Hi there everyone,

I wanted to bring up this topic with regards to urbanisation and clearing remaining forest patches in Singapore.

The Straits Times reported recently on 12 April 2016, Tengah located between Choa Chu Kang and Jurong West is going to be developed into a mixed-use housing town. The report by Straits Times here: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/tengah-to-be-developed-into-a-forest-town

Tengah is a secondary forest patch that connects the Western catchment area to the Central catchment. The plans for a new town means that the corridor connecting Western catchment and Central catchment will now be disconnected. Habitat fragmentation negatively impacts the biodiversity (or whatever remains of it).

There are plans to make the new town in Tengah a “forest town”. But we know that even a highly planted urban area will never be able to support the type and abundance of biodiversity that a healthy intact forest of the same size can. I commend HDB for trying to plan a residential are such that it somewhat mimics the natural area. This could benefit residents living there as they may feel that they are ‘closer’ to nature in a landscaped forest town and reduce the disconnectedness between nature and urbanites.  From my personal observations, many of the new upcoming residential and commercial buildings are marketing themselves as “close to nature”, “eco-friendly”,”amidst lush greenery” etc. There seems to be a trend or demand toward properties that are situated close to natural green spaces and environmentally friendly infrastructure. Does the demand for such ‘green’ buildings and nearby amenities reflect a change in the societal mindset toward one that values nature and understands the importance of exposure to nature? I would hope so. But the biodiversity of an urban area leans toward the urban exploiters and adapters (Javan mynas, anyone?) and not the original biodiversity that can be found in forests. So….. is it really a different town from what we already have in other non-forested housing towns? I feel that it is ironic to remove the secondary forests to be replaced by a manicured “forest” landscaped

I fully understand that there is an economic component in development of land, property values and construction. However,  how long can Singapore sustain building new towns and clearing natural areas?Eventually, we are going to run out of natural areas to clear. What are we going to do then? What will be left of Singapore’s natural/native biodiversity?

Since Tengah town is set to disconnect the Western from the Central catchment, Nparks had the foresight to try to mitigate the impacts of the fragmentation by building the longest nature corridor called Tengah Nature Way @ South West in 2014 (see below). The nature corridor is planted with mostly native plants and connects the western catchment to Bukit Timah Nature Reserve which is then connected to the Central catchment. While the efficacy of the nature corridor for the movement of animals and plants is still unknown, I would say this is a good initiative to mitigate the impacts of urbanisation.

Sorry for the poor image quality. The red lines denote the nature way that will link up Western catchment and BTNR.

(https://www.nparks.gov.sg/news/2014/2/singapores-longest-green-corridor-will-enhance-biodiversity-in-the-south-west-district ) 

We have learnt about the issues associated with urbanisation such as the loss of native biodiversity, nature deficit disorder and environmental changes like UHI effect. It is my hope that we use the knowledge gained to apply it to our daily lives, at home, at work and even in our political views to ensure the sustainability of our planet.

 

There is a lot of talk on sustainable everything – sustainable building, living, development, etcetera. But how about sustainable eating? In this blog post, I will introduce you to India’s dabbawalas, a symbol of enduring sustainable eating practices.

A burgeoning economy, modernization, and urbanization accompanying increased wealth of a city and its inhabitants can be associated with a change in eating patterns. Processed foods become prominent as time becomes scarce, along with the proliferation of fast foods from the Western world. An urbanized city, is, after all, a global one, and what ‘global city’ doesn’t have numerous McDonald’s, KFC’s and Pizza Huts? Foods, once farmed and harvested in or close to cities have to be transported over increasing distances. Additionally, with wealth comes the demand for and ability to purchase ‘foreign’ foods – this may include specialty items or seasonal produce to feed season-less cities (Singapore included). While it looks like our eating practices are all set to become more unsustainable as more people live in cities, Bombay, however, is somewhat an exception. Though there is no shortage of restaurants to feed the city’s professionals, tiffins remain ever popular, even with increased spending power.

‘Tiffin’ as Object and Concept

We know ‘tiffin’ the object (stacked steel containers), but ‘tiffin’ the concept, is not popularly known outside its country of origin – India. ‘Tiffin’ the word is an India-derived noun, much like ‘pyjama’. Its earliest recorded use was in 1811 British India, not too long after the British established themselves in India in the late 18^th century.  English sahibs now had light lunches instead of afternoon tea, marking the birth of the ‘tiffin’, a term referring to this new practice. ‘Tiffin’ arose from two slang words, ‘tiff’ and ‘tiffing’, both referring to diluted liquor and the act of drinking it.  ‘Tiffin’ then evolved into a complex concept involving an array of dishes, equipment, dabbawalas, chaiwalas and the like. Today, ‘tiffin’ refers to both lunchboxes, typically consisting of 3 or 4 steel stacked compartments, and a packed lunch.

‘Tiffins’ as they currently are, is very a much product of Indian cultural practices. Lovingly prepared, home-cooked food is not only healthy, but is considered highly superior to purchased food. Tiffins are also highly suited for the thali-style eating practices in India consisting of a selection of breads, rice, vegetables and pickles, amongst others. And every day, dabbawalas (or tiffinwalas) tote thousands of tiffins to hungry office workers. Just who are the dabbawalas?

From thali to tiffin. Traditional thali lunches translate well into tiffins. From: http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/Food/thali-tales/article4830624.ece (thali) and http://www.whatshot.in/mumbai/pre-diwali-gala-buffet-e-360208 (tiffin)

Dabbawalas and the tiffin distribution network

Dabbawalas are easily identifiable. Outfitted in white kurta pyjamas with a matching white Nehru cap, they arrive on bicycles, every morning at homes, and every afternoon at offices. Tiffins are collected from homes after office workers, who often live more than 50 km away from their workplaces, have left the house. There is simply no time for full meals to be prepared for very early, long commutes. Dabbawalas number in the thousands, forming an impressive, intricate food distribution network. Strikingly, almost all dabbawalas hail from the same small village near Pune, four hours away from Bombay. Most are related to each other, and families have had this profession for generations. Dabbawalas are mostly Hindus who belong to a lineage of warriors. Their customers, along with the tiffin contents though, reflect Bombay¹s mixed community including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Jains.

These men, ranging from boys to the elderly, each carry in a basket, 45 tiffins on their heads weighing up to 90kg while food is transported and sorted at railway stations (this is why dabbawalas wear caps!). Tops of tiffins are colour-coded and hand-painted with home and office addresses and railway stations where they should be delivered and collected. This information is condensed into a small series of letters and numbers, forming a sophisticated code. Hot home-cooked meals are delivered to more than 200,000 hungry, desk-locked office workers by 12.45 pm, and empty tiffins are once more collected to be returned to their respective homes. Dabbawalas are so trustworthy that workers would rather bring home their wages through emptied tiffins on its return journey than carry money with them on their trains home. The error rate in this food distribution system is extremely low at 1 in 6 MILLION delivered tiffins. Bombay’s dabbawalas have even won international acclaim from Forbes, which awarded dabbawalas a 6 Sigma performance rating, a rating only given if success rate is 99.9999999 % or more. Motorola was given the same Sigma rating.

Coding on the top of tiffins. From: http://defiinnovationestrie.ca/archives/9753

How the tiffin is coded. From: http://bombayjules.blogspot.sg/2013/03/the-mumbai-dabbawalas-dabba-dabba-do.html

Dabbawalas in action. From: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-26128597

Tiffins in action

Tiffins spread across India, including into my mother’s Pakistani family. Tiffins are thus a familiar concept to me, though slightly tweaked to suit both my family and the local context. Instead of tiffin lunches, my family has tiffin dinners cooked by my grandmother daily. And just like the busy workers of Bombay, our tiffins were created for my working mother. Cereal prawns, char kway teow and other local fare share tiffin space, and have even more prominence in our tiffins than the traditional dals. And since there are no dabbawalas in Singapore, every evening, one of my brothers or I do the job of the dabbawala – collect and return, though not on a bike.

Traditionally, a tiffin is packed, from bottom up, with rice or bread, salads, a curry or dal, and, if lucky enough to have a fourth layer, something fried and crispy (my favourite).

Why tiffins are the way to go

Tiffins are the ideal sustainable lunchbox – compact, reusable, hygienic, and very long-lasting. It also retains the freshness and warmth of home-cooked foods so re-heating is unnecessary. It is no wonder these steel compartments are traditionally non-microwaveable – there is simply no need for it! Tiffins, through reducing takeout, reduce the need and use of Styrofoam, plastic, or paper containers. Single-use containers are almost necessary for takeout. Reusable containers are often not greeted with pleasure in restaurants because of possible health implications (who is to blame if food from reusable containers make you ill?). I also think reusable containers are unwelcome because restaurants do not want to ‘over-portion’ your takeout! But these single-use containers all have an ecological price. This includes the energy and (often non-biodegradable and non-recyclable) materials used to produce them and the resulting landfill waste they contribute to once used. And by reducing takeout, tiffins also reduce food waste.

The tiffin and dabbawala system is additionally sustainable as the process, involving the bicycle as the main mode of transportation, is sustainable and eco-friendly. It also provides lifetime employment for many. Sustainable livelihoods and lifestyles are thus supported by this system.

With tiffins, there is no excuse for measly sandwich lunches at our desks. Tiffins also beat Pizza Hut delivery, McDelivery, and other restaurant delivery systems (which come in countless polluting motorised vehicles) in terms of taste, selection, price and health value. Tiffins have an additional plus – they are prepared by someone who cares for you. Who wouldn’t and doesn’t crave a piping hot home-cooked meal from someone who loves them?

And as someone who enjoys dreaming up perfect meals (as all of us do), I look forward to planning and creating my own tiffins. Happiness to me, is, after all, loving and caring for someone, which includes feeding them well. Knowing that I am also living sustainably (at least for the eating part of my life) makes me even happier.

To end off, here is one of my dream tiffins, from the bottom layer up:

1. Naan smothered in garlic butter
2. Kachumbar
3. Lamb Curry
4. Vada Pav (with some to spare for the inevitable munchies)

All will be washed down with homemade lime juice! How would you sustainably eat, and what is in your dream tiffin?

REFERENCES

Caldicott, C., & Caldicott, C. (2014). Time for tiffin: the history of India’s lunch in a box. the Guardian. Retrieved 13 April 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/17/tiffin-the-history-of-indias-lunch-in-a-box-mumbai

Harding, L. (2002). A Bombay lunchbox. the Guardian. Retrieved 13 April 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/24/worlddispatch.india

I just wanted to share this youtube video that expands a little on the topic of wildlife corridors we’ve been discussing.

While we discussed more about the physical corridors in class, this video also covers some interesting learned behaviour and other psychological barriers that animals have to crossing man-made structures that I was unaware of!

(Plus the videos from this channel have great explanations for lots of ecological concepts, and even greater puns, which I think Khairul will appreciate. Check out some of their other videos if you have time!)

Last week, we discussed how renewable energy can help reduce the carbon footprint of urban areas. In sunny Singapore, solar energy appears to have the greatest potential to offset our consumption of non-renewable energy sources. But how much energy can it provide? I looked up a few sources and did some simple math to figure out a rough estimate (hopefully my calculations are correct!).

First, let’s find out how much incoming solar energy Singapore receives:

• This source by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) of Singapore estimates this at 1150 kWh/m²/year

Next, let’s see how much of that energy can be converted to a useful form:

• This link reports that the most efficient rooftop solar panels are currently around 22% – this means we can get about 22% * 1150 = 253 kWh/m²/year

According to the Energy Market Authority (2015), Singapore’s total energy consumption in 2013 was about 156 TWh. Using this value, we would have needed:

• 156TWh/(161kWh/m²) = 616.6 km² of solar cells to sustain our energy consumption entirely in 2013

(Just out of interest, I did another calculation using the most efficient solar cells as reported by Shazan (2014). Even at 46% efficiency, we’d still need about 203km² of land – just under a third of Singapore covered in solar cells.)

These values mean that we’d need to blanket most of Singapore in solar cells to sustain our current energy use. Of course, solar is not the only form of renewable energy but it does show the limit at which such alternative energy sources can support the population.

The main issue here appears not to be just the lack of land space but more so the density of our population and our high per capita energy consumption (Low Carbon Singapore, 2009). Together, these factors result in a high energy consumption density – meaning we need to provide more energy per area of Singapore. This has significant implications – and not just for Singapore.

As most of the world’s population moves into urban areas, population density in these areas will likely rise. By extension, it is also likely that the amount of energy we need to provide in an urban area will rise (as the energy consumption becomes more concentrated within the area). Denser cities could resort to importing renewable energy (just as we currently do with non-renewables) but transporting electricity generated in one place to another is not without its issues.

If we are to switch over to renewables then, it appears that we cannot simply increase renewable energy generation. Rather, we would need accompanying measures which help to reduce the overall consumption of energy and also improve the efficiency at which energy is used.

Sources

Energy Market Authority (2015). Singapore energy statistics 2015. Singapore: Energy Market Authority. Retrieved from https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Publications/SES2015_Final_website_2mb.pdf

Energy Market Authority (2016). Solar photovoltaic systems. Retrieved 14 April 2016, from https://www.ema.gov.sg/Solar_Photovoltaic_Systems.aspx

Low Carbon Singapore (2009). Energy consumption per capita. Retrieved 14 April 2016, from http://www.lowcarbonsg.com/tag/energy-consumption-per-capita/

Shahan, Z. (2014). Which solar panels are most efficient? Retrieved 14 April 2016, from http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/02/which-solar-panels-most-efficient/

Wesoff, E. (2015). ‘World’s most efficient rooftop solar panel’ revisited. Retrieved 14 April 2016, from http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Worlds-Most-Efficient-Rooftop-Solar-Panel-Revisited

At the end of semester, I would just like share with you some interesting about my city. Hope you can relax and enjoy this post. Deyang is in Sichuan Province, southwest of China (Figure 1). It is located in the Chengdu plain, on the bottom of Sichuan Basin. It is a medium sized city, with an area of 5800km2 and a population of 3.9 million people. The metropolitan area is around the size of Singapore (650km2) and the urban with about 1 million people.

Figure 1 Location of Deyang in China, from Google Map

Deyang is one of the national centers for heavy machinery manufacturing. Some of the most renowned factories such as Erzhong Heavy Machinery Company and Dongfang Eletrical Company are operating in Deyang, which makes Deyang the major producer for oil rigs, steel and power generating equipment (including both hydropower and nuclear power) in the country

What is interesting about Deyang is that despite it being one of the most industrialized cities in the region, it is surprisingly clean and green by the national standard. In the center of the city, is an artificial lake, named Jinghu Lake. It used to be a natural river but since 1990s the water level reduced significantly and the flow has become seasonal. As part of urban landscaping, several dams are built to retain the water and Jinghu Lake was therefore created. Now, it is certainly the most beautiful urban park in the city. My house is also nearby the lake and my family always takes a walk around the lake after dinner. Below is a photo I took from my kitchen window (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Jinghu Lake as an urban park

The creation of Jinghu Lake maintains the water level even during dry seasons. The water body and the grassland in some segment of the lake provide ample food for avian species. Over the years, more and more birds fly from Northern China to spend winter in Deyang. Now, there are more than 260 bird species in Deyang, including winter migratory birds, transit birds and resident birds. Some common species of migratory water birds include black headed gull (Larus ridibundus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and little egret (Egretta garzetta). Figure 3 and 4 are photos I took.

Figure 3. Flocks of black-headed gull.

The name of the birds can be misleading because adult black-headed gull actually have a chocolate-brown head in summer. In winter, this brown color fades away and birds have a white head with a dark spot behind the eye. These gregarious birds are usually seen in flocks. They tend to be very daring in terms of interaction of human and are substantially feed by locals.

Figure 4. A group of mallards.

Males are more colorful, possessing a distinctive bottle-green head than the dull brown female. However, female are noisier and makes the well-known ‘quack-quack’ call.

There are also a few very rare species such as Scaly-sided merganser (Mergus squamatus) and black stork (Ciconia nigra), for which both are Class I Nationally Protected Species. Scaly-sided merganser is especially celebrated because of its beautiful look (Figure 5). There are only about 1000 individuals in the wild and it is classified as endangered on IUCN Red List. In 2012, Nigel Marven, a famous BBC narrator, also visited Deyang in hopes to see those mergansers.

Figure 5. Scaly-sided merganser. Photo from http://www.arkive.org/mallard/anas-platyrhynchos/

The great avian diversity has drawn many bird lovers, even including some from overseas, to Deyang. Every winter, there would be plenty of bird watchers with binoculars or telescope lens around Jinghu Lake. In this way, ecotourism also contributed to the local economy.

Locals also love these birds. Bird Lovers Association has been established as a sharing platform as well as a conservation group. They have successfully pushed forward the “Deyang Bird Nest Project” to build artificial nest around the city. In addition, they also give advice on bird-friendly urban landscaping and greening. The general public is involved as well. During winter, lots of residents would bring bread crumbs and left-over rice to the lake and feed the birds. In 2015, the municipal government also invested 40000 RMB (equivalent to about 8500 SGD) to enrich the diet of wild birds by providing them a variety of bird meals. Although I am not sure of the ecological impact of large scale subsidization of birds in the urban area, I still feel positive about those action because if reflect a deep love for the birds. The love can also be translated into wider environmental awareness such as conservation of water resources and the abolition of consumption of wild birds.

However, in my opinion, the public need to know more about the birds. I vividly recall all the birds are either referred as “sea gull” and “wild ducks” by the general public. Probably public signboards can be built around the lake to introduce the species, habitat requirement and conservation concerns.

In conclusion, we have seen how even an industrial city can become the haven for birds and how the process of proper urban landscaping can create conducive habitat for wildlife.  Now, birds have gradually become a part of my city and I hope I can continue to see them around in the future.

 

References:

Birdlife International. (n.d.). Black-headed gull. Retrieved from

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3240

Deyang Public Information Website(德阳市公众信息网). (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://www.deyang.gov.cn/

Wildscreen Arkive. (n.d.). Mallard. Retrieved from http://www.arkive.org/mallard/anas-platyrhynchos/

 

Wildscreen Arkive. (n.d.). Scaly-sided merganser. Retrieved from

http://www.arkive.org/scaly-sided-merganser/mergus-squamatus/

 

Zhu, F. (2013, March). Deyang, birding watching in an industrial city. Chinese National Geography.

 

 

Last week in lecture, we covered the social dimensions of urban ecology. I think what stood out for me the most in class was the results of the survey that we and our parents did. I couldn’t help but feel a deep pang of sadness in the great change in time spent outdoors and the activities we engaged in in our leisure compared to what our parents did in their time.

I have reposted two of the graphs shown in class below:

In class, we have talked about the social attitudes that may have caused this change, such as increased emphasis on studying. However, I would like to discuss how the changes in physical environment also contribute to the results above.

It is clear that there has been a shift from play being in more open spaces (neighbourhood, nature area) to one that is in specially demarcated zones (playground, homes) from our parents’ generation to ours. In addition, there is a change in favourite pastime from more active activities (playing outside, sports, nature activities) to more sedentary ones (games, TV, reading). These two changes may reflect a changing Singaporean landscape. For one, it seems that places are being more compartmentalized and more borders are being drawn and purposes assigned to them. For example, in the past, open areas like void decks and fields can be used for sports, games like block catching, and nature exploration (catching insects). Currently, there are stricter rules enforced which prevent children and youths from playing ball under blocks (even to the extent of erecting metal barriers to discourage such behaviour, which to me, really borders on being ridiculous), and also on state land.

Boundaries are also more clearly defined and fewer open spaces are available now that Singapore has become more built up. Also, growth of vehicle numbers and greater proliferation of roads may have contributed to the perception of increased danger from traffic (which was one of the most frequently cited examples for needing supervised play). In addition, the surge in media penetration in terms of televisions and computers the increases the propagation of the mean world syndrome, where constant bombardment of violent content makes viewers think that the world is actually more violent and scary than it actually is. The greater perceived danger of the outside world may also account for the higher proportion of students preferring indoor activities, as they may have grown up in an environment that discourages outdoor play.

I would like to conclude with a video which I came across on Facebook, which was actually what compelled me to pen this blog post.

It highlights the dire situation of children spending less time outdoors than prisoners. This attention-grabbing title of the article from which I found this video sent a strong message and made me reflect on how serious this phenomenon is. I would encourage everyone to take some time to read the article. Perhaps it is time for us to reflect on how we as future parents can reverse this worrying trend.

Last week in class, we discussed the sad decline in the amount of time that children spend outdoors these days (compared to our parents, whose parents were probably shaking their heads at the amount of time THEY spent indoors too). So after all the statistics were presented and possible implications on our health and learning and other depressing trends were discussed, I asked myself, how can we make a change in the generation(s) to come? (Disclaimer: This is purely a reflective post and some ideas, not so much solid suggestions on what we should do)

I think, first and foremost, we can definitely make a change in the way we choose to bring up our children (should we have any, that is). But as future educators and/or policy makers (which I think some of us might become), there is surely more we can do. I asked Dr Coleman about incorporating outdoor time into the curriculum or just into education schemes, and she shared with me some interesting initiatives that are already being conducted in Canada, which I then went to look up (the document is pretty long though). What I found is that most of these outdoor classrooms target children at the preschool/kindergarten age, which makes sense because it’s probably easier to form bonds with nature and to maximise learning through nature at a younger age. But I wondered if it is possible to incorporate the idea of an outdoor classroom into slightly higher levels of education, such as secondary schools.

Currently, we already have outdoor camps such as the ever-popular Outward Bound Singapore (or other nearby countries). However, those are mainly targeted at student leaders, or act on a “sign up” basis, which naturally targets students who are already more inclined to spend their time outdoors. However, what these education programs in Canada (and actually in many other countries such as Australia and New Zealand) are advocating is “regular and repeated access to the same natural space”, and allowing learning to take place in that context. Would this be practical/applicable in Singapore? I think there are a few things we have to consider:

1. At the secondary school level, where much content has to be covered in time for the national exams, what content can we (effectively) teach outdoors? While some concepts such as the carbon/hydrological cycle, food webs, various topics in physical geography etc. spring to mind, other subjects might not be as straightforward. If we select appropriate sites for the appropriate subject (eg. Fort Canning park to teach History/Social Studies?), perhaps that might aid matters. But would regular use of the same outdoor classroom facilitate the teaching/learning of different concepts?
2. What types of green spaces would we want to use? In several of the bigger countries, where there is more access to slightly less “manicured” natural habitats, it might be more beneficial to expose children to such habitats and cultivate their love for the environment there. However, in Singapore, already we seem to have an issue of people preferring urban parks to secondary forests of higher conservation value (which we discussed in class a couple of weeks back). Would it then make sense to conduct outdoor lessons regularly in these areas? (granted, the health benefits of spending time outdoors still remain, and there will still be more exposure to flora and fauna than in a traditional classroom).
3. Linked to point #2, would the use of outdoor classrooms be sustainable? Will consistent trampling/tearing/etc. by curious hands be damaging to the green space? If ground rules are set and adhered to, maybe not, but it does pose a challenge to trying to conduct any activities in habitats of more conservation value.
4. Safety. This is likely the biggest barrier to the feasibility of the whole idea, particularly since class sizes tend to be rather large in secondary schools, and teachers are responsible for the well-being and safety of their students. Would parents be open to the idea of allowing their children to take risks and get wet and dirty while not under their direct supervision?

This is all largely speculative, but it did bring to mind the reading we discussed in another module that I’m taking, which is basically about re-educating our educators and administrators, so that they, in turn, can educate future generations of environmentally aware and concerned innovators, who will then be invested in solving or alleviating environmental issues. I think the role of educators and administrators is such an important one, and perhaps they, too, need to evaluate how important nature and green spaces are to them, before trying to bring that love to the students.

Because ultimately, global issues of climate change, overexploitation, and other big things are perhaps too large for most people to really feel; sometimes, it just boils down to how much you value that tree or that nest of birds in the park right next to your house.

Hi guys! I just read “Dengue, Urbanization and Globalization: The Unholy Trinity of the 21st Century” by Gubler (2011). It’s a fun and easy-to-read article, and I felt that many of the statements raised by the author (mostly focused on the American context) were interesting to discuss in relevance to Singapore.

First, Gubler points out that “The dramatic global geographic expansion and the increased incidence of epidemic dengue coincided exactly with urban growth and globalization”. Similarly, we have seen isolated cases of malaria surfacing in our small and densely-populated island, usually from infected foreigners travelling to Singapore. With the possibility of microbial mutations, we may soon witness the re-emergence of once-eradicated diseases on our shores. So, is it wise for our country to invest resources in mandatory year-round screening of arrivals at the airport, and quarantine those that display symptoms for highly-communicable and serious illnesses? After all, it only takes one person to start an outbreak in population-dense Singapore. What are some of the barriers that this initiative will face?

Second, Gubler makes some points which he believes are the main cause for America’s failure in controlling the flourishing of mosquito vectors. I highlight two of them here:

1. The “lack of political will and thus resources”
2. “Too much emphasis on high technology such as space spraying of insecticides”

I believe that point a) was made with reference to the successful eradication program of Aedes aegypti in America, which led to increasing apathy and complacency towards subsequent mosquito control efforts. However, in the case of tropical Singapore, we seem to be fighting a year-round war with the dengue virus. Even though there are ‘off-peak’ periods in the emergence of new dengue cases, the risk of infection is still present.

As for point b), Guber mentions that “successful mosquito control programs were replaced by emergency space spraying of nonresidual insecticides in response to reported cases of dengue”, which had “high visibility and was very popular politically”, but lacked efficacy as it failed to target mosquitoes which were seeking refuge within homes. This point resonates strongly with me, as I recall frequently seeing pest-control workers years ago lugging huge canisters on their backs and fogging up neighbourhoods to kill adult mosquitoes, or applying some sort of chemical to public drains and gutters, presumably to eliminate mosquito larvae. Back then, I was wondering if such efforts were really useful, since I was bitten at home shortly after a fumigation event near my house. However, I don’t seem to see these efforts recently, at least not in my neighbourhood. Instead, some strange sort of container (possibly a mosquito trap?) by the National Environment Agency (NEA) has been placed near my lift- with no explanatory text whatsoever.

Fig.1. Mosquito trap-like container found near my lift

There has also been a strong focus on community outreach, such as the highly publicised “5-step Mozzie Wipeout” campaigns, (somewhat intimidating) door-to-door surveillance by NEA officers, as well as huge banners which state the colour-coded ‘dengue alert’ status of the neighbourhood. Thus, I believe that Guber’s statement does not hold for Singapore. In fact, the situation seems to have been reversed, with more focus being placed at individual household levels.

Fig. 2. The ubiquitous “5-step Mozzie Wipeout” banner which can be found at many bus stops and on SBS buses (Photo credit: NEA)

In all, I feel that these two points raised in Guber’s article with regards to the causes for America’s failure in controlling mosquito populations generally have limited applicability to the Singapore context. This is a good thing, for it means that our government has already taken steps to resolve and/or prevent them. In fact, the NEA seems to be doing quite a fair bit in terms of managing the dengue situation, as observed from their multi-pronged approach. However, is it working effectively? One 47-year-old man has already succumbed to the dengue virus this year, and a shocking 628 dengue cases were reported between Jan 10 to 16, which is the highest weekly figure in more than a year. Furthermore, with the onset of El Nino, which has caused an increase in temperature and thus favourable mosquito breeding conditions, the problem is expected to worsen.

With these issues in mind, should any changes be made to our current approach, which is largely remedial (e.g. focused on vector-elimination and medical treatment)? Should the government focus on pre-emptive measures instead (e.g. vaccines)? Also, should extra effort be made to provide safety-nets for more vulnerable members of public, such as immuno-compromised elderly who live alone?

 

References

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/47-year-old-singaporean-man-dies-from-dengue-first-death-reported-in-2016

Embryonic and larval development form a significant part of many species’ life history. Animal development is governed by gene expression within the cell that specifies tissues and regulates cell differentiation. However, it is increasingly being recognized that environmental factors such as temperature, photoperiod, diet, population density, or the presence of predators, play a major role in determining gene expression patterns thereby producing variation in developmental responses and phenotypes. With increasing urbanization and associated ecological changes, species might further alter their development to adapt to new environmental challenges presented by urbanization.

One example of development being affected by the environment is temperature-dependent sex determination where at one temperature, embryos become males and at another temperature, they become females. For example, in painted turtles, Chrysemys picta, the sex ratio is linked to temperature, with the sex ratio become increasingly female when temperature increases. Habitat modification during urbanization changes the temperatures of their nest sites and may lead to biased sex ratios. Anthropogenic alteration of habitats can therefore disrupt the developmental responses of animals.

Hatching of the embryos can also be affected by environmental cues such as increased presence of predators. For example, the embryos of the red-eyed tree frog, Agalychnis callidryas, sense the presence of the snake and vigorously shake in their egg cases when attacked. They hatch prematurely into the water to prevent getting eaten. However, premature hatching also means that hatchlings are at higher risk of being eaten by the aquatic predators once in the water. Variation in hatching rates is also observed in other species at different temperatures and when there are environmental contaminants. Moreover, the morphology of the tadpoles is also altered in the face of these environmental assaults. Introduction of novel predators or altered abiotic conditions caused by urbanization therefore easily influence the developmental behaviours and phenotypes of the species.

Figure 1: Embryos of the red-eyed tree frog. At early developmental stages, they are already actively responding to the environment, which is critical to its long-term survival. Source: Karen Warkentin

Video on how the embryos of red-eyed tree frog hatch prematurely, in the presence of the parrot snake as a predator, so as to escape the predator attack.

As seen, development and the environment is intrinsically linked and environmental cues play a role in determining the developmental trajectory of the species. As we become more aware of the how development is critically influenced by the environment, we are also realizing that increasing urbanization may be affecting species in more ways than we think.

What other ways do you think urbanization could be affecting developmental responses?

References:

Gilbert, S. (2001). Ecological Developmental Biology: Developmental Biology Meets the Real World. Developmental Biology 233, 1-12.

Kolbe, J., and Janzen, F. (2002). Impact of nest-site selection on nest success and nest temperature in natural and disturbed habitats. Ecology 83, 269-281.

Warkentin, K. (2005). How do embryos assess risk? Vibrational cues in predator-induced hatching of red-eyed treefrogs. Animal Behaviour 70, 59-71.

So in class I asked Prof Tan about his thoughts on increasing indoor greenery to help increase the greenery of Singapore. He said that while indoor greenery like green walls can help with the greening efforts, it needs to have a specific function and cannot be installed for the sake of being there.

It got me thinking about the greening efforts by some buildings in Singapore and whether those greening efforts are for a functional use or merely for aesthetic appeal or to spread the message “Hey, we have some plants on our buildings. We are a green building!”. Can the pursuit of greenery be too tokenistic? Do developers/building owners blindly chase the greening fad just to be ‘in’?

If you take a look at Kent Vale, the greenery on the sides of its buildings are poorly maintained and, well, almost non-existent. What purpose does it serve? Aesthetics? The CREATE building in UTown, too, has some plants on the sides of its building but they are small in numbers and honestly do not look very appealing to me. What purpose does it serve, then?

What do you guys think? Should there be a purpose behind every act of greening? Do you think developers might be guilty of blindly chasing the green fad without the adequate technical knowledge required?