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