Hello there!
Today, I wanted to discuss about a scholar journal that I have read by Dr Liow.
Mangrove conservation in Singapore: A physical or a psychological impossibility?
http://folk.uio.no/leehl/uploads/liow_2000_biodiv__con.pdf
Although the journal was published back in 2000, I was really impressed by the journal as it provided me with fresh perspectives regarding mangrove loss in Singapore.
To be frank, the loss of mangroves is an issue I have never noticed or heard before entering this course. Perhaps, this is because mangrove loss is less publicized in news compared to more prominent problems like climate change. Yet, the declining trend of mangroves is just as important as any other environmental concerns, especially in Singapore where the mangroves could possibly go extinct at the rate we are damaging them.
Diagram Courtesy of Liow
From this diagram, the state of mangroves is indeed worrying. According to Liow (2000), one of the major reasons for cutting down mangroves is to make way for development like housing, industries and even recreation. However, is it worth it to sacrifice these precious mangroves for development?
Do we really have no other choice?
Here is an extract from the journal that attracted my attention:
“The puzzling matter is why ecologically valuable areas were sacrificed (e.g. Senoko) when less valuable sites (like artificial park land and golf courses) could have been ‘swapped’ with them so that the total green area can remain the same, not at the expense of housing development so needed in Singapore.”
This extract kept me thinking for a long time. For the past few decades, much resources have been placed to create artificial green spaces in our living environment. Yet nature sites which should be deemed more important and precious are at risk of being destroyed by development plans. While attractions such as the Mandai Rainforest Park are built, the Mandai Mangrove, a site that is ecologically rich, is still a ‘reserve site’ under the Urban Redevelopment Authority and is in danger of being cleared (Chua, 2013).
This doesn’t feel right to me.
Indeed, Singapore is land-scarce. However, it seems really sad that this problem of land scarcity has become an excuse to put in less conservation efforts. We have been so caught up with the notion that Singapore has little land area and natural resources such that we feel that there is less need to preserve our natural heritage.
Yet contrary to what many believe, Singapore, being a tropical country, has rich flora and fauna that is in need of protection and the very fact is, we do have a choice in saving these nature sites. It is the ‘psychological refusal’ ingrained in us as mentioned by Liow (2000) that creates this perception that there is nothing much we can do.
We need to change this.
Change involving mindsets can be challenging but it all starts with the acceptance of this ‘psychological refusal’ which I believe is the key to conservation. 🙂
Heart Shaped Mangrove in Puerto Rico – Photo Courtesy of Verdiales
Because Mangroves need our love 🙂
Cheers!
♣ Johanah
References:
Liow, L. H. (2000). Mangrove Conservation in Singapore: A Physical or a Psychological Impossibility. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://folk.uio.no/leehl/uploads/liow_2000_biodiv__con.pdf
Chua, G. (2013, October 7). Calls to save Mandai site that’s rich in biodiversity. The Straits Times. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/calls-to-save-mandai-site-thats-rich-in-biodiversity-0
Verdiales, T. (2011, September 1). Heart shaped mangrove. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/121680534@N05/13478189173/
thefutureisinsideus
October 2, 2016 at 2:40 pmHey Johanah!
Interesting paper you found. It’s 16 years old but the findings are still very relevant today, which in a way is kind of disheartening as our attitude towards conservation has not really changed since that time. Do you think policy makers just do not understand what conservation means as they repeatedly undermine conservation of a nature site to build something, or do you think they are acting in the country’s ‘best interest’ by building recreational or industrial spaces that I suppose help contribute to the economy?
Johanah Seow
October 4, 2016 at 10:43 amHi Zu Xiang! 🙂
I am glad that you find the paper interesting! I think that many of the policy makers actually know what conservation is but I agree with the paper by Liow that they see it as a form of convenience instead of something that is essential to carry out. I feel that many of our conservation efforts are carried out having an economic perspective in mind. For example, the reforestation efforts and biodiversity enhancement are carried out at Mandai due to the development of the new Mandai Rainforest Park. Without the development of the park which can potentially bring a lot of revenue from tourism, such efforts to bring back the flora and fauna in that area would possibly not carry out. I guess this is also why conservation efforts always seem to be at the same point and we can’t seem to move forward. Of course, there are some sites where preservation of the sites occur due to the widespread public opposition like Chek Jawa which was close to destruction if not for the public’s voice. This means that conservation efforts are also carried out with the public interests in mind which indicates the extreme importance of public awareness on conservation.
I guess they could be acting at the ‘best interest’ of the country but I believe that there could be better alternatives where such development can occur like golf sites or artificial parks mentioned in the paper. I hope that this can be something to consider in future development plans.