populations. Yet there is little to no discussion on the effects of reintroducing these species could cause. I think it’s rarely discussed because conservation often focuses on a specific area which more often than not tends to have little to no human presence. But in Singapore’s case where the urban environment melds with the natural, the addition of these new species will undoubtedly have an effect on society and in turn increase the overall complexity of our socio-ecological systems.

I think the concept of balance here is vital for such socio-ecological mixes. In this case, the otters cannot be simply allowed to consume fish from property owners. Owners cannot directly remove the otters because it’s actually illegal to harm the otters. Thus the balance of power is tilted in favour of the otters which is an issue the governing body (NEA) needs to look into to ensure that the interest of these owners are safeguarded without neglecting the otters. It’s really hard though, because of the fact that the otters are mobile enough that they can avoid barriers. At the same time, creating specific feeding zones for the otters would be rather counterintuitive because its moving towards domesticating the otters instead of leaving them wild.

Bibliography

Azman, A. (2016, Oct 7). Otters raid fishing pond at Pasir Ris Park. Retrieved from The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/otters-raid-fishing-pond-at-pasir-ris-park

Bailey, R. (2016, Jul 5). Singapore's celebrity urban otter family. Retrieved from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36700728

Boh, S. (2015, Jul 9). Did otters eat koi worth $80,000. Retrieved from The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/did-otters-eat-koi-worth-80000

Lee, P. (2016, Aug 6). Sentosa Cove Residents put up fences to fend off otters preying on fish in homes. Retrieved from The Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/otters-prey-on-fish-at-sentosa-cove-homes-desperate-residents-put-up-fences-motion-sensor

Beach Cleaning at Tanah Merah Beach

Well, the original plan for the recess week was to head out to either one of two locations, St John’s Island or Coney Island. But well, the weather hasn’t been very cooperative recently as it has been raining daily over the past week. At the same time, ferries to St John’s Island have also been suspended due to the annual Kusu Pilgrimage. So I guess these locations have to be pushed back in the overall scheme of things.

Recent Reports

Anyways, I thought we could look at some recent reports in the papers regarding our complex socio-ecological systems in Singapore in lieu of actual visits.

Beach Cleaning at Tanah Merah (Sept 2016)

When we talk beaches in Singapore, the main beaches that tend to come to our mind are the beaches along the East Coast, Sentosa Island and Changi Village. These beaches are really quite well maintained as the majority of Singaporeans visit them for recreation and relaxation. However, there are more than just these few beaches in Singapore.

There’s another stretch of coastline near Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal that’s unused in the general sense due to its relatively isolated location compared to the earlier mentioned beaches. It was the focus of a recent clean-up operation earlier last month when volunteers went and cleaned up the beach as part of the 25^th International Coastal Clean-Up Singapore. All in all they cleaned up a half tonne of rubbish which is really quite amazing considering that the beach is only 800m and is quite rarely visited. Which implies that the bulk of the litter comes from marine pollution.

I feel that there are two main takeaways from this particular report. First, to whom should the governance of these areas be left to? Clearly the beach is unmanaged if the amount of litter is able to build up to such a significant amount. It is only cleaned up when volunteers actively organised themselves to clean up the beach. Therefore, should the authorities place more emphasis in ensuring these areas are kept clean?

Which leads to the second question which is a little controversial. Is it worth putting in the resources to manage this stretch of beach when it is currently not being utilised for any purpose? Why manage the location if there are no users enjoying the location? But well, one can always argue that people don’t come because the location isn’t well kept. Thus the importance of proper urban planning. I feel that the site should be managed more rigorously only if the area is earmarked for a specific use. Else it is just not economical as marine debris washing up on shore is unavoidable. In fact it might be better as at least the debris is no longer in the ocean.

The second takeaway is that of the spillover effect. Authorities cannot believe themselves to be 100% in control of all aspects of the system they are governing. This case highlights this salient fact because marine pollution could have drifted from far across the sea to Singapore shores. Thus the effects of actions taken outside of the system do have an impact on the area managed. Governing bodies must be able to react to these changes in order to ensure steps are taken to keep the ecosystem in balance.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/tanah-merah-beach-cleaning-drive-turns-up-500kg-of-waste/3135490.html

Bedok Reservoir Park: DPSIR (ContCont)

Continuing from the previous post, the last pressure on the park is the possibility of overfishing which in turn degrades the natural biodiversity of the park. Overfishing doesn’t seem to be an issue in the park as the authorities recently expanded the fishing spots further[1]. Whilst this could lead to overfishing, I don’t think the recreational angler crowd is big enough to reduce biodiversity significantly. I think there were at most 4 fishermen at most during my visit there. And they didn’t carry iceboxes with them which implies they are recreational fishermen since the lack of the icebox prevents them from bringing the fish home for consumption.

Other points of note

Bedok Reservoir Park has also been hitting headlines in the last few years for other reasons besides the normal activities. The most disturbing of which is a sudden spike in dead human bodies found in the reservoir during 2011 and 2012[2]. The apparent cause of most of these deaths was suicide with one of the most shocking being a double death of a mother and son[3]. Naturally the public was concerned about the water quality of the reservoir which the authorities alleviated by issuing a statement regarding the treatment of reservoir water[4].

The trend of suicides also warranted attention enough that the park authorities actually invited various religious leaders of major faiths in Singapore to bless the reservoir in an attempt to ease public apprehension. Ironically yet another body was found in the reservoir during the ceremony[5] which has in turn created a moribund reputation to Bedok Reservoir Park.

I thought that this sequence of events was quite relevant because it adds another dimension to the socio-ecological system. The suicides forced the authorities to add suicide management to their duties because suicides naturally have an adverse effect on the reputation of the park. This only goes to show that governing a complex socio-ecological system is an evolving process. The authorities must be able to respond to changes in the system due to changes in society as well as changes in the environment.

On a more positive note, I wanted to talk more about the biodiversity of the park and its unique situation. A presentation[6] by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) listed the number of aquatic/terrestrial species in the park at 105 based on passive sampling methods of capture. The interesting part of this presentation was that it actually broke down the ratio of species between native and non-native to the park. It reported that 44.8% of species are actually non-native which to me was rather shocking because we would normally expect the native species to outnumber the “aliens”. The introduction of these species could possibly throw the ecosystem out of balance and has even more adverse consequences such as physical injury to water sports enthusiasts from the introduction of aggressive species[7].

This increased proportion of non-native species could possibly stem from a Singaporean habit of releasing pets into the wild for good karma once owners are unable to keep them anymore. A common animal released is the Red-Eared Sliders that Singaporean children tended to keep as pets in the 90s. It’s so significant that the NEA has specifically targeted Red-Eared Sliders in its “Invasive Alien Species” info-page[8]. Which only goes to show how more complex such ecosystems can become when humans interact with the natural environment.

---

[1] https://www.pub.gov.sg/getinvolved/activities/fishing

[2] https://sg.news.yahoo.com/sixth-body-found-in-bedok-reservoir.html

[3] http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110923-300972.html

[4] http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111122-311842.html

[5] http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111105-308892.html

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

[7] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/kayaker-suffers-gaping-cuts-from-fish-bite-in-bedok-reservoir-pub-advises-caution

[8] https://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/wildlife-in-singapore/invasive-alien-species

Bedok Reservoir Park: DPSIR (Cont)

Continuing from the last post, the last major function of the park is its Forest Adventure treetop playground. It has expanded somewhat in the past few years with the addition of more courses and obstacles. But besides that its footprint on the park doesn’t seem to be significant enough to cause a widespread change of state of the parks trees. Also, this function doesn’t seem to be in very high demand which implies little future expansion thus resulting in little additional pressure on the park.

State & Impact

The key pressures exerted on the park are from water sports, large scale event hosting and fishing. Without any actions taken, it is likely that these pressures could cause a change in the state of the park. Water pollution from motorized boating could render the water unfit for human consumption and activity. The effects of such water quality degradation are likely to be far-reaching as they affect all water related components of the park. For example, the reservoir may no longer be able to supply water to households nearby.

Hosting large scale events implies some measure of damage to the environment due to the need to move heavy equipment such as tentage in to the event space. The increased human presence could result in additional littering which again leaves a mark on the environment. The impact here is twofold, first there is environmental damage, second park goers may no longer be able to enjoy the natural environment of Bedok Reservoir Park.

Overfishing reduces the natural stocks of aquatic life in the park. This issue mainly concerns the biodiversity of the park as most fishing in the park is for recreation. The thing about biodiversity is that its effects are not readily apparent. A loss of biodiversity is supposed to cause some measure of alarm due to the potential loss of future biomedical uses; the possibility of the ecosystem going out of balance due to the lack of a specific species. Future park users may also no longer be able to enjoy fishing or viewing the aquatic life in the case of overfishing.

Response

The next question then is what have the governor’s of the park done in response to all these pressures on the park. With regards to water quality, it seems that the Public Utilities Board (PUB) does track the water quality of water in reservoirs through a mix of sampling, sensors and quality tests[1]. Thus in in the case that water quality has degraded significantly, the authorities will act to restore the water to its original condition. I couldn’t find out what measures they might put in place but I assume it’s some combination of treatment and cessation of water activities.

Furthermore, there are some guidelines on water activities located on the PUB website that are quite strictly enforced such as no littering and swimming in the reservoirs. Operation of water vessels in the reservoir also requires a permit which provides a means for authorities to govern the means of water pollution from water activities.

Large scale events in the park require a permit from the NEA through its booking system. This implies that the NEA has some form of control over the type of events held and the frequency. Which allows them some lead time to allow nature to restore itself before hosting additional events. I also saw more than a few gardeners going around the park during my visit which shows that the governers of the park are actively ensuring its condition remains sustainable.

---

[1] https://www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/fournationaltaps/localcatchmentwater

Bedok Reservoir Park: DPSIR

So we know that the functionality of the park varies widely. Its first off a water runoff catchment area for the Bedok New Town area; a nature park that doubles as a recreational sports facility; an events stage and lastly a fishing hot spot. In light of all these uses, the park will naturally come under increased pressure that may disrupt its sustainability.

In this post and the next, we shall examine the sustainability of the park using the DPSIR framework to examine the various pressures that are exerted on the parks natural resources. After which we shall look at how the governance aspect helps to mitigate these pressures to ensure such a complex socio-ecological system is kept in balance whilst ensuring some stakeholder goals are met.

Pressures

Let’s first identify the various pressures that are exerted on the park based on its current uses.

	Activity	Pressure
1	Water Catchment/Pumping Facility	The water in the reservoir could be overdrawn if Singapore were to face water shortages.
2	Recreational Exercise- Running/Cycling/Skating	Increased demand for exercise space could reduce green spaces in the park.
3	Water Sports	Possible pollution of reservoir due to the usage of motorized water transport.
4	Hosting large scale events	Littering, damage to flora due to large amounts of human movement or set up
5	Fishing	Overfishing could deplete natural stocks of aquatic life
6	Forest Adventure	Damage trees when conducting treetop activities

The park is indubitably under some pressure due to the variety of uses that it has. However, not all of the uses are equally draining on the park at this current time. For example, it is unlikely that Singapore will face significant shortages of water at this point in time due to its water agreement with Malaysia expiring in 2061[1]. Whilst the % of water being re-exported has increased in recent times due to a drought in Malaysia, the other two key sources of water (NEwater & Desalination) in Singapore seem to be able to overcome this shortfall.

Recreational exercise shouldn’t be a problem because it is mostly limited to the existing facilities tied to the activity. The facilities have not changed much since I was a secondary school student 10 years ago thus it seems that demand for such facilities have stagnated.

Water sports are a mixed bag. On the one hand we have non-motorised sports such as dragon boating which should have minimal impact on the water quality if properly monitored. On the other hand, the park also has a boat ski segment which could possibly be polluting due to the need for a motorized boat to pull the skiers. Thus the pressure exerted by motorized vehicles could possibly cause a change in the state of the water condition.

Fishing in Bedok Reservoir Park doesn’t really seem to be highly regulated. There are some general guidelines that encourage catch and release fishing[2] but besides that fishermen generally are allowed to consume the fish they catch. Which creates a real risk of overfishing if the park authorities do not have means to monitor the fish stocks in the reservoir. Which in terms of the DPSIR framework means that fishing could exert pressure to change the state of aquatic life in the ecosystem.

---

[1] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/singapores-water-supply-where-does-it-come-from

[2] https://www.nparks.gov.sg/activities/fun-and-recreation/fishing